Talk:Log flume (ride)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

NPOV

"Exciting ride for all?" Is it? Really? Zachkchk 07:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC) This has to be the dumbest use of NPOV tags I have EVER seen. --Aika 13:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree, the offending sentence appears to have been removed. I am removing the tag. A mcmurray 00:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awkward phrase?

Surely the above is pleonastic if not tautologous? If a ride is the oldest of its kind then surely, by implication, it's the first ever built, and vice-versa.

Methinks this phrase should be reworked. 193.122.47.170 18:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Log Flume != River Caves

As I've already noted on the talk page for

River Caves
, river-caves rides are (IMO and IME) not indoor log-flume rides:

  1. River-caves rides date back to the early 1900s (IIRC the Blackpool one opened in 1905), log-flumes only to 1963 (so it could perhaps be correct to say that log flumes are outdoor river-caves rides, but not vice-versa)
  1. Log-flume rides are essentially rollercoasters built using aqueducts instead of tracks; river-caves rides are typically gentle rides past a series of tableaux (the Blackpool one depicts the wonders of the world, as did several others I've been on). There may be a minor thrill element, but I've never known such an element to be a major part of the ride.

193.122.47.170 18:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a
requested move
. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Rough consensus not to move Log flume. Some other suggested possibilities for renaming and/or rescoping the Log flume (ride) article might be further investigated. Andrewa (talk) 07:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

– In my opinion

this policy a hatnote could be used in this situation. If you look at the views in the past 30 days, Log flume (ride) is the primary topic. Astros4477 (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Oppose. The ride is named directly and descriptively after the timber-transport contrivance, which therefore has logical, semantic, and etymological priority. It is not as if the ride had somehow altered the base meaning so that the name loses descriptive force: the ride looks and operates like the original that it imitates. There is no great utility in finding a "primary topic" in this case; but since both topics have claims, on competing grounds, and since neither article attracts huge interest anyway, things are probably better left as they are. NoeticaTea? 23:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per Noetica. Also, the Log flume (ride) page has more views, but not enough for an overwhelming run-away margin. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 02:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the timber transport system is the topic with more educational value, so is the primary topic. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The ride is only a name based on the real world device. It's stunning how many people think that the "primary use" of many names is the derived one, which is used in games and recreational pursuits. That's Wikipedia for ya. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's wrong with recreational pursuits? They're just as encyclopedic as other topics, and often more widely sought to boot. Powers T 02:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; there's just not much to say about the log flume as a construction. The ride is far more likely to be the topic sought by readers. Powers T 02:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose pretty much per Noetica. Claiming that a topic is "primary" mainly on the basis of page views over a limited period (or Google hits) seems to me short-sighted, and in this case I don't see that the difference in page views is sufficient to establish a primary topic in any event. Deor (talk) 05:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – this search suggests that "Log flume ride" or "Log-flume ride" would be a more appropriate title. Dicklyon (talk) 05:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Log ride redirects to Log flume (ride), is likely learned long before 'flume' is added to children's vocabularies, and may include types we might be overlooking. Can someone determine how much comparitive use it's getting? Dru of Id (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move
. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Log flume (ride). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Log flumes or water chutes?

Seeing the Wicksteed Park Water Chute included in thae table of installations, I added the similar installations at East Park and Peasholm Park, but on closer inspection it seems that all three - along with Lake Winnepesaukah's Boat Chute would more properly be variations on the Shoot the chute concept. Certainly these four all date from the 1920s/1930s, while the first "modern day log flume" is identified as the one at Six Flags Over Texas, dating from 1963. There is undoubtedly a degree of cross-over between the two concepts, and it may well be that some of the other rides tabulated here are more properly StC types, but I'm not sure whether this merits detangling or amalgamation. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion between these two pages has been going on for a long time. The opening paragraph of the
Shoot the Chute page indicates that the term usually applies to larger boats seating four across, however the history section lists several early shoot the chute rides that had small boats, some smaller than today's larger flume rides. I think most people associate a flume ride with having a trough and taking a longer journey than the simple lift, u-turn, and splash down, of most shoot the chute rides, but then we have several, such as Universal's Jurassic Park: The Ride, Busch Garden's Escape from Pompeii and Movie Park Germany's Area 51, that have a long, themed ride area more like a flume ride. I would like to see us do our best at keeping the pages separate, but I think we need to recognize that there will be a lot of crossover. We probably need to better define what constitutes a log flume and what constitutes a shoot the chute ride.—JlACEer (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Log_flume_(ride)&oldid=1195607256"