Adventure World - what actually is it?

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

See poll above. You can vote for more than one thing, but try not to vote for everything.

This is a discussion i've had elsewhere recently, (and also one I avoided discussing in another topic here ) and i'm curious to get the views of the Australian enthusiast public at large. I thought about getting PCL to do a poll, but after the funfields fiasco, i figured Parkz was more likely to give an educated answer (Ash, i'm kidding - have a chuckle, mate! .)

 

So, whilst i'm sure that others far more knowledgeable on the parks will be happy to fill in the blanks - what are your thoughts on this park?

For me, I find it hard to call it a 'theme park' (no, my name isn't Pushbutton) - and if i'm being fair, in their current states, its a bit of a stretch to apply that label to most parks in Australia. Whilst many of AW's attractions have quite a nice theme applied to them, from one attraction to the next, there isn't really an overarching 'theme' that binds groups of attractions together as such (the kid's dragon world thing is the exception, as is usually the case in most parks) - and if someone tries to tell me the park's theme is "dreams adventures" i'll lose my shit. So for me theme park is ruled out.

It's tricky to say its an amusement park as amusement parks are, for the most part, dry - and AW does have a heavy majority of water attractions.

So is it a water park? well - it has a roller coaster... so does WnW (albeit of a very different standard) and several flat rides and such (so does Jamberoo).

 

Anyway - I don't have all the answers. Hell, I don't even have all the questions - i'm just keen to see what others think about the park. You don't have to have visited it to have formed an opinion (although obviously its a much fairer opinion if you have) - but i'm keen to see what the consensus is out there.

For me - looking at the lineup of attractions and the organic way it has grown, I consider it to be similar to Jamberoo. A nice day out for locals, something worth visiting if you're in the area for travellers, a park that has aspirational goals, and one day might step up into the 'big leagues' with the 'big gold coast four' but for now, i'll borrow Jamberoo's turn of phrase, and i'll say it's an "Action Park"

 

Discuss...

[Brad2912]

I’m going with Fun Park....

[MickeyD]

Funny @AlexB I was thinking of this only yesterday upon speculation of the Park's next Attraction.

Agree the lack of cohesion in the type of Attractions and the way in which they are presented distances AW from being definable as a "Theme Park" in the classic sense. (Disneyland California the first to be described with said term coined originally by Walt Disney)

As it is today I class AW as an Amusement Park.

theme park

noun

1. an amusement park in which landscaping, buildings, and attractions are based on one or more specific themes, as jungle wildlife, fairy tales, or the Old West.

   Origin of theme park

   An Americanism dating back to 1955–60

    

Edited February 6, 2018 by MickeyD

[Tim Dasco]

However by that definition wouldn't Dreamworld then be classed as an amusement park in its current state.

[New display name]

2 hours ago, MickeyD said:

Funny @AlexB I was thinking of this only yesterday upon speculation of the Park's next Attraction.

Agree the lack of cohesion in the type of Attractions and the way in which they are presented distances AW from being definable as a "Theme Park" in the classic sense. (Disneyland California the first to be described with said term coined originally by Walt Disney)

As it is today I class AW as an Amusement Park.

theme park

noun

1. an amusement park in which landscaping, buildings, and attractions are based on one or more specific themes, as jungle wildlife, fairy tales, or the Old West.

   Origin of theme park

   An Americanism dating back to 1955–60

    

Doesn't the definition you posted say it's a theme park?

"1. an amusement park in which landscaping, buildings, and attractions are based on one or more specific themes, as jungle wildlife, fairy tales, or the Old West".

Why don't we have a Theme Park option to vote on.  Not all Theme Parks are like MW.  My Vote is for a Theme Park - like Adventure World.

Edited February 7, 2018 by Skeeta

[Unknown]

It’s either Australia’s third best Theme Park or Australia only has two theme parks (Movie World and Dreamworld being higher)

[Mark Shaw]

54 minutes ago, Skeeta said:

Doesn't the definition you posted say it's a theme park?

"1. an amusement park in which landscaping, buildings, and attractions are based on one or more specific themes, as jungle wildlife, fairy tales, or the Old West".

Why don't we have a Theme Park option to vote on.  Not all Theme Parks are like MW.  My Vote is for a Theme Park - like Adventure World.

AW used to be an amusement park. Now it should be classed as a hybrid theme park/water park. In terms of themes there are multiple. Dragons Kingdom, Kahuna Falls and cafe, Water mountain which now has a Gold rush theme to it, " Nautica" which houses Kraken and nearby slides, The Abyss area now incorporating the well themed Goliath and Rampage.  You cant say with the level of theming present that AW is an amusement park. As for whoever said "Fun Park" go wash your mouth out with soap!! 

[T-bone]

1 hour ago, Tim Dasco said:

However by that definition wouldn't Dreamworld then be classed as an amusement park in its current state.

Not necessarily because Dreamworld has themed lands with attractions in those lands themed accordingly, including rides, shops etc. The themed areas are somewhat defined. You walk into ABC Kids and the feeling is that you aren’t on Main Street anymore. You know due to the architecture, the music and yes the theming. Adventure world whilst I commend the work done to bring themeing standards up, we still have a council park feeling with themed rides here there and everywhere. There is no cohesion. And that’s my answer as to why it’s not a theme park, if anything it’s an action park.

[Santa07]

Is it a theme park? No, the theming isn't coherent enough.
Is it an amusement park? No, I'd consider an amusement park to be made up of primarily dry rides.
Is it a water park? No, too many dry rides. Wet n Wild is still a water park for me though, because it only has one dry ride (excluding the upcharge attractions).
Is it an action park? Kinda, it's definitely the best term to describe it on this list but it's still not perfect. Jamberoo is an action park, but AW is still pretty different to Jamberoo.

(haven't been to AW or Jamberoo though so this opinion isn't based off much)

[Mark Shaw]

2 minutes ago, T-bone said:

Not necessarily because Dreamworld has themed lands with attractions in those lands themed accordingly, including rides, shops etc. The themed areas are somewhat defined. You walk into ABC Kids and the feeling is that you aren’t on Main Street anymore. You know due to the architecture, the music and yes the theming. Adventure world whilst I commend the work done to bring themeing standards up, we still have a council park feeling with themed rides here there and everywhere. There is no cohesion. And that’s my answer as to why it’s not a theme park, if anything it’s an action park.

That "Council Park feeling" rates AW as the top Park in Aus based on Trip Advisor reviews for 2016! (based on the % of 4/5 star reviews of the total) at 92% from memory.  I might be a bit biased but that's a bit harsh!   

40 minutes ago, Mark Shaw said:

AW used to be an amusement park. Now it should be classed as a hybrid theme park/water park. In terms of themes there are multiple. Dragons Kingdom, Kahuna Falls and cafe, Water mountain which now has a Gold rush theme to it, " Nautica" which houses Kraken and nearby slides, The Abyss area now incorporating the well themed Goliath and Rampage.  You cant say with the level of theming present that AW is an amusement park. As for whoever said "Fun Park" go wash your mouth out with soap!! 

I forgot the Pirate theme which hopefully will be expanded on overtime in that zone of the Park. 

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

28 minutes ago, Mark Shaw said:

AW used to be an amusement park. Now it should be classed as a hybrid theme park/water park. In terms of themes there are multiple. Dragons Kingdom, Kahuna Falls and cafe, Water mountain which now has a Gold rush theme to it, " Nautica" which houses Kraken and nearby slides, The Abyss area now incorporating the well themed Goliath and Rampage.  You cant say with the level of theming present that AW is an amusement park. As for whoever said "Fun Park" go wash your mouth out with soap!! 

Thanks for the interesting viewpoint Mark - great to get your insight.

The thing for me - is looking at 'The Abyss Area' as you say - which incorporates Goliath and Rampage - sure, these things are well themed in their own right - but how do these things relate to each other? Guardians of an Abyss, the story of Goliath, the chained Minotaur of Rampage? How do they tie together? is there an interesting storyline that links them all (now removed apparently)? Well, surely the footpaths are all similarly themed across all three of them? No? are the bins even the same? They are? But they are throughout the park? ok no... is the landscaping crossed over between the three? no?

Sorry i'm being a little obtuse - my point though is that those three rides are spectacularly well themed on their own, but nothing of them crosses their own fence boundary (in goliaths case, the path has been extended beyond the ride precinct, but doesn't cross into the other two rides)

I think as Tbone said before, with a 'theme' park you can be standing in one part of the park, and everything about that area will be cohesive to continue the illusion - for example when movie world built doomsday, the rear of the facades they erected were themed differently, so that they would blend with the western area.... whilst not all of MW is labelled as such, you have your distinct areas - main street is classic hollywood, timeless... WB kids is all more whimsically themed, whilst when you're in the west, the paths are different, everything possible is aged wood and rusted iron etc.

6 minutes ago, Mark Shaw said:

That "Council Park feeling" rates AW as the top Park in Aus based on Trip Advisor reviews for 2016! (based on the % of 4/5 star reviews of the total) at 92% from memory.  I might be a bit biased but that's a bit harsh!   

I do recall you being quite proud of that achievement, and it is indeed nothing to sneeze at - the only issue I take with it is the credentials of those bestowing it - its unusual for people to give positive reviews - most people post a review when they've had a bad experience, so it's interesting, but i'd be more interested in industry based judging where standards are consistent, and judged the same way, than the subjective viewpoint of those guests who might have visited AW and never been to the east coast to compare. Before starting this thread I talked to several people who I would class as 'AW Fanboys' and despite logical argument, these people wouldn't even allow for the possibility that there could be an alternative view of the park.

If this is the standard of reviewers on Trip Advisor, then i'm going to need you to pass the salt...

 

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not trying to shit on the park. I love what has been done with the place, although i'm cynical about whether that standard will continue. My personal opinion is that it doesn't quite YET fit the 'theme' park label... and i'm not certain that 'hybrid' park is going to work - are there any other examples out there of a 'hybrid' park like this?

Anyway - i'm not against the park succeeding, I just think that (mostly privately but sometimes publicly) the question of what this park is trying to be comes up quite often, and i'd like to get a broader consensus on what everyone else thinks - thats all.

[New display name]

28 minutes ago, Santa07 said:

Is it a theme park? No, the theming isn't coherent enough.

What's the level of coherency required to achieve Theme Park status?

Who decides when the level of coherency has been achieved?

28 minutes ago, Santa07 said:

Is it an amusement park? No, I'd consider an amusement park to be made up of primarily dry rides.
Is it a water park? No, too many dry rides. Wet n Wild is still a water park for me though, because it only has one dry ride (excluding

What does this mean for DW "Theme Park Status" since WWW is now part of DW?

Hang on, DW has a zoo too.

Dw has water slides, dry rides & animals.  That doesn't sound coherent.

Now I'm confused.

I'm going for a lie down if anybody needs me.

 

 

 

Edited February 7, 2018 by Skeeta

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

There is however a distinct portal between WWW and DW.

Likewise Wonderland's Beach had a distinct portal, and the beach operated seasonally too.

I do understand what Santa is saying about 'coherence' - and it's kind of what i talked about above with movieworld - how the western area is all 'wood, rusty metal, cobblestone (stencilcrete) paving - it all fits.

With Rampage for example, the ride is surrounded by pool fence (which is necessary to maintain safety) but immediately outside the ride envelope, its mown grass - picnic worthy even.

Here's some pics. In the first image, i've outlined Abyss, Goliath and Rampage. the weird 'H' shape is a distance measure, between the end of Abyss and the start of Rampage. From memory, I'm pretty sure that measures around 30 metres or less. You'll note that each ride has a distinct boundary, so within about 30 metres, theres no cohesion between three different themes...

 

 

[Mark Shaw]

49 minutes ago, AlexB said:

There is however a distinct portal between WWW and DW.

Likewise Wonderland's Beach had a distinct portal, and the beach operated seasonally too.

I do understand what Santa is saying about 'coherence' - and it's kind of what i talked about above with movieworld - how the western area is all 'wood, rusty metal, cobblestone (stencilcrete) paving - it all fits.

With Rampage for example, the ride is surrounded by pool fence (which is necessary to maintain safety) but immediately outside the ride envelope, its mown grass - picnic worthy even.

Here's some pics. In the first image, i've outlined Abyss, Goliath and Rampage. the weird 'H' shape is a distance measure, between the end of Abyss and the start of Rampage. From memory, I'm pretty sure that measures around 30 metres or less. You'll note that each ride has a distinct boundary, so within about 30 metres, theres no cohesion between three different themes...

All valid and I wish there had been more cohesion between Goliath (Biblical?) and Abyss, the theming was definitely supposed to provide a close link to that dark, fantasy and  menacing side of the Park. I thought the definition of a "Theme Park" though was a park with at least one, or many themes?  I agree having defined "lands" or zones is ideal, but multiple themes still make it a theme park.   Look up Hybrid theme park/water parks and you will find it is actually a growing trend. AW was a front runner (lol) And show me a park that blends amazing landscaping/carpet like lawns with all of that stuff going on visually better than AW does. Pass the salt. 

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

Thanks Mark. I appreciate the continued civil discussions - not the usual around here as i'm sure you well know...

Since Disneyland almost defined the term, i think you'd have to go back to it to judge. Obviously few operators in the world can reach that standard, but it's aspiring to it that makes it fit - Dreamworld never reached that standard, but there was a time where it was so close it hurt.

If we're going to say that "if every ride has a theme, whether or not it fits with the ride next to it, then that makes it a theme park" then i'd like for you to visit the Sydney Royal Easter Show, one of the finest theme parks that New South Wales has to offer.

Back to the Disneyland bit - i think it's the 'collection of similar themed attractions in an area' (also known as a themed land) that really epitomises a "theme park"

Maybe I should make a comparison you're intimately familiar with...

Chessington considers itself a theme park... and whilst i've never been - their website says " Our theme park includes 10 themed lands AND over 40 rides and attractions. "

Thorpe Park meanwhile doesn't market itself as a theme park in so many words - at least not on their website - but they've got "old town", "the jungle" and "angry birds land". "Amity", "Lost City" etc...

 

Meanwhile, you're right. Adventure World has "water mountain" - i'll give you that... except that's not where the tallest, longest fastest tornado slide is - thats over on another "mountain"... with some other water slides that aren't at 'Water Mountain'. Wet N Wild has 'White Water Mountain' too - but we're not calling it a theme park.

And I mentioned the Dragon's Kingdom bit before. The whole Yarli thing is cute, but most parks - even those lacking theme in every other area - usually has something for the kiddies because simple moving machinery in bright colours doesn't generally grab the kid's attention. 

Yes, there's pockets of 'themed attempts' - but none of this is cohesive. I'm looking at the park map right now, and there are water attractions in the top right, upper middle, centre, lower centre, lower left and lower right sections of the map. Kids and Animals take up the remaining left side.

Some of it is non existent. Some of it is half hearted. and some of it is done REALLY well, and is a credit to you and your time there (I'd never heard of the place before Abyss).

For me, it all comes back to that one word - cohesion. AW was working on it, but it isnt there yet, and - like you said before - there was SUPPOSED to be themed links to Abyss and Goliath etc that are obviously not there. You see it - you strive for it, but clearly in your absence, it got nixxed, showing that they're confused, and probably dont care.

Slap a story on it, design a cool skull, and people will just go "whoa, cool".

[New display name]

I'm not reading all that @AlexB until somebody tells me who made the 30-metre rule?

Edited February 7, 2018 by Skeeta

[MickeyD]

4 hours ago, Skeeta said:

Doesn't the definition you posted say it's a theme park?

"1. an amusement park in which landscaping, buildings, and attractions are based on one or more specific themes, as jungle wildlife, fairy tales, or the Old West".

Why don't we have a Theme Park option to vote on.  Not all Theme Parks are like MW.  My Vote is for a Theme Park - like Adventure World.

A true Theme Park should provide an environment that portrays strong Themes and a cohesive Storyline. To paraphrase Disney, a place to transport People to another realm where they can suspend the woes of the everyday, Defy the imagination and provide an experience for Family and friends to connect and enjoy.

With the exception of MW, I really don't think our Parks in Australia live up to the standard of a true "Theme Park". Showmanship and Immersiveness are two words that qualify in a "Theme Park" and in Australia, only MW comes close to achieving  these.

I have no problem calling DW an Amusement Park or SW a Marine Park. For that matter Aussie world is very much a Fun Park. 

Nowadays even the likes of Paradise Country and Currumbin Sanctuary are referred to as Theme Parks. The Media refers to AW as a Theme Park so I guess to the average Aussie Jo that's what it is.

 

[Slick]

I'll spare you all the requirement of reading another four thousand word essay and simply say this:

Amusement Park - to me, I think an amusement park is simply a park that presents itself well with no true story prevalent in either individual attractions or the space they're in. Luna Park or say Cedar Point (in general i.e. most attractions & midway etc.) are parks that are generally presented nicely and represent the idea of an "amusement park" in my mind.

Theme Park - again, "to me," I think a theme park is a park that has attractions and areas that carry a story or a theme.

Now - it's worth nothing that debating the quality of those stories, themes or lands or even if every single thing needs to have a theme inside a park to be then defined as a theme park is a whole other debate.

So, with that context in mind, Adventure World definitely gets a theme park tick, the kids land is a coherent themed space for one with clearly defined portals, and while Abyss/Goliath etc. don't exist inside a "gouhland" or some kind of over-arching title, there's more than enough effort and original creativity in a defined space of multiple specific areas of the park to warrant it being more than worthy of being a theme park (or hybrid water park/theme park.)

Also, as a side note, i'm pretty confident in saying that with the exception of @Mark Shaw, @Tim Dasco and myself, most folks here haven't actually been over there in quite some time and are actually probably relying on my photos as an accurate representation of the park itself, and those photos are three years old now.

[iwerks]

I love the way people condescend to Mark when they probably haven't even been there. You can't compare AW to a side show. There's just so much more that AW brings that can't be seen on random photos or a satellite view. It's a fantastic set up that almost defies being categorised. When you look at what the park started with, it had no real off the shelf amusement park rides at all. And, as I've told people before, you can quite happily spend the day riding rides there and not go anywhere near the water. If you want to call it a theme park - call it one.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

12 minutes ago, Roachie said:

Also, as a side note, i'm pretty confident in saying that with the exception of @Mark Shaw, @Tim Dasco and myself, most folks here haven't actually been over there in quite some time and are actually probably relying on my photos as an accurate representation of the park itself, and those photos are three years old now.

You left out @iwerks

You do love ringing your own bell though... Tim, iwerks and others et al have provided many photos since yours. I'm also relying on the park map and website, and aerial imagery as recently as last month. I don't think i've looked at your photos in about the same length of time as since you took them.

 

But, with such a plethora of photos - who needs to visit to be an accurate judge, when all the photos are so AMAZEBALLS?!?@!$?

1 minute ago, iwerks said:

 If you want to call it a theme park - call it one.

Which is the whole purpose of the thread - to find out what people want to call it.

[iwerks]

But by inviting people who have never been there to judge it is pretty bizarre. How can you judge the quality of the different themed music zones from a satellite? How can you judge the dedication to service from the team members from a photo? How can you judge the quality of food if you've never eaten there?

I think what surprises a lot of people is that AW got it's act together several years ago and people are only now starting to figure that out.

[Slick]

2 hours ago, AlexB said:

You left out @iwerks

You do love ringing your own bell though... Tim, iwerks and others et al have provided many photos since yours. I'm also relying on the park map and website, and aerial imagery as recently as last month. I don't think i've looked at your photos in about the same length of time as since you took them.

 

But, with such a plethora of photos - who needs to visit to be an accurate judge, when all the photos are so AMAZEBALLS?!?@!$?

The website uses a lot of my photography (with notable exceptions to rides they've sinced added more themeing to e.g. Rampage, which only goes to suggest further that is a theme park) which is the very source you use to ironically justify being a giant douche in suggesting you haven't used my photography to form said ironic opinion.

If I used satellite imagery from my keyboard warrior armchair instead of going to experience these places first hand, Dreamworld would be called "tree-world" and Wonderland Sydney would be called "no one cares because it's been gone for over a decade."

[ABYSS]

(0:17-0:23)

Maybe before you judge a park by images on Google Earth or Nearmap, you should go to it first. 

And before you give me shit for posting this or the kid in the video, give him a break he has autism.

Edited February 7, 2018 by ABYSS
Grammar.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

18 hours ago, iwerks said:

But by inviting people who have never been there to judge it is pretty bizarre. How can you judge the quality of the different themed music zones from a satellite? How can you judge the dedication to service from the team members from a photo? How can you judge the quality of food if you've never eaten there?

I think what surprises a lot of people is that AW got it's act together several years ago and people are only now starting to figure that out.

Quality of food and dedication to service isn't really what this discussion is about.

A person can give an opinion based on what they know. As I noted in the original post, it is a much fairer opinion if one has visited, but all are entitled to have one, are they not?

I note however that only 6 out of 30 have gone with theme park, whilst the overwhelming majority have gone with Amusement or Action park. It's interesting too, because the former CEO of the park, who made such a maximum impact (SWIDT?) considers it a crossed theme \ water park, and yet only 1 person has identified it as a 'water' park despite the large number of water based slides and attractions.

I did predict a lot of fanboy heat on this topic...

18 hours ago, Roachie said:

The website uses a lot of my photography (with notable exceptions to rides they've sinced added more themeing to e.g. Rampage, which only goes to suggest further that is a theme park) which is the very source you use to ironically justify being a giant douche in suggesting you haven't used my photography to form said ironic opinion.

If I used satellite imagery from my keyboard warrior armchair instead of going to experience these places first hand, Dreamworld would be called "tree-world" and Wonderland Sydney would be called "no one cares because it's been gone for over a decade."

LOL> You couldn't even recognise that a photo in an airport promotional billboard wasn't yours.

I'm sorry if the bell ringing comment offended you. It wasn't meant to be derogatory - you certainly should be proud of the work that you do - and you very well know that I am aware of how much of a perfectionist you are - but you do sometimes lay claim to things that are a little bit of a stretch, and can also be chalked up as a happy coincidence. Ironically, I included the website as a source to pad out my research - fluff it up a little. All i've used from the website is the park map, and the WORDS to see the language they use (as I did with Chessington and Thorpe park.

Sat images aren't my only source of information, and as I said i've seen the photos from iwerks, tim, et al also. the good thing about Adventure World is that there isn't much in the way to obscure satellite view. As you so rightly point out - Dreamworld does have a lot of greenery \ tree \ forest towards the back end. It certainly covers parts of the park, but in no way does it offer sufficient coverage to deserve 'tree world' - again you're stretching it here. I'm not sure the relevance of mentioning wonderland except because you think it'll get a reaction so i'll move on.

When you're considering where to visit next, do you just ask RCDB to pick a random park, and go wherever it brings up first? (Or the Parkz randomiser?) No. You talk to people, read things, view photos, websites, reviews - and you make a judgment - "does all this stuff make me want to visit it?" - you form an opinion based on what you see before you visit. If that opinion isn't favourable enough, then you never will visit... unless of course you're in the area (note the number of votes for that particular option above too).

AW was raved about a few years ago when Abyss was  put in, and rightly so. You yourself specifically raved about it, and made quite the call about Abyss' status \ ranking for coasters in Australia. Judging by all accounts though, it hasn't aged well, and whilst at launch, it was something that got me very close to visiting, the current stories of it's upkeep - especially at a park that has several months downtime each year - make me want to visit and ride about as much as Richard does Dreamworld right now.

But this thread isn't all about my opinion, and i'm entitled to mine, as everyone else is entitled to theirs. the poll results speak for themselves however, so i'll just leave it at that.

[elemist]

Perth Local here who has been visiting the park for years.

I think i would struggle to call it a theme park myself based on the actual meaning of the name, and for that matter same really for any of the parks in Australia. Movie World is the closest we have i think in that most attractions throughout the park are movie/entertainment themed. Dreamworld got close with its few themed areas - the wild west areas, and then the industrial type areas of ToT and giant drop etc.

To me the strict definition of a theme park requires either a single unified theme through out the park, or if more than one theme then dedicated areas and attractions to each theme which are easily and clearly distinguishable as separate areas. So that means it extends far past just the theming of the attraction/ride to things such as pathways, gardens, staff costumes, signage, naming etc.

That being said - AW is somewhat unique in that it really doesn't fit any of the suggested categories. It's not an amusement park - to me that's something that's primarily trailer rides/side show stalls/fun fair type stuff. With the amount of water rides/slides you could argue it contains a water park. I wouldn't call it an adventure park either, as to me an adventure park is more about physical activities - flying foxes, rope courses, hiking trails etc.

So where does that leave AW? Good question.. i think the only name for it though is still a theme park. Maybe not in the dictionary meaning, but more in the common meaning of a place containing rides and attractions both wet and dry that you go for fun.