Talk:Boardwalk and Baseball

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Amusement Parks Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Amusement Parks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Amusement parks on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Amusement ParksWikipedia:WikiProject Amusement ParksTemplate:WikiProject Amusement Parksamusement park articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations.
	An editor has requested that an image be added to this article. Once the requested image is added, remove the `Imageneeded` parameter from the {{WikiProject Amusement Parks}} template call on this page to remove this image request.

POV[edit]

This paragraph seems very POV. It either needs sourcing, or a serious level of toning down. I'll wait a few days for comment before taking a hatchet to it:
Although the park was considered far superior to its predecessor, Circus World, Boardwalk and Baseball, under inept manager Richard Howard, the park was quickly run into financial ruins. Howard never invested a single dollar into new attractions nor advertised the theme park properly. The park had the exact same roster of rides and attractions from opening day in April 1987 to its closure in 1990. Permits and plans for new roller coasters were made but never implemented. A new attraction to compete with Disney would have easily saved the park, very similar to the successful revitalizing of Cypress Gardens. Instead, all the money raised for the 1987 refurbishment was wasted on new landscaping, signage, a costly wooden boardwalk and an underutilized Stadium. It would prove to be the fatal flaw of the park -- the only ride different from the previous Circus World theme park was the Grand Rapids flume. Had the new steel coaster that was planned been built, Boardwalk and Baseball would have not gone down in history as the first Corporate Theme Park to close. A second Boardwalk and Baseball park was planned to be built beside Sea World of Texas. However, financial difficulties prevented HBJ parks from building the second park.

--Rehcsif 01:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely removed this whole paragraph, finding very little to salvage from it that was non-POV. If someone would like to replace it with a fully-cited equivalant, that would be fine by me, but as it stood, it was purely personal opinion and this "original research".--Rehcsif 21:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the above article -- I will make the corrections.... These assessments were made in several newspaper articles of the Orlando Sentinel by industry observers. I'll try to clear it up. -DodgeM4S

Merge[edit]

I disagree with the merge. They were two, completely different parks, that happened to occupy the same space. B&B used some of the same attractions, but the differences in theming were obvious, and the entire focus of the park was different. I think they warrant two distinct articles, with, of course, links to each other (as they already do). --Rehcsif 21:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I totally disagree with the merge. These were totally different experiences even if they sat on the same real estate. Granted, this is a grey area but a theme park is afterall based on its "subjective" theme -- Boardwalk/Baseball and Circus World were polar opposites run by different management with mostly different attractions. -DodgeM4S

I have no actual experience of either park, but I'm strongly inclined to agree with the two comments above. Each park lived its own life under its own name with its own theme, so I disagree with the proposal to merge them. --Tkynerd 02:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be WP:BOLD and remove the merge tags. Three people have spoken out against the merger, nobody (including the party who placed the merge tag originally) has supported it, and it's been over 2 months. --Rehcsif 04:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New sources needed[edit]

I noticed this article only has 2 sources cited; unfortunately one of them (which looks to have been the main one used) is no longer active. Probably because it was not a WP:RS in the first place. As the second reference only pertains to the new strip mall that had been built over it, this article is now in dire need of reliable sources. I'll put it on my list to work on at some point, but I'm not really all that active on Wikipedia anymore, so it might be awhile.Susan118 ^talk 05:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]