Talk:Funland, Rehoboth Beach

Funland (Rehoboth Beach, Delaware)

This page is simplified enough. There's no advanced language in this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.48.147.41 (talk • contribs) 09:44, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

There are many words that are not simple enough, such as devastate, and sentences that are complex in structure (having multiple clauses)

The article is not written in an encyclopedic style and tone: entire sections such as the tickets and The Haunted Mansion sections are written in a very unencyclopedic manner, and look like original research.

Most importantly, is that this article is copied from the English Wikipedia — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 09:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I actually edited the original Wikipedia from an old version. Yes, I did transfer this from there. I thought the language was easy to understand. I thought the whole point is to talk about the park and say what it is. I'll try to simplify it better when I have some time. Thanks for pointing out what parts need to be looked at. 108.48.147.41 (talk) 09:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Editing my revision now to simplify wording, remove stuff that's unnecessary, and to remove the source you requested I remove. 108.48.147.41 (talk) 03:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I fixed the errors requested to be corrected. If there's any others needed to be corrected, please let me know so I can correct them. I would like to add a few pictures to the article but it won't let me do upload it, so if somebody is will to add it, please let me know as well, and I'll give you the link of the pic, or pics that I think should be added in. 108.48.147.41 (talk) 07:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

As it is, the article is still unencyclopedic and not simple. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 01:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I simplified all the words that I thought were more advanced. Thought I made it simple enough. 108.48.147.41 (talk) 06:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted the article to the version I simplified. I will summarize the points raised in the English Wikipedia, as the content before my revert is essentially identical to the one in the English Wikipedia:

• Adding an entire section about a single ride gives undue weight to that ride.
• There is no need for an entire section about ticket prices
• We seek not to appease the subject of the article. Wikipedia is not a travel guide.

I removed the tickets and haunted mansion section. If I have time I will simplify the history section from this version of the English Wikipedia article.

— *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 00:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I have sought more input at WP:Simple Talk. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 00:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for seeking input. As for The Haunted Mansion, that’s the point, the Haunted Mansion is the ride they’re the most known for, so that’s why it deserves the extra attention. The ticket section isn’t let to appease Funland. It’s meant to inform readers on the pricing of tickets over time as no other amusement park, (that I know of), has tickets anywhere near what Funland did when it opened and especially now. 108.48.147.41 (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

And you have reverted back to the version which is contentious. Once again, the section about the haunted mansion has undue weight. By number of words, it is the biggest section - Microsoft Word counted 1155 words, while the history section only has 447 words. If you see examples from articles about other amusement parks, I guarantee none of them have a ticket section that detailed. See: Disney California Adventure, Happy Valley Shanghai for some examples. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 04:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll take a look at some other attractions and see if any of them are close to how long The Haunted Mansion section is. I know it's detailed. I'll work to seeing if I can make the wording a bit less for the section. Haven't read too many Amusement Park, or Amusement Park Rides info on Wikipedia, so it's certainly possible that what I wrote for the Haunted Mansion exceeds most of if not all of them. Some attractions that come to mind that might similar to this might be Knobles or DisneyWorld for their Haunted Houses. I've not looked at those pages though, so I'm just saying this as my gut. I'll look at those attractions later this evening to see if they're anywhere near the length of The Haunted Mansion section. If they're not, then I got some thinking to do to see if I can try to condense it. I'll update you after I take a look. 108.48.147.41 (talk) 07:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Forgot to respond to what you said bout the tickets section. That may very well be true, but no other park that I know of has tickets anywhere near as low as Funland does. If you can find an example of a park that does, please let me know, and I'll remove the tickets section as it wouldn't serve the purpose that it currently does. 108.48.147.41 (talk) 07:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

OK, I conducted my research, and of the park I looked at 6 Flags, 6 Flags America, Knobles, Trimper's Rides, DisneyWorld and DisneyLand, none of them talk bout any of the rides surprisingly They list them, but I don't see any description about any of them. Not sure why. I did see a full article bout a Haunted Mansion for DisneyLand, and that had a walk through of the ride. in fact, the walk through for the DisneyLand ride was like double the length of my walk through. Again though, that was a page dedicated to a Haunted Mansion, not a sub section of a page. Based on this, I for sure have to try to see if I can somehow condense The Haunted Manson section. I'll see what I can do bout that when I have some time. Interestingly enough though, I did find a ticket section on the Disneyland page with actually more detail than I did for Funland. They also did a chart for the tickets. I guess that something I could try to, turn the Tickets section into a chart instead of multiple paragraphs. Think I should try to do that? So you can see what I'm referring to, here's the link to the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disneyland. Let me know know your thoughts, thanks. 108.48.147.41 (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Funland Gets New Ride for 60th Anniversary

I've updated the ride chart to account for Funland's new ride FreeSpin. The ride hasn't been updated on their website yet, but it should be soon. This change is based on info from a WRDE (The Rehoboth Beach equvalent of NBC), post on May 4th, and Funland's most Facebook post confirming they got the new ride. The WRDE post is https://www.wrde.com/news/funland-prepares-to-open-for-60th-anniversary/article_6da1dd90-cca9-11ec-84d5-d3d0e6d677f9.html, and the Facebook post is https://www.facebook.com/Funland.RehobothBeach/photos/a.207450132630301/7682324615142778/. Let me know if anybody has any questions. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:21D4:700:913C:8F7D:9CC:7B5B (talk • contribs) 08:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Article reset

Based on the discussion at the administrators' noticeboard, I have "reset" the article to mirror closely the enWP version, which also seems to be in line with similar articles and the opinions of several users here. I know that unregistered editors have said they would like to expand the article further. If such changes are desired, please discuss them below and we can decide how to proceed. Thanks, Griff (talk) 22:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Why was this page reverted? I responded to your post on the notice board with why I think the sections are important, and didn't get any reply. I'm a bit confused on this. Can you explain please? 2600:4040:21D4:700:D587:5E7A:28C6:17A8 (talk) 01:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Simply put, in my opinion, the information provided is not fit to be included in an encyclopedic article about the park. While the information is certainly useful to some, we are not trying to write a tourist guide or a "things to see" article, we are attempting to write an encyclopedic entry. Specific issues I found were:

• The tickets section - this is not standard to any similar article and overwhelms the article, providing little information as to the overall subject.
• The hours of the park, which took up two paragraphs in the history section, was 1. incorrectly placed and 2. also not standard. If we were to include it, I think, at most it should be an entry in the infobox.
• Finally, the Haunted Mansion article's walkthrough is also unusual for its size in comparison to other articles and sections. I have no objection to giving short summaries of the major attractions, as long as we are consistent and it fits within the article structure.

Now, as to why the old version was chosen as the "stable version", a concern you brought up at AN, it is that this issue has been raised at enWP and their consensus was to choose the :stable version", and there has been no support for the "extended version" (other than you, not that your opinion does not matter, but so do others). I am happy to work towards a compromise, but I feel its in the best interests of the article to go with what is already widely accepted as "standard" and build from there. If you have any questions on how we can build from here, feel free to bring them up. Griff (talk) 03:29, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt response. Before I respond to your post, I'd like to say thank you for taking the time to actually look into this, take the time to respond, and to be a mediator to all of this. From what I had gone through with the regular Wikipedia article, it seemed like the admins there had no desire to either have a discussion about the park, to come to a resolution, or do research to verify if what I've been saying is true or not. I'd also like to disclose before saying anything else, that I'm not affiliated with Funland in any way. I've never worked for them, and am just a big fan of the park. I've been going there since my childhood, and have done a bunch of research on the park. This is why I feel so confident on what I've said so far, and everything I say going forward. Now for my response.

As for the article not sounding encyclopedic, I do apologize for that. I haven't written articles before, prior to creating this article here, and editing the other article on the regular Wikipedia. Due to this, I've said from the start, rather than just disregarding and reverting my work, please just edit it to make it fit the correct format. I feel like that would've been the best way to deal with this. I guess it's sorta a moot point now based on where we are, but I still wanted to address it.

For the tickets section, not sure why it's not standard, but I did some some research by looking at other articles, and I did find an article that did have a chart similar to what I had in this article. Don't think it's the same reasoning behind it, as I put it for this article, but it's the same basic idea of what I was trying to do. Here's the link to what I found, so you can see what I'm talking bouthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disneyland#Tickets. I admit, that article does have a chart, rather than paragraphs, so that might be better for this case. I just think it's good to have for documentation purposes as I don't know of any other park that tickets costed and still cost this low a price.

As for the hours of the park, yeah, I wasn't quite sure where that should've gone, so I just put it where I thought it was best. Guess I was wrong with that, so sorry for the mess up. I'd be open to putting in the info box, the problem is, with their hours fluctuating so much at the beginning and end of the season, I'm not sure how we'd be able to account for all of that. We don't want people to read this article, think the park should be open, so they decide to go after reading it, only to learn that the park is currently closed. I know it was a bit wordy, but I wasn't sure how else to put the information in. If you have a better idea on how to do this, I'd be happy to hear it and work with you on it.

As for the Haunted Mansion, (The ride Funland is known for), sorry the walkthrough was so long. I wanted to make sure I put in all the important stuff of the ride. I'm aware it could be debated to why I had included the Devil's speech in it, that was due to many people saying in videos, that they can't understand what he's saying when on the ride. I was in that boat as well, till I got a transcript for people that worked at Funland on what he was saying. I will admit, the Haunted Mansion is my favorite ride there, and I know it in and out. I love to ride it, so I do have a very good perspective on it. I do agree, that this section was by far the biggest section on the park, but this is because it's a very unique attraction, so I thought it deserved attention. Ideally, I think we should keep the walkthrough there, but if you're able to somehow go through it and condense it, I'd be cool with that. Honestly, I'm not even sure Funland would want the walkthrough in the article. I can ask them next time I go, and if they say they'd rather not have it there, then of course we should remove it to respect their wish, but without knowing if they want it in the article or not, I think it should be included. According to my research, as far as main articles for Amusement Parks, I didn't see any section as big as how the Haunted Mansion section was, however, I did see in a article all about Trimper's Haunted House, they did have a full ride through of that, like I did for this, but that walkthrough has since been removed. Here's the last version that had it though, so you can see what I'm talking bout and compare it with what I did for the Haunted Mansion https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trimper%27s_Haunted_House&oldid=812535557.

With all of this being said, I do understand why you want the article to be stable and look good. Not trying to argue with that at all. My intent isn't to harm, vandalize, or edit war either, all I've been trying to do is make sure that Funland gets the credit that it deserves. From my perspective, it seems like everybody that had been editing both of these articles, besides me, has never been to the park, done research on it, or likely even heard of it. Because of this, I feel like it's practically impossible to reach a consensus with people that don't even wanna take the time to even learn bout the park. This is a big part of why when I was dealing with the original article on it, I had been reverting and arguing so much. It even seemed like the admins, (except for you) weren't even taking the time to do research on it to make a judgement. They were just reading the complaints, then taking action assuming I was trying to vandalize or harm the site. It was really quite annoying. This is why I really appreciate you taking the time to look into this and try to come to an agreement to make everybody happy. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on how to come to an agreement, and hope we can reach an agreement.

Also, if we're able to come to an agreement, after we get this page situated, would you be able to edit the original article to mirror this, if I give you the link to the most recent correct version of that article? It's a bit outdated now, so my last revision on it, doesn't reflect my most recent changes on here. If you could fix that article as well, it would be very much appreciated.

Lastly, the article is missing a pic of the park, as well as The Haunted Mansion, if I give you a good pic of each to include for the article, would you be able to add them in? The pic of the park should probably be in the info box, while the Haunted Mansion pic should probably go in the Haunted Mansion section. I'd add them both in myself, but it won't let me without an account. That's why I'm asking you. 2600:4040:21D4:700:D587:5E7A:28C6:17A8 (talk) 04:48, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, I really strongly encourage you to create an account. It makes it much easier to discuss and work on articles. I only am on here part-time, and am generally looking at higher-priority issues, so unless I'm pinged or an administrator is requested, I may not respond quickly. That being said..

• Tickets: I have reviewed each of the GA-level amusement park articles at enWP, as well as glanced at a sample of 10 other amusement park articles, none of which included detailed information about tickets. I have no objection to a sourced paragraph which speaks "generally" about the prices of park admission, but I don't think it's appropriate to have sections devoted to it.
• Hours: Two points here. Including hours of operation for any attraction is *extremely* unusual to have within a Wikipedia article and is not the aim of the project. That's what Google is for. My research indicates that articles do not regularly include this, but do include an operating season (times of year when the park is open). I believe we should stick with the standard set by the other articles
• Walkthroughs: I have some issue with using video walkthroughs, as we are normally using our "original research" to interpret what is happening in the video. If we do include information about each ride, I'd prefer that it came from a published reliable source (perhaps newspaper articles about the ride?)
• Article ownership: This is not Funland's article. I don't really care what they think (sorry to be blunt) about it. This article is built by all of us, in line with Wikipedia's editing policies and guidelines. If they have an issue with the article, they can bring it up here on the talk page.
• Pics: If the pictures were taken by you (that is, you own them), I recommend uploading them to a photo host site such as Flickr and releasing them using the appropriate CC-BY-SA license. I can then re-upload them onto Commons using that license.

In addition, all of these are just my thoughts as a Wikipedia editor, not as an administrator, and I welcome your thoughts (and the thoughts of others) on this topic. Best, Griff (talk) 04:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, as well as the advice to create an account. I'll keep that in mind. Does making an account here or on Wikipedia also make it work on the other site, or would I have to make different accounts for here and Wikipedia?

As for the tickets, you saying you don't think a chart for the history of the tickets is a good idea or appropriate either? The park has free admission, as you just pay for whatever rides or games you want to ride or play. I'm open to making it just a paragraph sorta summing it up, but that might be a bit too wordy, and cause some complaints from other editors, and ideally I'd prefer not to get into an edit war, as that's a pain for everybody.

As for the hours, I was mainly referring to their season hours, not bout each attraction. For the majority of the season, the games open first, then all the rides except the Haunted Mansion open, then the Haunted Mansion opens a bit later. We could put it as the time the games open to when the park closes, but that seems a bit untruthful to the readers in my opinion, so I'm not sure the best way to proceed on this. Based on how you worded what you said on this though, I felt like you didn't properly understand what I was trying to say, so sorry if you did, and I'm just misinterpreting your message.

As far the walkthroughs of the Haunted Mansion, I included MY videos that I had filmed of it as sources to verify what I was saying about the ride. I did make a video of it with and without commentary though, so based on what you're saying, sounds like for sure the commentary version isn't a good source to have as that has me explaining stuff from what I know about the ride. There are some articles about the Haunted Mansion, but the only website that has a tour of it, is heavily outdated and wouldn't line up with half the stuff that I put in the walkthrough, so I don't think that source is a good source to use. I can show it to you though for you to judge for yourself if it should be included or not as I could be wrong on this. Should I give you the link to the tour for you to judge? I'd be willing to remove my no commentary video as well as a source, but then there would be no source to verify any part of the walkthrough, so I'm not sure that's a good idea either. Please let me know the best way to proceed with that.

I'm aware that this isn't Funland's article, it's an article written about them, however I feel like they, or whoever or whatever the article is about, should be able to have a say on whether or not, they want something removed from the article. Maybe no included, but removed I think they should. For example, if somebody wrote an article about you, and it slandered you in some way, wouldn't you want the part that slandered you removed from the article? If I was in your shoes, I would. I know it's not the same thing as a walkthrough, but it's the best example I could come up with. I haven't talked to them about the articles to this point, I was just saying I could if it would be helpful, which I thought it would be based on the ride through issue.

As for the pics, I don't currently have any pics of Funland myself no. I can potentially get some when I go back there, but I was thinking at least for now, the best pics were on Google Images, and I found some good pics on Google Images that I thought would be a good at least temporary pics to use of the park. Should I give you those links, or are we not allowed to use those pics?

Thanks again for taking the time to respond, and I feel like we're getting closer to a resolution. I feel like this is a lot better a way to handle this matter, rather than just reverting each others work, and annoying other editors. This is how I would've wanted to handle this all along, but it seemed like nobody I had talked to (besides you), seemed to care and wanna work towards a resolution. They just wanted it to look a certain way, and didn't care if it was right or wrong. I look forward to hearing from you on how we proceed with this article. Thanks. 2600:4040:21D4:700:411A:E1B5:1A04:8578 (talk) 09:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, so I went through your edits, and tried to follow your instructions. I removed the detailed paragraph about their schedule, and just summarized it as short as possible, and put more detailed info on it in the chart. After re reading the part about the chart that you said again, (just re read it again now), I just realized that adding that to the chart isn't what you meant. Hopefully it's still acceptable though.

I also removed the whole ticket section per your request, and just made a small paragraph about the pricing history, (omitting all the info about the different packs they offered over the course of all this time) in the history section. Figured it would probably be acceptable there.

In addition to this, I also fixed the number of rides they have, as somehow it had the wrong number there. Not sure why. Thought I had fixed that in the past, but evidently I didn't. I also removed some sources that weren't needed. As for the Haunted Mansion section, I just left that alone, as I feel very strongly that it's important info as it's their signature ride. Please take a look at my edits when you have some time, and let me know if they're acceptable, or if they need to be changed. I hope we can come to a resolution that makes everybody happy. Thanks. 2600:4040:21D4:700:4D18:B3A0:6F3F:8527 (talk) 09:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

My thoughts

Griff So I was just reading through this and honestly it reads more as a promotional piece than anything else. For the use of images, no googled images are not allowed as most are copyrighted. You would need to take your own pictures and put them on commons and give up the rights to own them. So why do I say advertising? Because it is not a family of parks like SeaWorld or Disney or Universal Studios. Every state has little local theme parks for the community to use and people are not going to hop a plane to go to such a theme park where the entire thing can be completed in a day and then fly back home. I understand it may have some local significance, but as far as being something worth an encyclopedia article I do not see it as anything more. Those are just my thoughts. PDL^{Talk to me!}_{OMG, What have I done?} 07:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it's not that well known a park, and people might not take a plane trip to go to it, as it's a pretty small park. I'm not sure about this, but I think it's possible it might be the cheapest amusement park in the US if not the world. I've done very minimal research on this statistic, so I'm not sure if it's true or not, but if it is, then I think that alone would be significant enough to keep the article. In top of that, I didn't create the original Wikipedia article on it. I just found it on Wikipedia and expanded it. Then I decided to add it on here as well. If it's not appropriate on here, then I don't know why it was created on there to begin with. If you can give me an explanation on this, it would be much appreciated. With that being said, there are other family owned amusement parks that have their own pages. For example, Trimper's Haunted House, so I don't understand if Trimper's Haunted House, and other family owned business can have pages, why can't Funland? Seems a bit discriminatory to be honest. No offense to you, just voicing my opinion. I'm not mad or anything at you. Just trying have dialogue and try to understand your point, while I try to voice my opinion.

Thanks for the info about Google Images. Are there any circumstances where Google Images are, or is that a strict rule that none are ever allowed on these types of sites? I'm pretty new to editing on these sites, so I don't know all the rules of them, so sorry if I should already be aware of this information. Thanks for your thoughts, and I look forward to hearing your response. 2600:4040:21D4:700:54BA:1D53:B4E4:DBF5 (talk) 09:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

My revert

I should explain why I reverted back to this version

• The section about the haunted mansion is simply too long and is not encyclopedic.
• Wikipedia is not a tourist's guide.
  • The article doesn't have to serve the readers information about ticket prices, unless they are significant in the context of the subject's history. That's not the case here.
  • Same goes with schedules. They are not encyclopedic.
• See This edit's change summary: "Updated ride chart based on information learned from a Funland family member". This is not an acceptable source. I will give some leeway to cite the ride list from the book (even if it means running into some COI) but this is just straight up original research. Please use a better source.

— *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 12:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Just responding to clarify a few points made in your post. The ticket prices are significant in the matter of the histroy of the park due to know other park retaining ticket pricing this low. I've done research on this and can't find any. If you're aware of any. Please let me know. Actually I forgot I had the schedule this. Especially in the chart. That's a bit outdated as well. As for the change summary for that, I provided that reason, as I just did a trip to the park, and was chatting with some members of the family that own the park. I did film some interviews with them as part of a project I'm working on, but I don't think the years for the rides were discussed in any of the interviews. This information was based on just a friendly conversation with a Funland famly member. The original information was based on the book, and and Instagram post. I was informed that the person that wrote the book was given some wrong information, so I was reflecting that on the page. If I had a better source I would cite it, but this conversation was based on some info I saw on signs for those rides at the park, so there not posted online anywhere where I can cite them. If there was a way I could attach a pic of it to prove it I would as well, but I don't see any way to do that, so I don't see that as possible. I'll hold off on fixing anything for now though, while we settle this dispute. I'm not sure we want to settle it ourselves, or if it would be better to get Griff invloved and let Griff decide what we should do. My edits last month were based on the instructions he had laid out. I tried to follow them the best I could. As for the Haunted Mansion section. I removed sources that were requested to be removed. Not sure how to condense it any shorter. Thanks, and I hope we can sort this out. 2603:3003:2F02:ED00:61E4:44B3:5B0F:ECEB (talk) 04:22, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

No original research applies here, I think. I definitely understand and appreciate your personal expertise and experience on this matter, but as an encyclopedia, we require information to be supported by significant coverage by reliable sources. Operator873 ^connect 04:35, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I understand. Most of the info I got was from a book written about the park. Then I learned that some info in it was wrong, so I was trying to fix this page to reflect the corrrect information. I'm actually the person that created this page to begin with. Other editors have been editing it, and my IP has changed multiple times. Not sure why I've had so man y different IP, but I have. Would it be helpful if I can get an family member of the park to say that on camera, just so I can provide a source? Not sure I'd be able to do that, but I can possibly try. 2603:3003:2F02:ED00:61E4:44B3:5B0F:ECEB (talk) 04:58, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

• Ticket prices - if this ("know [sic] other park retaining ticket pricing this low") can be sourced with reliable sources, then it's fine to include this. I am against including a whole paragraph about the ticket price history.
• en:Dynamic IP addresses - ISPs rotate your IP address in a given IP address range.
• If you record a park member to say that - that's an interview. Interviews are primary sources. Given that you would be the one recording the interview, and the interviewee would be a family member of the park, that would run into more issues with original research and conflict of interest.
• The haunted mansion section untrimmed is a very detailed description of what it's like going through the ride. It could either be its own standalone article (see en:The_Haunted_Mansion) or trimmed down to give a simple outline of the ride's storyline.
• Griff has been a bit more inactive lately, plus, he doesn't have to be the only person to decide this. Anyone uninvolved can mediate the dispute resolution.

— *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 05:44, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

From what I've found, I'm not aware of any park as cheap as Funland is. There are reasonably priced parks. Trimper's Rides, mainly comes to mind when thinking about a park like that. Knobles Amusement Resort, to a lesser extent. I just looked closer at both of those parks. and Trimper's comes close, but doesn't beat Funland's pricing. If you can find any park that's lower than Funland's tickets, please let me know, as then the ticket pricing wouldn't be as improtant. I'm not sure how I'd source the fact that it's the cheapest park around. I can see if I can find some article stating it, but other than that, it would just be stating facts based on the information I've been able to find. As for changing the paragrah to a chart, I'm cool with that, but so I don't have to do it multiple times, I was holding off till the Wikipedia article was editable again. When the Wikipedia article is editable, then I was planning on changing it, so I could do it simotaniously.

Thanks for the info on the IP's. I don't know much about IP's.

As for the Haunted Mansion section, you're correct, that was the purpose of the Haunted Mansion section. I'm not sure how we would shorten it to make it shorter without omitting a part of the ride. I'm open to listening to ideas of how, but i'm not sure it'll work. As for the Haunted Mansion having it's own article, I like the idea, but I don't think I have enough citable sources rihgt now to warrant a full article on the history of it, and all the big details of it. The book offers good information on it, but I don't think I can just use that as a lone source for the article. I'd think it would need more than that to warrant it's own article. I could use articles talking about it online as well, but I just learned a whole lot more about it in an interview that I just flimed with somebody that works on it, and knows practially everything about it. There's a lot of cool information I could add in ot the article from that. The interview isn't public yet though, so I can't currently cite it. I can and am willing to do this though when it's public if this is something that you think would be OK. Please tell me how I should proceed with this.

I agree that any admin can decide things on here. I reffered to Griff as Griff has been the most involved in keeping the peace in this article, and making sure everybody felt heard and respected. I just wanna make sure that continues, and I'm not sure if other admins would be as friendly and respectful as him on this. That's my concern. Thanks for your response, and I hope we can come to an agreement on the best way forward with this article. 2603:3003:2F02:ED00:74DE:A37:1DD7:3381 (talk) 04:37, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Just wanted to inform you, I took another look at the page, and realized I had forgotten to update the scheule part of the history section when editing that big chart on the far right, so I just fixed that. I do have a source to back that infomation up, however it's not published yet. Not sure when it will be yet either as I have other stuff to get out before the place where that source is. I will update that page to add the source in as soon as I have it published. I just wanted to make sure it has the correct information, hence why I corrected it. Hope that's not a problem. 2600:4040:21D4:700:1C49:D0AD:ADE1:ECAB (talk) 03:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Land of Fun Book, and Haunted Mansion

Hi, I'm creating this section based on the request of an admin on the administrator's notice board. I'm wanting to address the question of all the stuff that has been removed being my original research, and no articles being written about it. If you search google for Land of Fun Book. there are plenty of articles talking about it veriying what I said about it in the article, including from some news stations. As for the Haunted Mansion, there's also some articles on that. Of course. none of which do a ride through of it, (at least an up to date ride through), but there are articles talking about how popular it is. I think the reason videos are important for this, is that's the only real way to verify what the ride is through a ride through. If I ever find an article tour of it though, I'd be happy to provide that so we could use that as a source. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 06:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to those sources? Also, what do you plan to add about the rides? — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 05:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Well I can't add anything to the article now due to it being protected, so I can't do anything about that. And yeah, I can provide links to some sources here. What sources do you want exacty, a few articles talking about Land of Fun, and the historicness of the Haunted Mansion? Do you want me to source the heavily outdated virtual tour of Haunted Mansion here as well? I just wanna make sure I give you the sources you're requesting. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 05:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

While the page is protected, you can still draft your ideas on the talk page. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 21:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

How am I supposed to do that? 108.31.92.88 (talk) 05:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I just noticed there is an issue with source 8. The link is wrong. It's supposed to be the same link as source 1. Can we fix source 8 to reuse source 1? 24.188.121.187 (talk) 07:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)