Talk:Cedar Point

all of the names of the amusement park not just Cedar Point

and btw why doesnt the article tell about the other old names of the amusement park like the CEDAR POINT PLEASURE RESORT was it's first name just like it tells in a old book called SANDUSKY OF TODAY it was publish in 1888 and u can even read it on the ohio history website thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:C:5110:0:0:0:46 (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Articles on Wikipedia are always a work in progress. If you want to add missing information, feel free to do so, but be sure to provide the source. If you need help citing references, see WP:REFB or ask for help at WP:TEA. You can also do nothing, and hopefully someone watching this talk page will get around to the request. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

so hear on talkpages u telling me to add my fact to the articles page but their on the articles page u telling me to wait for consensual so w t h dude make up ur mind ok thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:C:5110:0:0:0:39 (talk) 14:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Earlier, you tried to remove a statement and I disagreed. That's a separate discussion and has nothing to do with adding to the article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

dude it aint a works in progress if u go back wards every time i tried to deleted a lie from that articles. that aint progress dude but it sound like u must be da king on wikipedia so tell me what u wants me do king i will do it if u wants me to writes more stuff there. but even if u gonna leaf the lie their too then it will all be vary stupid becuz all ready it says too differents things it says 1870 commercial tourist but and few later sentence after that it say 1888 is first efforts to make a pubic resort so dont that means same thing as first commercial toursim i think its do. so then and if now so if i add more about that commercial toursim in 1864 add of what all ready there so the hole history story gonna sound real stupid right? well any way so whats ever u wants me do will be wait for when my Ant can help again me to writes better Inglesh for the articles ok so thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:C:5110:0:0:0:1 (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Would a dedicated paragraph in the lead or even a specific section for nicknames of Cedar Point work? I'm indifferent on the issue, but it might help. InvadingInvader (talk) 20:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

InvadingInvader: are you perhaps confusing the nickname of the amusement-park, with its various official names throughout its ownership? In case you weren't aware, but the official name of simply "Cedar Point" is a comparatively recent assigning. Official CP business documents and local-gov. documents prior to about 1956, do not indicate that simply "Cedar Point" was its name, but instead some other variations. For instance, in 1888, the business site itself was officially named Cedar Point Pleasure Resort, operated by the Cedar Point Pleasure Resort Company. Presumably the business site retained that full name for a short time even after the company was reorganized by 1898 as the "Cedar Point Pleasure Resort Company of Indiana". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB91:1003:2696:D89B:E5AF:589:A31F (talk) 04:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

to the anonymous contributor who began this thread: In another thread you mentioned a book titled 'Cedar Point and Its Racist Past'. Can you, or someone, tell me the author of that publication? I just attempted a search for it, but nothing comes up under that title. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB91:1003:2696:D89B:E5AF:589:A31F (talk) 12:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Gatekeeper

InvadingInvader: Let's discuss the change you're trying to make here instead of going back and forth in the article. I don't see a reason to modify the language, like you're trying to do in this edit and this edit. All the other coaster entries in this list have similar language, talking about records they held at the time of opening. Each coaster's article can explore this in more depth, such as when each record was surpassed. Here in the Cedar Point article, we should keep this very brief and avoid paragraphs of coverage for each coaster, which is what this would turn into if we allow this change for Gatekeeper. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

GoneIn60 Thanks for reaching out, and I'm sorry I wasn't able to respond quickly. I think that notable stats (tallest, longest, fastest, highest inversion, firsts) should have a time frame. I'll use Top Thrill Dragster as an example: as of writing, the description says "A steel strata accelerator roller coaster. It was the tallest and fastest roller coaster in the world when it opened." It was surpassed by Kingda Ka in 2005, but to your point, these descriptions should be brief. It's not worth mentioning Kingda Ka surpassed it here, but it's important to tell when the Dragster lost the record, so I would rewrite it to "A steel strata accelerator roller coaster. From its opening in 2003 to 2005, it was the tallest and fastest roller coaster in the world." While I can understand the phrasing of "when it opened", not everyone who reads Wikipedia reads it thoroughly and skims information (I've done it first hand a few times when I was 7 years old), so I think that's important to mention time frames, partly due to that reason. I look forward to hearing your response. InvadingInvader (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The chart already has a dedicated column for when it opened. Repeating that in the description column would be redundant. So when we say "when it opened" or "at the time of opening", it should be clear what time frame we're referring to. Since this is not an article about records or even about the coaster itself, I don't think making the descriptions more complex by adding when it lost the record is necessary in this article. There's plenty to cover regarding the park's extensive history, and when it was surpassed doesn't really belong here. The charts should be remain very brief as they are today. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Record timeframes are absolutely necessary. World records are as notable as one can get. I understand a brief article is necessary, but if an article is too brief, it can leave out notable information, such as record timeframes. I can understand the repetitiveness of stating the year when it opened twice, but the year the record was surpassed, especially for coasters like the Magnum, Millennium Force, and the Dragster's height and speed records, not only give absolutely necessary information but also highlight innovations. Cedar Point is a park defined coasters and the records each coaster held. Why not just state (again using Top Thrill Dragster): A steel strata accelerator roller coaster that was the tallest and fastest roller coaster in the world until 2005. This solution avoids repetitiveness and also keeps it brief while allowing the mention of essential information. If a coaster has too many records and/or sub-type-specific records (like Valravn's dive coaster records or Steel Vengeance's records for hyper hybrid coasters), only include the most important one or two records. InvadingInvader (talk) 02:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

"...but if an article is too brief, it can leave out notable information"

That's why we have an article covering each coaster in more detail. A simple click to the respective article reveals more detailed information, including records held and lost. The problem you're going to run into if you start down this path here in this table is that with some entries – Gemini, Raptor, Corkscrew, etc – the year their records were broken is not exactly known or well-sourced. So this is going to create inconsistent coverage in the chart. Some will reveal when the record was broken while others won't. Sometimes it's best to keep it simple and not try to do too much. Any reader who wants to learn more about Top Thrill Dragster (or any other coaster) needs to visit that coaster's article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I still think that the most notable one or two records should be at least mentioned upon expiration. Especially for the tallest coaster and fastest coaster records.InvadingInvader (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

And I still favor simple introductions and consistency within the table. Take another look at each description here. These seem like good introductions to me, similar to what you'd find in the lead section of an article. I recently cleaned them up removing the junk that entered the chart over the last couple years that shouldn't have been inserted. I've also dropped a note at WT:WikiProject Amusement Parks to see if we can get a few more opinions on the matter. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

All of these record-breaking coasters have their own wiki page. That is where records should be mentioned, not on the Cedar Point page. Despite your earlier comments, Cedar Point is not just about coasters. It is a family destination resort with hotels, a campground, a water park, multiple flat rides, show venues, food venues — and also roller coasters. They should not be the primary focus.—JlACEer (talk) 00:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Multiple concerns regarding article content

Is someone being paid to control this topic?

After having read all of the talk page entries for this topic including the archived entries, it seems very likely that there are paid contributors who are controlling some of the content of this topic. Has this issue been investigated? And if so then what was the outcome of that investigation. Thank you. 2607:FB91:1003:2696:D89B:E5AF:589:A31F (talk) 01:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Note that the purpose of my inquiry is that I would like to perform a major needed overhaul of the Cedar Point page, because much of its content is superfluous and is not conducive with encyclopedic intent. But obviously an overhaul will not be possible if it has already been established that multiple persons are potentially being paid to maintain a status quo on this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB91:1003:2696:D89B:E5AF:589:A31F (talk) 12:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I am not aware of any paid editors contributing here, but if there are, they should be made aware of Wikipedia's behavioral guideline concerning conflicts of interest, specifically WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:57, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Improperly placed images

I presume that Wikipedia abides by the encyclopedic general rule that images should appear adjacent to text being within a section of an article whereby the displayed image best illustrates that section of text. Is that indeed the usual procedure, here? If so, then several additional images within this article should be moved to their appropriate sections. Or simply removed if the image is superfluous. 2607:FB91:1003:2696:D89B:E5AF:589:A31F (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Incidentally, one of the images is even wrongly identified as being a Cedar Point logo in 1979. Well that's not precisely accurate. Notice in that image, there is a trademark icon. But Cedar Point did not utilize a trademark icon in that specific logo until circa 1984. Reason: Cedar Point did not even acquire a trademark on the name "Cedar Point" until circa 1984, and they seem to have had some difficulty in claiming a trademark. I haven't accessed the full legal documents to determine exactly what that difficulty was. But presumably the trademark was denied due to the longtime established name of the peninsula itself being Cedar Point. Apparently geographic names cannot be trademarked in that manner. But somehow the CP company seems to have subsequently accomplished it anyway.

Conspiracy theories prior comments

An online web archive service indicates that a thread previously posted here has been removed from active status, so therefore instead I will add my own personal comment here, concerning that prior thread. It is in reference to someone's statement here which seems to discount the possibility of a conspiracy of publicly promoted false information. Apparently that contributor was unaware that large corporations hire web influencers. In fact, the official Cedar Point webpages have previously mentioned an offer of exactly that. I could probably find that web page, or an archived copy of it, if need be. Additionally, nearly every book about CP's history, specifically credits the CP company with providing some of the information presented in those publications. So it would seem that all of those same publications could easily contain biased information, and even the possibility that the authors of those publications were regulated directly by the CP company, regarding what information the authors were allowed to include in those books, in order for those authors to gain access to the CP company's archives. This is simply standard business good-sense, and certainly not exclusively practiced by the CP company. 2607:FB91:1003:2696:D89B:E5AF:589:A31F (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

You are free to discuss concerns about any source at WP:RSN, where uninvolved editors can help weigh in on the reliability of such sources. Discussions there do not always reach a solid consensus, but it's a good place to start if you want outside feedback. Just keep in mind that the possibility of being biased or regulated needs a strong connection before one can reasonably draw that conclusion. Simply floating the possibility won't hold much weight in those discussions. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Excessive redundant data

I agree completely with InvadingInvader who posted "...but if an article is too brief, it can leave out notable information. That's why we have an article covering each coaster in more detail. A simple click to the respective article reveals more detailed information, including records held and lost." In fact, because every coaster has its own separate article, it is therefore unnecessarily redundant within this main CP article, to include any specifics about those same coasters. A plain listing of their names linked to their respective articles, would clean up a lot of the superfluous data here. Likewise, these coasters are all represented in images in their own respective articles. The redundant images of them within the main CP article are unnecessary and taking up far too much space here. Please keep in mind the encyclopedic intent of Wikipedia. Currently this main CP article resembles a verbose novella, not a well-composed encyclopedic article. 2607:FB91:1003:2696:D89B:E5AF:589:A31F (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I think you should re-read that discussion. I'm actually the one that made the statement, "That's why we have an article covering each coaster in more detail. A simple click to the respective article reveals more detailed information, including records held and lost." InvadingInvader wanted to add more information to this article about coaster records, not less. I held the position that there is plenty here already, and trying to do what they were proposing would only add more clutter. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Venues recently edited

To Drmies: My initial reaction was somewhat negative to your removal of the entire Venues section within the CP article. But after reflecting upon the amount of strictly promotional data which has been included overall here, I now concur that you did the best thing. I only hope that other contributors will accept the necessity of reducing the debris within that main article. 2607:FB91:1003:2696:D89B:E5AF:589:A31F (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

CP History section

The History section is an overly wordy mess. The first several paragraphs have no direct purpose in specific regard to the topic of the article. Note that this article is about a business entity. If the name Cedar Point also is a geographic location, then that would certainly be notable for Wikipedia standards, and that geographic location should have its own separate article. Likewise, if Louis Zistel himself has notable qualities, a separate article should have been created for him long before now. Both of those suggestions might be a good project for contributors who indeed seem to feel that those two subject are notable. Regardless, the CP History section goes far off topic about the CP amusement park by including so much incidental information which would apparently be much more suitable in separate articles of their own. 2607:FB91:1003:2696:D89B:E5AF:589:A31F (talk) 12:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I understand the concern, but keep in mind that "notability", as defined at WP:N, relates to the creation of articles. It is the litmus test used to determine if an article should exist on Wikipedia. When judging article content, we go by significance as reported in reliable sources, in accordance with Verifiability. The standards surrounding the inclusion of content within an article is different than the standards involving article creation.

With that said, I think a brief description of the peninsula immediately before and during the amusement park's formation, as described in many publications covering the park's early history, is relevant to this article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Good Article status

Is there a way to view the article as it was at the time of nomination for Good Article status? I suspect that it was in a considerably more condensed form at the time it was accepted as a Good Article. It certainly seems to have been allowed to devolve into rambling disarray. 2607:FB91:1003:2696:D89B:E5AF:589:A31F (talk) 17:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely. On the talk page of Good Articles and Featured Articles, you will see dates listed at the top under Article milestones. The dates represent both failed and successful status promotions. For example in this article, click the July 4, 2012 date to see the version of the article when it was promoted to GA status. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Cedar Point peninsula

As per my latest edit which is obviously not intended to be permanent but was just a first attempt of a much smoother and far less cluttered approach: but if anyone wishes a Wikipedia presence for the Cedar Point peninsula then they should create a separate geographical article for that subject. Because this article is clearly about the Cedar Point business enterprise. In contrast, geographic topics all have their own separate Wikipedia articles, and there is no reason to try to cram additional information about the peninsula, crammed into this article about the current business enterprise. They are two separate topics and not suitably crammed into this article about the current business enterprise. Likewise about any incidental trivia for Capt. Louis Zistel. Please consider creating a separate article for Zistel if his notability is as important as the prior edits have implied. And please try to stay on topic as much as possible, for this Cedar Point business enterprise article, rather than going off on tangents with events that had little or nothing to do with the original establishment of the current Cedar Point business enterprise. Thank you. 2607:FB91:1003:2696:D89B:E5AF:589:A31F (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be repeating what you said in the CP History section above. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

"Cedar Point, Inc."

Another greatly needed reassessment is for the Cedar Fair article. It contains an egregious amount of misinformation, at least in regard to the prior various companies which subsequently became Cedar Fair. It even mentions some company named "Cedar Point Pleasure Company". I assume that the contributor instead meant the circa 1888 "Cedar Point Pleasure Resort Company", which subsequently became the "Cedar Point Pleasure Resort Company of Indiana" for a few years beginning circa 1898, but was again reorganized by a different name by the early 1900s, and then went through a couple of other transitions and name changes, none of which seem to be mentioned in the History section of the Cedar Fair article. I only mention this because a considerable amount of information from this Cedar Point article would be far more suitable in the History section of the Cedar Fair article. Meaning that the business operations ideally could be, and certainly ought to be, each kept separated within their proper articles, wherever appropriate. Unfortunately I don't have the time to separate out the business company data here, which really instead belongs in the Cedar Fair article. But this Cedar Point article would be a lot more concise if this CP article concentrated mostly on the physical business, and instead relegated the predeccessor company affairs mainly to the Cedar Fair company article, where that specific information belongs. That project would of course require someone with business experience who comprehends the difference between a physical business versus the company which operates that business. But perhaps not even the prior Cedar Point historians comprehended the significance of that difference. In which case, there will be no published sources to use as a reference for that project anyway. So unfortunately this CP article may never really be as good as it could be. 2607:FB91:1003:2696:D89B:E5AF:589:A31F (talk) 02:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

The Cedar Fair article is the appropriate place to cover this information in detail, and in fact, it should be expanded with this information. However, there's nothing wrong with briefly touching upon the business operations aspect as it relates specifically to Cedar Point, here in this article. If I were researching Cedar Point, I would expect to see some information mentioned about who and/or what business entity managed the park throughout the course of its history, especially of those that made a significant impact on the park's development. For more details about business dealings, company acquisitions, and company foundings, I would not expect to find much of that here. Instead, I would expect to see that in the Cedar Fair article, which is devoted to the company profile. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments

This is a WP:Wall of text, and you are unlikely to get responses for each concern you raise when you do it in this fashion. Wikipedia operates on consensus, and following the revert I just made to the last stable version, it should be clear that you don't have that. The history of the land that the resort sits on is relevant to the scope of the article. I disagree with your assessment that how the land was used prior to Zistel is irrelevant. Instead of rambling on for 10+ paragraphs, let's get very specific and address the concerns one at a time. Where would you like to start? --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Well let's begin with the Wikipedia rule about not reverting multiple contributors edits in one single revert. Including edits by @Drmies which I agreed 100% with, and therefore is currently a 2-against-1 consensus for their edit which you just single-handedly killed with no consensus. Then afterward let's ask you why you personally have continually impeded multiple contributors efforts to improve this article. Then let's discuss what Wikipedia rule gives you the sole privileges to control the appearance of these Talk page threads. And that's just the tip of the issues of your personal activities and your violations of other procedures on this website that need some explaining. Including, that you yourself are the one who just now created this "wall of text". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB91:1003:2696:D89B:E5AF:589:A31F (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Before you jump to conclusions, let me clarify that restoring the live entertainment section was not intentional. I went back and removed it. I think we're all on the same page there. Now, let's focus on content here. Nothing is set in stone, including anything in this article. There's always room for improvement. Let's move this discussion forward in a positive way and get some work done. I'm not going to respond to your accusations above; that's not going to be productive. Anyone that follows my activity in this realm knows I'm willing to work with anyone and DO NOT perform reverts for the sake of protecting an article. My goal is to avoid hasty, unnecessary changes and edits that have a detrimental impact to the overall quality of the article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Exactly what conclusions did I "jump" to? You carelessly and purposely disregarded the Wikipedia revert rules, thereby deleting @Drmies good edits. And then falsely accused me of creating a "wall of text", when in fact there was, by Wikipedia definition, no such "wall of text" until you crammed every one of my separate multiple- threaded individual suggestions into this single thread. But I already stated my suggestions clearly and concisely. I am not going to rehash them, and especially not with someone who makes false accusations after they themselves simultaneously violated 3 Wikipedia policies in the process of their own hypocrital actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB91:1003:2696:D89B:E5AF:589:A31F (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

The intentions were not malicious. That's the conclusion you seem to be stuck on. Also, Drmies' good faith edits were restored. Focusing on the contributor is not the way forward at this point. If you decide you want to turn this into a productive conversation, I'm all ears, but I'm not going to read through your wall of text, which is exactly what that is. Maybe someone else will. If that's what you're banking on, good luck with that. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also the reason given for your edit here doesn't make any sense. Lead sections are a brief summary of an article's most important aspects. Obviously as a summary, it's going to repeat information down in the body. In fact, a general rule of thumb is that the info must be in the body before it can be emphasized in the lead (see WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY). Removing it from the body but leaving in the lead runs counter to this logic. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Are you that dense that you don't see that what you did by cramming all of my suggestions into this single thread is the only cause of this "wall of text". YOU created this "wall of text". But if you really want to see a wall of text, try reading the whole Cedar Point article- That article that you think you are preventing "hasty, unnecessary changes and edits that have a detrimental impact to the overall quality of the article." Seriously? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB91:1003:2696:D89B:E5AF:589:A31F (talk) 22:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Just gave you an example of an unconstructive edit you performed. As for this talk page, it doesn't matter if you divide your wall up into separate sections or put it under one section, it's still a wall. The main reason why I put it in one section has to do with the way this page archives automatically. With that many level 2 sections, older threads are forced to archive prematurely. Eventually, your series of posts would have been split up as well. I was doing you and other editors a favor. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:27, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, in that regard and when that time comes, I will be very capable of salvaging any or all of my archived texts on my own. So you see, there was never any need at all, for you to violate that "wall of text" rule on my behalf. But thanks so very much for your compassionate concerns for my, or should I now say "your", long, long, long list of suggestions, sweetie. And I'll have a few more suggestions for you etc. when I return with a new user account here. Kisses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB91:1003:2696:D89B:E5AF:589:A31F (talk) 02:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Truly a racist past?

A prior anonymous contributor had mentioned a book or booklet titled "Cedar Point and Its Racist Past", but they failed to mention its author. If anyone has further information about that publication, please share here. Regardless, do any other publications perhaps mention any African-Americans et al who were historically involved in the CP business? If so, that would certainly be a worthwhile topic to include in some manner here. Please list any resources here, which would be useful for that inclusion here. Thanks. Here's the link to that archived discussion which mentioned that other publication:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cedar_Point/Archive_2 2607:FB91:1003:2696:D89B:E5AF:589:A31F (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@gonein60

So far, so good, with your progress on cleaning up this Article! And hopefully when I return here with a new user account in the near future, there will be a lot less work to do here. And if you would please leave this specific thread as it is, for purposes of my future discussions with you about how best to proceed on some of my many other current suggestions. One of which, was the proper placement of images within the proper section of an article. I recall seeing a Wikipedia procedure about that, if perhaps it is one of the procedures here with which you are not familiar. At any rate, and in that regard, you seem to have now restored images in improper sections, which I had previously removed from those sections. But I don't wish to get overly critical with you about these things. Including the fact that the Cedar Point signage shown in the one image, is not technically located anywhere near the CP parkinglot. I notice from other contributors' discussions with you, in these same threads etc., that you are a stickler for technicalities, which is fine, and I am certain thar you will continue to apply that same standard to each and every one of your edits. Anyway, I hope that you don't object that this was an overly wordy Thankyou. But thanks. I will presumably have more suggestions, and surely more praise, to include here in the near future. 2607:FB91:1003:2696:D89B:E5AF:589:A31F (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I compared the previous version of the page with the current, and it looks like you only made two changes in regard to images. The historical marker, you moved from left to right, and you removed the Cedar Point beach image. I think it makes sense to keep the marker where it's at now, which is to the left of the paragraph that mentions 1870. And while I agree an updated image of Cedar Point beach would be preferable, I'm not seeing a reason to remove that prior to getting one. What's the issue? Am I missing something? As for the Cedar Point logo you mentioned above, did anything change between 1979 and 1984 other than the trademark? I'm not sure that's a deal-breaker if that's the only change. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

This is exactly why Wikipedia has established a proper procedure of reassessing each edit individually, rather than simply doing a mass revert.

Therefore, for the time being, I will refrain from engaging in any discussions about my edits or my suggestions. Honestly, I had hoped that I wouldn't need to return at all. I thought that I was very concise about my reasons for my edits, and the reasoning behind my additional suggestions. And I believe that Wikipedia policies in regard to the nature of these encyclopedic articles, are fully in agreement with my actions. However, it has now become clear to me that the only way to improve this Article, is for me to become fully engaged as a registered member. In that regard, I will have more time for that in the near future. And at which time, I will also fully familiarize myself with the specific Wikipedia policies which support my positions, so that I can refer you directly to those policies.

I presume there is no real urgency. Anyway, in the meanwhile, be sure to double-check your own and others' edits by viewing them on a smartphone. For instance, the 'tables' in this Article look like a giant mess on a smartphone. I assume that Wikipedia is not just merely intended for NON-smartphone users? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB91:1006:544C:41AD:44C5:8D35:BA09 (talk) 02:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

By the way, when I mentioned about that CP trademarked logo, my point was that in addition to being labeled wrongly, it also serves no real purpose of enhancing this Article. Perhaps it would serve a better purpose in the Cedar Fair article. It's difficult to say without reassessing and revamping the entire Cedar Fair article also, but at the moment, that is outside of my range of interest here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB91:1006:544C:41AD:44C5:8D35:BA09 (talk) 02:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

"I will refrain from engaging in any discussions about my edits"

For someone who is concerned about being reverted, this is not the attitude or right approach to have. You are expected to discuss concerns about your edits, and if you are unwilling, then there's no point in dropping complaints on the talk page. Improvement is subjective in some cases. Just make sure you are keeping good faith toward other editors who want the same.

As for image placement, staggering images left and right is permitted. The downside of doing that, however, is that text can sometimes be squeezed into an unreadable format on mobile devices (or any device with a low screen resolution). Typically, you want a lot of text separating images to avoid that issue. Let me investigate that and reconsider having the landmark plaque image on the left. If a left image is placed too high in the article and runs into the infobox, it can cause issues like you've described.

when I mentioned about that CP trademarked logo...Perhaps it would serve a better purpose in the Cedar Fair article.

Well, it is a "Cedar Point" logo and this is the "Cedar Point" article. I don't see how it's inappropriate to have it here, considering this is also common in other amusement park articles that have a lot of content. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As an update to image placement, I have no issues viewing the page in Chrome on my phone. Chrome centers the image between paragraphs and ignores left and right placement. As for charts, they require you to scroll the page left and right to see the entire chart. It's not pretty, but it's intact. That doesn't mean we abolish the charts altogether, however. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I was very succinct when I stated that I will return to discuss any editing issues you wish, at a later time and as a registered user and after I have had sufficient time to familiarize myself with specific Wikipedia policies so that I can refer you directly to those policies. So I have to wonder why you are already criticizing my decision about that. Unless perhaps you have already decided that you are above and exempt from any Wikipedia policy which I might quote? Anyway, in regard to any image repositioning, I did no such thing. So I suggest you revert your entire reversion back to my most recent edit, and then you can properly critique my edits one at a time, as per proper Wikipedia procedure. And also note that there does not seem to be any appearance of left/right positioning on a smartphone. So why you seem obsessed with such positioning, is even more curious. My objections to the images were that, on a smartphone, they appear in article sections of which they have absolutely no connection. I am sure you yourself are very capable of accessing and perusing the Wikipedia rule about image suitability, without my having to direct you directly to that rule. If not, I will be glad to direct you to it, et al, when time permits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB91:1006:544C:41AD:44C5:8D35:BA09 (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

See my last comment above on image placement. I had that typed before your response, but didn't submit it right away. Images look fine in the Chrome browser on my phone.

You also keep saying policies are being violated, but there's no such thing happening here. I did the courtesy of correcting some of the valid edits that were accidentally reverted. Mistakes happen, but it's not the end of the world. That doesn't exempt the fact that some of the edits I reverted had good reason to be, and your explanation of why you performed them is missing. You're stuck on the mistake (which has been corrected) instead of focusing on the rest of the revert (which is valid). You do not need to be a registered user to have this discussion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

My explanations for each of my individual edits, are exactly where Wikipedia provided the space for those explanations. However, your individual reasons for disputing my edits, are not in the proper space provided, because you did a mass revert. The only way for you to properly approach your oversight, is to undo your mass revert, and then place any comments upon each individual revert which you perform. But you have refused to do that, so, yes, Wikipedia procedures indeed continue to be violated, until those prior violations are properly rectified. Your present piecemeal approach is not in sync with Wikipedia policy, and certainly doesn't rectify your initial oversight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB91:1006:544C:41AD:44C5:8D35:BA09 (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

What has happened is that you tried a change, it was partially reverted (because some of your changes have been reinstated), and now we are discussing on the talk page...EXCEPT, you have stated that you prefer a one-sided discussion where you provide reasons and expect changes to happen, but you don't care to discuss them any further with editors that may have a problem with those edits. The ball is in your court. I have already explained why the revert was done on some edits, and even dug further into the minor concerns about images and charts. As of this post, you still have not addressed the fact that the images display fine on the mobile Chrome browser, which is contradicting your claim that there is a problem. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Also as an FYI, you may want to start with looking over WP:BRD. This is not a policy or guideline per se, but it is accepted etiquette here on Wikipedia. You shouldn't take a reversion personally. Instead, it is an opportunity to discuss in more detail on the talk page while we stick with the status quo in the meantime. Everything moving forward should be based on consensus. Hopefully that helps. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

In the spirit of trying to move the discussion forward, I went back and took a closer look at the various points you made.

• Let's start with this one:

"My objections to the images were that, on a smartphone, they appear in article sections of which they have absolutely no connection."

Regarding images, here are the edits you made: diff1.

You removed the entrance sign image from the lead section without placing it anywhere else in the article. I disagree with blanket removal, but I'm willing to compromise on placing it elsewhere in the article. Open to suggestions, but being the entrance sign to the park, I don't think it's necessarily out of place in the lead. Your proposed removal seems unrelated to your reasoning above, since its presence in the lead introductory section is where one might expect to see the park's logo or entrance sign.

Also in that series of edits, you removed the Cedar Point Beach image. I won't repeat the reason I gave earlier for retaining it, but I'll clarify that I'm not strongly opposed to its removal. It shows an area outside of the park, and the article section it resides in does cover off-site amenities, but the beach is not specifically mentioned in this section. We could either expand the section to mention the beach area right outside of the park's perimeter, or we could simply remove the image as you originally proposed. I'm willing to concede that either decision is an acceptable path forward at this point. I'll leave that up to you.

• Now let's look at the rest of your edits: diff2

1. From the lead section, you removed two statements. The one regarding Steel Vengeance was retained (I disagreed), while the other was not (I agreed). Perhaps you would care to explain why you removed the statement about Steel Vengeance. I don't see that you've addressed that anywhere on this talk page.
2. Further down, you removed several statements from the top of the History section that covers some of the history leading up to Cedar Point's formation. I think I've already addressed why I disagreed with that removal, and if you'd like to discuss further, I'm all ears.
3. In the roller coasters section, you removed a statement about Cedar Point's coaster ranking and the number of coasters. I already addressed this above as well. You called this redundant, but I think that was an educational issue on your part, not realizing that the lead section contains information that is mentioned in the body.

The other remaining changes you made were reverted initially, but they have all since been restored. So the above three examples, as well as your proposed image removal, are the only remaining differences left to discuss. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

And once again you completely ignore the problem you created by doing a mass revert. All of your above objections belong attached to each individual revert on the article page. That is the proper Wikipedia procedure, and for obvious good reasons. One reason being that the objections will remain forever attached to each revert, so that future contributors can also see your reasoning. Because, and exactly as you already stated, these talk-page discussions rapidly dissappear from easy access. But what I still don't understand is why someone who broke multiple rules in their very first interaction with me, why does that same person think that they would have any credibility whatsoever with me, by them disputing my reasoning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB91:1006:544C:41AD:44C5:8D35:BA09 (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

And by the way: no, technically I did not remove the image of the entrance sign to the park, because technically that signage is not at the entrance to the park, technically. And as to your other disputes with my edits and suggestions: all in due time, my friend. All in due time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB91:1006:544C:41AD:44C5:8D35:BA09 (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

"All of your above objections belong attached to each individual revert on the article page. That is the proper Wikipedia procedure..."

Not quite, amigo. Edit summaries are a good starting point, but they are not a substitute for talk page discussion – the preferred method to address disputes. Per WP:BRD:

Don't assume that an edit summary can constitute "discussion". There is no way for others to respond. You can use the article's talk page (preferred) or the editor's user talk page, or invite the editor to the talk page if they insist on using only edit summaries, but one or the other is the proper forum for the discussion...

As for talk page threads getting archived, even you've admitted they're easy to locate. It's a simple process using the provided links at the top of the talk page. Also when I said, "archive prematurely", this is no way meant rapid disappearance. In fact, the archive settings on this page won't archive a thread until it's at least 6 months old. Some stick around even longer depending on the number of new threads generated over time (again, why I collapsed yours into one to reduce that number). Archiving serves a purpose, primarily to reduce clutter, and it can always be disabled or have its frequency modified.

You keep harping on "multiple rules" getting broken along with other silly accusations instead of focusing on the task at hand. For someone who claims to be new here, it's pretty naive to lob such allegations with confidence, unless of course your goal is to kill the conversation. A path forward is staring you right in the face; don't waste your time choosing a path that leads backward. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@gonein60: you spoke volumes with your comment about "silly accusations". It seems very clear now that you feel that you personally can pick and choose which Wikipedia rules are valid rules, and which ones that you personally are exempt. And instead of you doing the only acceptable method of rectifying your improper mass revert, you have instead decided to create an entirely new process to justify that mass revert. But sorry, there is only one approved method to get beyond your mass revert. Which becomes more and more difficult to rectify, as time passes. But in the meanwhile, and while you are still merely making excuses for your actions rather than properly rectifying them, however, I am currently instead utilizing this same time to study all the Wikipedia rules. And it turns out that you are in violation of a lot more of those "silly" rules, than was even first apparent. So, therefore, when I finally feel that I have made myself fully aware of which of the Wikipedia rules you have completely ignored, or which you have simply misrepresented, I will be glad to point them all out to you, here, at my first convenience after becoming a registered user also at my first convenience. By the way, and if you wish, that list will also include your interactions with other contributors, not just with me. Because I see now that this was not the first mass revert that you have performed. Nor do I notice among accepted Wikipedia procedures, that the phrase "reverted to last stable version" is anywhere mentioned as a reason for any good-faith edits, and certainly not as a valid reason for a totally prohibited mass revert. Yet, curiously, you seem to have a penchant for repeatedly utilizing that phrase. Please let me know if you wish me to include other such examples, to you here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB91:100B:6017:F4FF:50E5:88FA:F8B7 (talk) 15:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

You're free to do as you wish. I will also see if we can get a third party to look this over and add some uninvolved, outside perspective. I've tried to push this forward by focusing the discussion on content, but those efforts have been unsuccessful. This talk page doesn't need to filled with discussion about behavior. That's not what article talk pages are for; there are better venues for that. Also, if it helps, the relevant policies regarding editing content and discussion can be found at WP:EPTALK and WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. Other concepts about editing in general are at EPTALK further up on the page. If you have further concerns you'd like to discuss with me unrelated to article content, then they should be addressed in another venue, either on one of our talk pages or at an administrator noticeboard. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

And just a heads up...I went ahead and opened an ANI discussion: WP:ANI#Stalled content dispute gets consumed by editing behavior concerns --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@gonein60: I see that you continue to ignore Wikipedia rules, despite my admonishments. So here is another hint: my personal social status has no bearing upon my ability to contribute to this website, and so, there, is another Wikipedia rule you are violating by discussing it in other threads elsewhere. The only aspect of my editing which you should be evaluating is whether or not I am here to help improve Wikipedia or if instead I am here as merely a vandal. Any other of your assessments and insinuations are entirely inappropriate and absolutely disruptive. To the point: you yourself need to stop violating Wikipedia rules, if you expect the same from others. Anyway, when I have time in January, I will be happy to expand upon my above remarks, and also discuss other improvements to this article. I am certain that reaching a consensus won't be difficult,

after I alert past contributors to this Article, about my intentions to return it to true Good Article status. Certainly you are also welcome to continue your own input in that regard and at that time, of course, and feel free to invite anyone who might be willing to support your own views about it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB91:100B:2D6C:84D3:617C:5031:C149 (talk) 14:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Good Article status

In my opinion, and in the present condition of this article, its Good Article status could easily be challenged. Besides the current issues with its general composition, but there are several additional topics being crammed into this topic. As a result, there is no reasonable space here for other important aspects, such as the fact that independent companies and Concessionaires operated the resort's amusement section etc.. prior to the 1960s. So until the incidental individual topics are separated into their own appropriate Articles, then this CP article should not be considered to be a Good Article. Especially, the fact that the topic of the Cedar Point peninsula seems to be solely integrated into this Article, when in fact the CP peninsula is approximately still 6 miles long, but the resort only occupies a mile or so, of it. The remainder of this geographic area is residential. Clearly the geographic aspect requires a separate Article. And of course the present integration of many things which instead belong in the Cedar Fair company Article, need moved into that Cedar Fair article. That won't be quite as easy a task, due to an obvious overlap between the predecessor Cedar Fair companies, versus the topic of the actual physical resort, of which this CP article encompasses. But that task also still needs accomplished regardless, to make room here for a lot of missing but important additional information. Therefore, my first task as a future registered user, will be to determine if the Good Article status needs to be officially challenged. 2607:FB91:1006:544C:41AD:44C5:8D35:BA09 (talk) 15:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC) Updated comment: there certainly seems to be a sudden attempt to clean up this Article. Unfortunately, some portions of that attempt seem to be setting it back even further from being a Good Article. So here's a hint: unless a person was a sole owner of the business, it would not seem reasonable to solely credit that person's accomplishments. Meaning that each and all of the companies, who operated the physical business, would typically deserve more prominent mention and by precise company-name, for encyclopedic purposes within this specific Article, than any particular individual person who was perhaps merely a stockholder or merely a company executive. In contrast, each individual person who was co-involved as such in each company, would typically instead perhaps warrant prominent mention in the predecessor companies of Cedar Fair, and within that specific Article about Cedar Fair. However, in the recent edits here, it seems that the complete opposite approach is occurring here. I wish I had time to elaborate, but unfortunately this will have to be my last suggestion until after the holidays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB91:100B:6017:F4FF:50E5:88FA:F8B7 (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC) p.s., another contributor to this Article, had already attempted to create a Draft for the Cedar Point Pensinsula. It looks like it needs a little cleanup, but essentially it looks adequate. That contributor also mentions some worthwhile potential additions, on that Draft's talk page, including some sort of apparently significant connection to a former OSU laboratory somewhere on the 7 mile long peninsula. Anyway if anyone who truly wishes to improve this CP business-enterprise Article was actually willing to take a look at that Draft and evaluate why it was previously rejected for Article status, that would save a lot of time, because that geographic CP Peninsula article is essential, so that this CP business-enterprise Article can be put in Good Article shape again. Here is that Draft:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cedar_Point_(Lake_Erie)