Jump to content

Talk:Cedar Point/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Canada Sightings from Magnum

It is possible to see main land Canada from the top of Magnum, as I personally have been able to experience the sighting.

As for Pelee Island, you are not that easily able to view it from Magnum, but it can easily be seen on most days on Millennium Force, as it is only a matter of a mile or so away from kelley's Island, and not much further from Cedar Point.

So yes, it is possible to see mainland Canada from atop Magnum. (Hyde244 00:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC))

Regarding the "urban legend" of seeing Canada from Cedar Point, it is actually possible to see the Toronto skyline (not any land, and mostly just the CN Tower) from the top of Magnum on a clear day. It's been done.70.21.250.8 17:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm going to go out on a limb and suspect that the tower you're seeing is Perry's Monument at Put-in-bay. If you could see Toronto from Cedar Point, you'd also be able to see the Detroit skyline, as it's much closer. The only Canadian territory that can be seen from Cedar Point is Pelee Island, and it has to be a really clear day. --Birdhombre 06:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Correct. Mainland Canada is geometrically much too far to see on any day, no matter how clear, much less Toronto.
Toronto is on Lake Ontario, anyway.
It would take some pretty wild conditions (think mirage in a desert) to see mainland Canada, as it's about 30 miles away at its closest point. Even accounting for refraction in the atmosphere, it is difficult to see beyond 18-19 miles, and the portion of mainland Canada that could be visible does not appear to have any mountainous features that would increase your siteline. See http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/horizon.html. This debate is really moot, as math and physics are pretty clear cut no matter what people have claimed to see. Bgtgwazi 15:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This information has been removed with the trivia section. D0ggieM0mma 14:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Cedar Point

The article for Six Flags Great Adventure also claims that it has the most rides in the world, at 72 (that claim is also sourced by the Guiness Book of World Records). This claim is obviously contradictory to the one claimed here. I've deleted the claim here, as the other seems better sourced (and cites a higher ride number).

Cedar Point has some of the tallest rollercoasters{may be spelled wrong} in the world like Top Thrill Dragster second tallest in the world.

I'm deleting the part about having 3 of the 5 tallest/fastest coasters in North America, as it is verifiably false, sadly. I'll leave the part in for now about 2 of the 3 tallest/fastest in the world, although this is a debatable claim (I personally agree with it). Sly Si 18:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It's also (according to rcdb.com) false that Cedar Point has 2 of the top 3 in NORTH AMERICA, let alone the world. They DO have 2 of 5 in North America (TTD-2nd; MF-4th [height and speed]), but with regards to world records, Millennium Force drops to 6th in height (behind 4 US coasters, Steel Dragon 2K (Japan), and Tower of Terror (Australia)) and down to 7th speed (behind previously mentioned roller coasters and Dodonpa, in Japan). RCDB ranks MF as 5th for both, but their numbering system does not account for ties (Superman and Tower of Terror tied at 100mph) nor coasters that are standing, but not operating (Steel Dragon has been SBNO for 3 years). I do suppose it's dependent on if you account for Superman: The Escape and Tower of Terror in the records. They ARE rollercoasters, but not complete-circuit roller coasters. Thus they should be given credit where it is due in terms of records. VexedTechie 20:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. The debatability I mentioned revolves around exactly the coasters you mentioned. The questions to answer are: 1. Are Superman and Tower of Terror "roller coasters" in a strong enough sense to be considered in the height/speed records? 2. Does Steel Dragon count if it's SBNO? 3. If we're trying to describe the X "tallest and fastest" coasters, how do we deal with Dodonpa, which may be in the X fastest, but not the X tallest? I have no idea how to answer 3. Perhaps the wording should just be changed to say "tallest". As for 1 and 2, I think the best thing is to put a CONCISE note in the article about the debate, as perfectly reasonable people can and do disagree. Sly Si 01:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, would it be safe to report Cedar Point as having "2 of the top 3 tallest operating complete-circuit roller coasters"?

The article also states that Cedar Point has 69 rides, but I only counted 68. Can some one clear this up for me? Rpachico 01:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I checked Cedar Point's website and also counted 68 rides. I fixed the article in accordance.--Coaster1983 20:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
It's back to 69 again. Can someone please tell me the mystery ride that is not on Cedar Point's website but numbered here is? Rpachico 04:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. I had switched it because it was 68 prior to Maverick being unveiled many moons ago and a Cedar Point commercial that I've seen repeatedly states 69 rides. But, yes, their site only lists 68. But, since White Water Landing was removed for Maverick it makes sense it should still be 68. Very curious...I'll switch it back until someone figures it out. Stratosphere (U T) 05:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The Answer to the question about Six Flags Magic Mountain is that Psyclone is demolished and Flashback is preparing for demolition, making only 16 rides, with 15 operating. Note that everywhere you see "Cedar Point has the most coasters operating in the park in the world" it says operating. So that Means that the same applies to the year before, too, because Flashback was not operating in the park. That also means that Cedar Point had the most in 2005, 2004, and 2003.If shockwave was operating, there would be only 16 rides.

Cedar Point now has 76 rides counting Power Tower's both sides because they each have their own DOR's, they count as 2 separate turnstiles. So that puts CP back as the top ride park in the world. I'm proceeding to add that back into the article. 98.28.69.39 (talk) 05:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

SFMM vs CP

Regarding my edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cedar_Point&oldid=48652438): The debate between who has more coasters has been ongoing for years. The problem I see with having the wording that I removed is that it is opinionated. There is no specific criteria or definition regarding counting roller coasters. If a roller coaster is Standing But Not Operating (SBNO) does not mean that it shouldn't be counted, nor does it mean it should be counted. The Superman: The Escape is classified as a reverse freefall launched coaster. Wicked Twister is classified as an Impulse roller coaster, Top Thrill Dragster is classified as a hydraulically launched coaster. By definition, amongst the community, they are all roller coasters.

Since the wording (and the edit war) was adding/removing comments that weren't really justified, I've removed them. They are commented out in the article in case someone finds an official document from some respected authority that affirms either of wording that has appeared. Until then, I believe it's unencyclopedic and should probably be omitted. Stratosphere 02:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Dewikification of Rides

I've gone and removed all the garish redlinks from the non-unique rides lists. In addition, incorrect wikilinks, such as to Motorcycles and Sky Ride.

What I would suggest is that you have a look at what I've done at Luna Park Sydney#Current rides, and adapt that to these lists. Basically, what you'd do if you follow this example, is to write a small number of sentances concerning the ride, mentioning things such as the year it was introduced to the park, the type of ride (wikilink to this if an article exists), and any other interesting facts. It's make for a much tidier and informative list. -- Saberwyn 08:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Project Maverick

Cedar Point is currently constructing its new attraction for 2007. Not much is known at this time, but the construction area is located on the site of the recently removed White Water Landing. At this time, the only fact known is that the manufacturer of the ride will be Intamin AG, with a possible name of Maverick.

Whoa, the manufacturer "is known" to be Intamin? Last I heard, it was S&S Power, the same company that made Skyhawk. Rumor is that Skyhawk was a "teaser" for the 2007 project, much as Wicked Twister was Intamin's "teaser" before Top Thrill Dragster. I'm not sure what to believe. "Maverick" may not even be the name of the 2007 project; Cedar Fair trademarked it, but it could also be used for one of their other parks. --Birdhombre 20:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is red track outside the Breakers Express covered in a blue tarp. When the wind picks up, it looks suspiciously like Intamin's trademark box-track design. The common opinion on forums such as coasterbuzz and pointbuzz are that it IS, in fact, Intamin-built track. VexedTechie 02:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
After I typed that, I checked out some of the links ThePointOnline had regarding 2007, and found this thread, which shows the pictures VexedTechie is referring to. I agree, it looks Intamin to me. I guess we don't know for sure that these pieces of track are for Maverick/2007, but it certainly is interesting. --Birdhombre 02:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I was at Cedar Point on Thursday, May 11 (minimal crowds, always a plus) and the wind picked up rather heavily. In the morning, as I drove past the Breakers Express, it appeared as if the wind had pulled half the tarp out from the track, as I could see the length of a track piece. I would venture a guess that it is, in fact, for the 2007 project, as the shade of red was FAR brighter than that of Top Thrill Dragster, the only other red, Intamin-Built ride. I also snapped a fair share of photos of the construction site in frontier-land. If those photos might be incorporated into the Cedar Point page, let me know. I'm new with image uploading on Wikipedia. VexedTechie 04:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Not sure if you've all been following, but Pointbuzz has a rather regular-intervaled photo update gallery of construction for the 2007 ride. Pointbuzz 2007 Watch

It is most assuredly a roller coaster. I just had my wedding there last weekend (8/12/06), and the supports were already in place and clearly for that of a roller coaster. Just checked the CP website and they've already laid track in the intervening week. It's red, and very much of the Intamin style.


I believe until September 7th, not to have any links to leaked information about this roller coaster.

I feel as if this it getting a little out of hand. The past couple edits to this page (to which I've payed attention) were solely the re-organization/shuffling of the external links section. It seems as if it's a "politics"-thing...posting the links that others would like to gain web-traffic for. Could we reach the agreement that as newer, relevant links are added, they are to go on the bottom of the external links section? VexedTechie 04:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I honestly think that we are getting a little too eager in deleting virtually every link in the external links section. I would definitely like to see some of these restored. Yeah, there were some rather blatant commercial sites there, but Point Xtreme? come on... that's a good site. Yeah, we obviously don't want a site just selling tickets, but if a site has some useful information on the park or pictures of the park, I think it warrants being kept. Irongargoyle 17:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Welcome to Wiki, where editors are too full of themselves. Sorry, you're not going to have any luck talking to these people. Their heads are in the wikiclouds. Read this for a good perspective: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=11109 The fan sites should be listed in order of size and/or how established they are, with new ones going to the bottom. Then there is no argument. Doesn't matter as the Wiki elite don't get it!
I don't agree completely with that page you linked too, but I do thank you for the perspective on how to add fan sites to the bottom of the page if I make that decision at some point. Best, Irongargoyle 13:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Since "how good" a site really is, is a matter of one's opinion, why not just list them in alphabetical order, after cedarpoint.com and be done with it. Then there's no dispute as to who is where. 04:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I never said anything about "how good" any site was. That's what all you fan site guys need to avoid. Just trying to help you guys come up with an objective way to list your sites. Size and establishment is pretty easy to see and is about as objective as your going to get. Which is something that Cedar Point Online .com kid didn't get. But like I said, it's all irrelevant, because the Wiki self-righteous police have spoken.
I think the external link section right now is really bad and needs work. Many of the sites that are currently on it should not be. Two links that should be added are to Point Buzz and The Point Online. The order should be CedarPoint.com, PointBuzz.com, ThePointOL.com, PointPixels, and DMOZ. Cedar Point Online is a new website that does not offer any information, it just promotes itself. The Theme Park Review Page is only about Maverick, and therefore should not be on this page. TPOLMike 16:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The "Facts" Section

Just a comment. The facts section has become rather large. It might be a good opportunity to break the list up and convert it into actual prose, rather than a bulleted list. -- Stratosphere (U T) 01:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree since WP:Trivia suggests that trivia sections should be integrated into other sections of the article. The trivia section has gotten quite long and should be pared down or eliminated. I have deleted a piece of trivia already in the lead section and place the Trivia template in the article.--Coaster1983 05:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, the part about someone getting scalped at Geauga Lake are completely false. Snopes has an article about it here: http://www.snopes.com/horrors/techno/scalped.asp Rpachico 02:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The facts section has been removed. The info has been moved to other sections where appropriate. Information not retained is on related pages which are linked to from this page. D0ggieM0mma 14:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

16 vs 17

Isn't "(as of 2007)" enough of a qualifier for the number of coasters? Irongargoyle 03:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The industry doesn't count a ride if it isn't finished, that's all I'm saying. The pertinent information regarding the coaster count is addressed in the section under "Maverick." If you put (as of 2007) as a qualifier, not only does it sound strange (as if we're in 2008 referring to last year), but you'd need to increment all the other references in the article regarding 16 coasters and 68 rides by one, but then qualify those with (as of 2007). My opinion is to leave it out of the count, at all, until the structure is complete. I agree it's a technicality, but it's main purpose is to maintain consistency and readability throughout the article. Cheers -- Stratosphere (U T) 03:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Banshee Naming Issues?

The article states:

The name was quickly changed when the marketing department realized the full negative connotations of the word 'banshee' and all 'The Banshee' stickers, pins and other promotional materials that had been given to employees were recalled.

Perhaps I'm an idiot, but what are the "full negative connotations" of the word "banshee"? I don't think I'm so far out of the mainstream that these problems could be considered common knowledge, so it would be nice to have a better explanation in the text. --Gmaletic 06:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better if we just borrow the text from the Mantis (roller coaster) article:
Mantis initially was to be named "Banshee," but had the name dropped because of complaints about the word's death-oriented origin. Two months after dropping the Banshee name, Cedar Point renamed the coaster Mantis (but the sound the coaster makes as the cars roll, originally intended to sound like a wailing banshee, remains). As the coaster's name was changed, so was its logo; Dorney Park adopted the Banshee logo for its hypercoaster Steel Force, which opened in 1997.
The story goes that naming a roller coaster after a demon of death wasn't the best idea. Although considering how much my feet ache after riding it, I think the original name might be more appropriate. ;) --Birdhombre 12:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm..."Banshee" is a problem, but other rides called "Demon Drop" and "Disaster Transport" aren't? These rides are supposed to sound scary...that's the whole idea. This whole "Banshee" naming story doesn't sound that plausible to me. Would anyone have a problem with removing it entirely from this page? (That is, unless someone can come up with a substantive source for the story.)--Gmaletic 22:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
It would be nice if we could get word straight from the source (Cedar Point). I'll offer these up, for what they're worth: Roller Coaster Database says a newspaper printed the definition of "banshee," after which CP changed the name to Mantis, which had already been on a list of possible names. According to this page, the name change took place a mere four days after the original announcement. Many people seem to confirm the "they changed it because of the death connotation" story, but no specifics on whether someone complained, or if it was a newspaper article, or CP did it entirely on their own.
Incidentally, this page includes a picture of the original Banshee logo, which might be an interesting item to include in the Mantis article. --Birdhombre 23:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Banshee info contained in the "Trivia" section has been removed. This information is already contained on the Mantis page. D0ggieM0mma 14:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Skyhawk

There is a somewhat orphaned article about this coaster. It survived an AfD debate, but the general consensus was to merge it into this article, which makes good sense. I may do it if I find the time, but essentially listing it here as a to-do. --KeithB 05:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Skyhawk is not a coaster. I don't think that Skyhawk should be merged with this page, it would look incredibly tacky. Skyhawk should be included (as it already is) in the Screamin' Swing page, as that is it's brand of ride. Since it is not unique to the park, it doesn't really need its own special page. (Coasterman1234 20:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC))

Resorts

I think a new section should be created for the resorts at Cedar Point. Cedar Point is not just an amusement park, but it is a vacation destination for many families every summer. The resorts should be mentioned on this page. The resorts are: Hotel Breakers, Sandcastle Suites, Lighthouse Point, Camper Village, Breakers Express, Castaway Bay, Cedar Point Marina, and Castaway Bay Marina. More information may be found at http://resorts.cedarpoint.com TPOLMike 04:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. A resort section would be great. Hyde244 23:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

With the very rich history of these resorts (Hotel Breakers is quite famous) you may be able to start a new page and link to it from the CP page. It's something to consider. D0ggieM0mma 14:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Vertigo

I noticed today that the article was leaving a very important part of Cedar Point's recent history. The retired rides section didn't contain Vertigo, a ride built in 2002. I realise that most people aren't familier with the ride, due to its short life of 1 season, but it upset me that it wasn't on the page, and so I made an article so people would be familier with the ride. Coastrcrazd 19:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Rides

Just wanted to remind everyone that Cedar Point has 70 rides; not 69; the website may list 69 rides, but RipCord, Cedar Point's Skycoaster, is not listed. It is the only ride not listed there. This makes the ride total 70; not 69 rides. Just wanted to clear that up. 71.172.229.167 02:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong. Cedar Point knows how many rides they have, and it is 69, not 70. RipCord is located in Challenge Park, which is not included in admission to Cedar Point. RipCord costs an extra fee, which is another reason as to why it is not included in the number. TPOLMike (talk) 05:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

HalloWeekends

I see someone added a section about HalloWeekends... but it reads as if it was copy-pasted from a Cedar Point brochure or the website or something. It's definitely not wiki-fied, so while I think info about HalloWeekends is good, the info needs some editing. I can help when I have more time, but in case anyone else wants to take a crack at it... justaredherring 01:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Check Your Facts Before Editing!!

Hey there guys, I just got done reviewing the Ride facts real quick, and discovered some incorrect information on passengers per car, ride manufacturer, and a false statement about Skyhawk.

So please, be sure to double check your facts before you post.

Realize that if you screw up, you are just making more work for others, and hurting rather than helping.

So again, double check your facts, and we can make this page as best as possible! (Hyde244 (talk) 04:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC))

Geographical names

Perhaps a disambiguation page is in order, since there are many, many instances of "Cedar Point" in the GNIS (242, although some are bound to be duplicates or irrelevant), including the cape (ID 1085456) and "populated place" (ID 1056777) where the amusement park is located, plus another cape with the same name a few miles east (ID 1038908). Mapsax (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cedar Point (disambiguation) contains links to all the current Wikipedia articles with "Cedar Point" in their titles. --Ken Gallager (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

76 rides?

I know that Cedar Point is getting seven new rides this year (Planet Snoopy), but isn't it going to replace or renovate six of them (Woodstock Express is staying)? --CPGACoast (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Cedar Point did not remove any rides to make room for Planet Snoopy. They removed Peanuts Playground, which was a children's play area and did not have any rides.TPOLMike (talk) 23:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

WBGU-PBS did an educational documentary about the history of Cedar Point that "examines the first 125 years of history of America's oldest regularly operating amusement park through interviews, photographs, and rare film footage." I believe that it would be a useful addition to this article. Please let me know where best to place a reference to the website.

http://wbgu.org/community/documentary/CedarPoint/CPMemories.html

Melancor (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Demon Drop

As far as I remember, the demon drop was sold and thus is not a ride at cedar point anymore —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.103.99.130 (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

i dont know anything about it being sold or not but it still is there and still operates there so yes it is still a ride there--Cmedinger (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Still a ride, it is up for sale right now though. DavidWS (contribs) 21:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Do you know where to find a reffrance to it being sold?--Cmedinger (talk) 21:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
As of November 17th, 2009 the ride is being dismantled and shipped to Knott's Berry Farm in Southern California. http://www.cedarpoint.com/public/fun/blog/index.cfm ThemeParker 19:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Re-edited my link, realized I C n' P'd the wrong blog entry. ThemeParker 19:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Jr. Gemini Deletion

Jr. Gemini should have its own page and just needs to be expanded. Contrary to some users here, it is a roller coaster and is included in the 17 point coaster count at the park. Just because it is a smaller ride does not mean it does not qualify to have its own page.TPOLMike (talk) 03:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggested link: http://wikitravel.org/en/Cedar_Point

I was going to add the above link myself, when I saw this message: "If you think that your link might be useful, do not add it here, but put it on this article's discussion page first"

Generally open wiki's aren't encouraged, but it looks like this one is widely accepted here. I say go ahead and add it. EDIT: although it looks like most articles using it are regional or for a specific city, not necessarily a single attraction in that city. DP76764 (Talk) 19:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


4 coaster over 200 ft??

Magnum, Millennium Force, and Top Thrill Dragster are over 200 ft. There is no fourth as far as I know. This needs to be corrected in the opening paragraph unless someone can list what the fourth coaster > 400 ft is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.59.153.232 (talk) 17:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Wicked Twister, at 215 feet, is the fourth coaster over 200 feet. Coaster1983 (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

On-Site Resorts and Campgrounds

The more I reread that section of the article, the more it sounds to me like an advertisement for the said resorts. Any suggestions on making it more encyclopedic? Brownie Charles (talk) 22:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Cedar Point/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Batard0 (talk · contribs) 17:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I will pick this one up. First impressions: it reads well. Well done on the prose. I think I'll go in and make a few minor edits for clarity and conciseness (discuss if you disagree) and then we'll have to sort out some of the other issues. I anticipate the main challenge here will be sourcing: there are fairly large blocks of text in the article that aren't adequately sourced. I hope we can fix this.--Batard0 (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the article! Just leave all your comments here and I'll be glad to address them.--Astros4477 (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Review: The article is generally in good shape. There are, however, a few issues I think we need to address before it meets the GA criteria.

First, a few general points:

1) Use of the passive voice is pervasive. This detracts from the otherwise good and clear prose. The heavy use of the passive stems mainly from repeated descriptions of ride openings as "X was built in X year." I would suggest going through and trying to convert these to active constructions wherever possible. I'm not saying all of them should be converted; that's not necessary. But if you could use constructions like "X opened in X year" or "debuted" or "launched" more often, I think it'd be helpful. Done

2) There seems to be some inconsistency in the use of quotation marks around rides. Some are framed with quotations; others aren't. It would be nice if this were consistent. Done

Italics was another issue. Amusement park articles do not typically italicize ride names, so I have removed them from this article. — GoneIn60 (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
That's helpful. More consistency is always good.--Batard0 (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

3) The biggest issue, however, is referencing. The final paragraph of the Boeckling era section is entirely uncited. So are the second and third paragraphs of the following section. There are numerous other places where more citations are necessary. A few of them are as follows:

  • "As railroad travel becoming increasingly common, rapid development of the area began."
I just removed this statement, it's not really needed.--Astros4477 (talk) 02:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I felt that the significance of this statement is needed to describe the area's economic growth which has direct ties to tourism. I added a modified version of this to the end of the first paragraph in the History section. Please review and provide feedback if necessary. — GoneIn60 (talk) 12:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
This is fine. All it needed was a reference, and this is a good one.--Batard0 (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "Edward Smith took over Cedar Point's management after the death of Boeckling. Little expansion happened through the 1930s; one of the few rides built in that period was the Tumble Bug. The decaying Leap the Dips coaster was demolished in the mid-1930s. In the 1940s, the restaurants at Cedar Point, including Ross' Hot Dogs, Coffelt's Fudge, Green and Silver Grill, Castle Sandwich Shop, and Momma Berardi's Home Made French Fries, flourished." Done
  • "In the 1960s, the idea of "pay one price" season passes became common." Done
  • "Those plans fell through, however. Cedar Point & Lake Erie Railroad opened in 1963, transporting passengers from the middle of the park to the back. In 1964, Cedar Point opened its oldest surviving roller coaster, the Blue Streak. It was named after the local high school's sports teams, the Sandusky Blue Streaks." Done
  • "The Cedar Creek Mine Ride opened in 1969; it is currently the second oldest rollercoaster at Cedar Point." Done
  • "In 1970, the Centennial Theatre, named in honor of Cedar Point's 100th anniversary, was opened. In 1975, Robert L. Munger Jr. took over as president of Cedar Point after Roose retired. The record-breaking Corkscrew roller coaster was built in 1976; it was the first roller coaster to span a midway and have three inversions. The Gemini opened in 1978 as the tallest and fastest roller coaster in the world." Done
  • It would be good if you could find newspaper or book references for the information in the Dick Kinzel era section. A timeline on a website probably isn't the most reliable source. I would suggest consulting Google News Archive for possible assistance. Done
  • "This was the first time since 1978 that a roller coaster was removed from Cedar Point." Done

That's all for now. I think if we can get these citation issues taken care of, it'll basically be fine.--Batard0 (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I have fixed everything above, what do you think?--Astros4477 (talk) 04:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Good work. We're making some progress. I still have reservations about the sourcing. One of the GA criteria requires references to reliable and verifiable sources. I would submit that timelines on coaster websites don't fully meet that standard. I'll add some more detail in a bit and perhaps we can get this fixed.--Batard0 (talk) 04:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
During the peer review, the reviewer mentioned that this source is really good. It pretty much has everything the timelines have escept in prose. We could replace the timelines with that website. It has 11 pages though so we would have to create a seperate ref for each page, that's no problem though.--Astros4477 (talk) 05:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I have fixed most of the timeline referencing.--Astros4477 (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all the good work. This is on track, but I'm going to take another careful look and get back to you. An official Cedar Point timeline I think is a fine source. I just want to make sure that all of what we say in the text is actually present in the references, so I'll do a spot check.--Batard0 (talk) 05:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Going through for a second pass, here's what I'm noticing:

  • You might consider getting a reference for the following sentence in the lead: "Known as "America's Roller Coast", Cedar Point is currently tied with Canada's Wonderland for the second-most roller coasters in a park." This is potentially challengeable, so I think it may be wise to source it and perhaps even give a date (i.e. as of XXXX year, it was tied with Canada's Wonderland). It's also somewhat unclear whether we're talking about the second-most in the world or North America or some other region. If it's in the world, I don't think we need to say that because it's implicit, but I want to make sure I'm understanding it properly.--Batard0 (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)  Done
  • At one point in the Boeckling era section we say Cedar Point "was beginning to excel as an amusement park." This seems slightly POV to me. I'd recommend a more neutral alternative, such as "grow as an amusement park" or "grow in popularity as an amusement park" or "gain popularity as an amusement park" or "catch on as an amusement park." The word "excel" isn't terrible, but I think there are more neutral alternatives.--Batard0 (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)  Done
  • The final paragraph of the Boeckling era section is cited with one source, but the page that's linked does not include all of the information discussed. I understand that the source has 11 pages and the info is scattered throughout them, but I would seriously recommend doing one of two things: 1) make the reference link go to the first page of the history; linking it to the fifth page implies that all the relevant information is there; or 2) put a separate reference after every one or two sentences that links to the appropriate page in this history. Since the rest of the refs follow the latter style when they cite the same source, I'd suggest doing the same here.--Batard0 (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)  Done
  • Moving to the first part of the After Boeckling section, footnote 16 goes to a Cedar Point history page that does not include any reference to Edward Smith taking over or any of the restaurants that are listed. A lot of the other information in the following paragraphs simply isn't in the sources in footnotes 13 and 16.--Batard0 (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)  Done
  • Moving to the second para of the Dick Kinzel era, I think you should cite the stats on the Magnum XL-200 immediately after you mention them, even if you end up repeating footnote 27. Same for the Mean Streak. They're in the sources, but these things are potentially challengeable. Same goes for stats about the Mantis, maXair, Skyhawk and Maverick. In general, I think any sentence that includes statistical claims about a ride or its records should include a reference at the end.--Batard0 (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)  Done
No, it was just the way it was done. Should it be the other way?--Astros4477 (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm ok with it the way it is, I suppose; it's not a big deal. It just seems odd to start a timeline in the present and go backwards...usually timelines are in chronological order.--Batard0 (talk) 20:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I have completed everything.--Astros4477 (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I think it meets the criteria now, as far as I can tell. Well done.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

After making some improvements, the article meets the GA criteria.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    The prose is clear and concise, and is free of grammatical and spelling mistakes.
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    It meets basic MoS requirements.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    The references are adequate for the subject.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Inline citations are provided as necessary.
    C. No original research:
    There's no OR here.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    It covers the major aspects of the topic.
    B. Focused:
    It doesn't go into unnecessary detail.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    POV issues have been corrected.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    No edit wars.
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Images are from commons or have fair-use rationales.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Images are appropriate for the topic.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    It meets the GA criteria.

Records

Wouldn't it be good to have a records section in the article? User:Roller Coaster Rider (Jonathan) —Preceding undated comment added 13:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you talking about park records or individual ride records?-- Astros4477 (Talk) 18:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Gemini

The Gemini roller coaster is not and never has been the tallest, longest, or fastest in the world when it first opened (though Astros4477 pointed out that it did have the longest drop). I attempted to make light of this on the Cedar Point page with multiple sources cited, but the changes were reverted. I will place a summary here for reference and you can easily find this information on rcdb.com. One month prior to Gemini's opening, a taller roller coaster named Loch Ness Monster at Busch Gardens Williamsburg had opened (there is a commemorative plaque next to the ride at the park made by a third party stating this fact). Also, a faster roller coaster named Screamin' Eagle at Six Flags St. Louis had opened prior to Gemini's opening. In addition, a longer roller coaster named Montaña Rusa at La Feria Chapultepec Magico had been operating for years prior to Gemini's opening. So, I am making a small edit to the page to indicate that these false claims were simply advertised by the park and are not factual. To FirstDrop87, please do not revert this change. Gemini was not the tallest or fastest roller coaster when it opened and whatever sources you found that contradict this are referencing what Cedar Point itself had stated back in 1978, which, again, are not true. Jackdude101 (Talk) 19:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the revert. I believe the Gemini page needs to list out these other coasters to clear up the confusion.FirstDrop87 (talk) 18:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit conflict

@107.203.32.141: Your recent edits include unsourced information and do not include edit summaries informing other editors why you are making these changes. Some appear to be minor and unnecessary as well. In addition, you've had multiple notices posted to your talk page. Please describe the reasons for making these changes here, and perhaps we can help you with what you are trying to accomplish. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Pipe Scream

According to Cedar Point themselves, they consider it a roller coaster. Should this be mentioned on the page, at least where the Pipe Scream info is located? Pyrotle…the "y" is silent, BTW. 03:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's the problem ... amusement parks are prone to exaggeration and self-promotion, which is one of the reasons we have WP:PRIMARY. If Cedar Point feels there's a promotional edge to calling a flat ride a roller coaster, they'll do it. Six Flags is trying that with its new Giant Loop installations at four of its parks in 2015, calling these flat rides roller coasters. RCDB, a noted independent source often used here for roller coaster facts, does not call Pipe Scream a roller coaster any more than it calls the Giant Loop installs at Six Flags parks roller coasters. In the Wikipedia world, independent sources supersede primary sources. --McDoobAU93 04:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/roller+coaster

By definition of the world roller coaster pipe scream is a roller coaster def found at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/roller+coasterhttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/roller+coasterhttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/roller+coaster — Preceding unsigned comment added by MitchellLunger (talk • contribs) 20:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Dictionaries are not considered reliable for this use as they are subject to interpretation on the definition being provided. --McDoobAU93 19:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Number of Roller Coasters

Cedar Points number of roller coasters as of 2016 will 18 not 17. This is because both Cedar Point and Cedar Fair count Pipe Scream as Cedar Point's 17th roller coaster. If you don't believe me please click on this link or paste this link in your address bar: https://www.cedarpoint.com/things-to-do/roller-coasters. MitchellLunger (talk) 00:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

@MitchellLunger: Refer to the previous discussion above (see McDoobAU93's comments). Self-promotion does not override reliable sources, and our reliable source here is RCDB.com (link). As you can see, it is not counted as a roller coaster. If you have another reliable source that says otherwise, then we can certainly reconsider. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Ridelover71504, see the comments above about the number of roller coasters at Cedar Point. This has been discussed, and if there's something you'd like to dispute or add, please do so here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

i say there is 18,because there is i keep saying that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridelover71504 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm sure you're well aware by now that edit-warring will not be tolerated, and you've been warned before. Cedar Point counts Pipe Scream as a roller coaster, but the industry does not. This is stated above and described in more detail. If you disagree, then you'll need to gain consensus for the edit you're trying to make. I suggest you visit the Welcome page for help getting started on Wikipedia. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Labour Day

Labour Day is May the first. The article states the opening times as from early May to Labour day, i.e. 1 day. Your definition of Labour day must be different to the majority of the world. Please clarify using recognisable dates that don't require knowledge of Australian bank holidays. --93.155.220.96 (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

First of all, the article topic is a US topic, and therefore the article is written from a US perspective in the spirit of MOS:TIES. In the US, Labor Day is always the first Monday of September, so the exact date varies from year to year. It is linked to the Labor Day article, and I don't think it is necessary to put it into further context. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
The opening of that paragraph needed some updating unrelated to this discussion. So in the process of making a few changes, I added "in September" after "Labor Day". Hopefully that makes this more clear that it's referring to the US holiday. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Raptor

The section on Raptor states that it's the first inverted coaster to feature a cobra roll. This is backed up by source 30, but the source is incorrect. The batwing element first appeared 10 years earlier on the Sea Serpent in Wildwood, NJ.
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roller_coaster_elements — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.53.52.202 (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Cedar Point. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cedar Point. 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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cedar Point. 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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Cedar Point. 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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cedar Point. 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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

There are 18 coasters, this is confirmed by their website. Plus it even says so in their maps at the park.

When Cedar Point themselves says there is 18 coasters then the page should reflect that. DreamWarrior145 (talk) 20:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

See my initial response here: User talk:GoneIn60#Cedar Point. If you still have questions after reading that, fire away. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Pipe Scream is no more a roller coaster than the Larson Super Loops that Six Flags tries to call roller coasters. Wikipedia prioritizes reliable sources over primary sources that will have an incentive to fudge the numbers to make themselves look better. --McDoobAU93 21:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
What "reliable" source says it isn't a coaster? DreamWarrior145 (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Every amusement-related trade and enthusiasts journal out there: Amusement Today, RollerCoaster magazine, First Drop magazine, Kirmes, FunWorld, Park World, NAPHA Chronicle, ACE News. The list goes on... —JlACEer (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
What makes RCDB a reliable source? Nothing makes it so. DreamWarrior145 (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
If you are going to ask and then provide your own answer in the same statement then we have to wonder if you are really interested in hearing the opinions of others, but here goes: RCDB.com has been in service since 1996. It is well sourced, and there are hundreds, if not thousands of expert contributors. It is recognized and used for research by all of the trade journals listed in my answer above as well as news sources all over the planet including The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Toledo Blade, Orlando Sentinel, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Time, Forbes, Mail & Guardian, Chicago Sun-Times, and the BBC — to name a few. And, of course, Wikipedia.—JlACEer (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Instead of searching for evidence that something isn't true, you should be focusing on providing evidence that backs up your claim. So far, all you've provided is a primary source that's biased. You'll need more than that. If you're still not sure what a primary source is, read WP:PSTS. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Number of Rollercoasters

In the article, it says there are 17 rollercoasters at Cedar Point. Cedar Point's website says otherwise. Here's where I found the number of rollercoasters at Cedar Point: Roller Coasters | Adrenaline Rush Activities | Cedar Point. I counted the number of rollercoasters on their rollercoasters page and I counted 18, not 17. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridebuilder5 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Refer to the discussion directly above this entry. That should answer your questions.—JlACEer (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

"Blazing dragon" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Blazing dragon. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. CycloneYoris talk! 22:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Incident on October 19, 2019

"It was the first time in the company’s history that it was forced to limit access to the park." (Nov. 6 article) That article links to the one published the day of the incident. Notable enough to include in the timeline, or maybe just the HalloWeekends article? Mapsax (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Summer Employment

I think it would be interesting to add something discussing the overseas summer employment program and the different countries employees have come from. Bridge2020 (talk) 03:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia focuses on the significant aspects of a particular topic, not ALL aspects. If there are reliable sources (other than Cedar Point) discussing this, then post them here for others to evaluate. There needs to be significant coverage, and typically something like this wouldn't belong on Wikipedia. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Also, I don't think that adding the different countries of employees would be an important thing to mention, even with reliable sources. epicgenius (talk) 04:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

150th season controversy

  • February 1, 1952 — Sandusky Register from Sandusky, Ohio —- Page 8: “NORWALK, Feb. 1 — Kiwanians at their weekly meeting were given some of the 70-year history of Cedar Point by W. H. Evans, public relations director of the resort.” [see also the Norwalk Reflector, same date (Feb.1) which twice mentions that 1952 is Cedar Point’s “70th season”, as per W.H.Evans.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:84A:8DC5:93E:3559 (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Sandusky Register Star News; December 31, 1952 —- Page 8 [year recap]: “June 13 - Cedar Point set for opening of 70th season”
I haven't looked into those sources yet, but here are my initial thoughts. If 1952 was the 70th season, that means 1883 was the first. I believe you were championing 1888 as the first season, per the discussion on JlACEer's talk page. These sources wouldn't support that by the looks of it unless I'm missing something. Do you happen to have any others you've come across? By the way, please indent your responses by using colons (:), add bullet points using an asterisk (*), and sign your posts at the end with ~~~~. I would suggest you read Help:Talk pages to learn more about formatting these discussions. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
...with those ‘1952’ news items, I was not inferring that the Park’s own promotional data in 1952, presented an accurate account of the “first season”.....merely that they dispute the Park’s current promotional data.
Personally, I opted for the 1888 date, because that source was probably less biased...having been prepared by local-historians at a much earlier period. However, you(etc.) will have to decide for yourselves as to which data is the most pertinent for your/Wiki purposes. But ALL of these early sources seem to indicate that there was at least one significant gap (or several gaps) in yearly operations, between 1870 and 1882 (etc.), then later re-started by totally different businessmen. So either 1882, or 1888, could potentially be a legitimate establishment year of the PRESENT-DAY enterprise. But “1870” should NOT be presented on Wiki as being a legitimate beginning year for the establishment of the PRESENT enterprise. (The incidental fact that the different enterprises were periodically established at various locations somewhere upon the 6-mile-long Cedar Point PENINSULA, would be irrelevant to the ‘founding’ year of the present-day enterprise.)< nowiki>2600:1009:B146:8817:84A:8DC5:93E:3559 (talk) 00:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)</nowiki>
Well, we should keep in mind that 3 of the 4 sources you mentioned directly above were all published by the same publisher and written by the same staff (and perhaps even the same author, though I haven't checked that yet). Also, the Firelands Pioneer source from 1921 describes 1888 as the year significant improvements occurred and, in their opinion, the first year a "concerted effort" was made to operate the area as a public resort. Other sources later on refer to 1888 as an expansion year. The resort existed before this, as other structures were already in place, and both Dwelle and Slackford had been investing in the area for years prior to that expansion. It doesn't seem logical to conclude that 1888 was the first year of operation, even if we only look at the 1921 source.
Second, it's reasonable to assume that sources today are taking multiple sources from the past into consideration when they draw conclusions. This is what legit secondary sources are supposed to do. It's always possible that one or two modern sources are incorrect and haven't done adequate research, but as the number of sources involved increases, the likelihood of being incorrect decreases. Authors researching historical archives today have a lot more tools at their disposal than authors of the past had, and sometimes, a little known fact may go uncovered for decades. Some of the details we know today, for example, may not have been widely known or widely published at the time when earlier sources drew their conclusions. If we look at the 1921 source, for example, there is zero mention of the German immigrant, Louis Zistel, and his contributions in the 1870s. Why is that? Was there bias against German immigrants at the time that may have influenced that exclusion? Was the fact simply not known at the time? This is a crude example, but I'm sure you get the point.
Finally, and probably the most important aspect, we as Wikipedia editors do not perform original research to uncover new facts, theories, or ideas. We rely on reliable sources to do that for us, and when sources disagree, we give more prominence and weight to secondary sources like books, periodicals (magazines/journals), and university textbooks. For books, we assign the highest reliability to those published by university presses, and for journals, the same can be said of those that are peer-reviewed. Newspapers hold some weight, but they are on the bottom rung of the ladder. Opposing viewpoints can both be mentioned, but it's a careful process, and we look to our WP:NPOV policy for guidance. I am glad you're here and learning how this site operates, but this next point is a difficult one for many to accept. To the best of our abilities, we hope that the sources we cite and choose to allow are solid, thoroughly vetted, and reliably published, but we stop short of guaranteeing that they are truthful and accurate. An encyclopedia is the sum of all its parts; some exceptional, some bad, but most of which are good. The best we can do is strive for verifiability, not truth. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
...there were two compelling key phrases in two of the sources. In the Firelands Pioneer historian publication, the key phrase is “for purposes of founding a resort”...they cannot have been more specific about that phrasing (although, they could of course have been mistaken about the year...despite that merely about 30 years had passed between ). The other key phrase was the “70-year history” that the Cedar Point guy orated in 1952. Which directly infers that, as of 1952, there was zero legitimate business connection to the present enterprise, to any prior enterprises before 1882. (It was not until at least the 1960s, when Cedar Point, and the various public purveyors of Cedar Point “history”, improperly began to connect the various enterprises together as one quasi-continual enterprise.)
Anyway, I now leave you to do whatever you wish with these sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:84A:8DC5:93E:3559 (talk) 02:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
...oh...and by the way, you are indeed correct that occasionally new facts are uncovered...such as the fact that Zistel was NOT the first person to commercially transport passengers to the Cedar Point beaches etc. But, as you cautioned, that information has not yet been made available in modern publications....so forget that I mentioned it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:84A:8DC5:93E:3559 (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree these are compelling, which is why I decided to participate in this discussion. I think where we somewhat disagree, is in regard to what these excerpts are confirming. The Firelands source explains the purpose of the 1888 partnership and calls it the first "concerted effort" in the public domain. I made sure this was added to the article in some capacity. However, this source does not allow us to confidently conclude any the following:
  1. 1888 was the first year Cedar Point opened to the public as a resort. ☒N
  2. Cedar Point was not a resort marketed or available to the public before 1888. ☒N
  3. The partnership formed in 1888 did not build on land already in use on the peninsula, nor did it continue the efforts by Dwelle and Slackford that began in 1882. ☒N
The Firelands source does not confirm any of that, and its omission of what the area was like in the 1870s is also troubling. If the organization believed it was providing a complete historical record to its audience in 1921, we now know that it was inaccurate, or at the very least incomplete. Even if they believed that what transpired before 1888 wasn't part of the park's history, there's no reason to exclude the events leading up to the park's founding. The only plausible explanation of that, in my opinion, is if they weren't trying to provide a complete account, in which case we shouldn't treat this publication as an authority on the subject. 1888 makes the least sense to me as a viable alternative to 1870.
Then there's the newspaper sources you provided. Doing the math correctly with 1952 being the 70th season, then this means 1883 must have been the first season (you can't count 1882 in basic subtraction, because that would be number 0). I'm not aware of any other sources reporting 1883, so without a highly-reputable source to complement it, we really can't use that on Wikipedia. Let's also not forget that regardless of whether you settle on 1882 or 1883, either one gives you another reason to avoid citing the Firelands source as proof of the park's founding.
And what about the historical marker placed in 2001 by the "Ohio Bicentennial Commission, The Longaberger Company, Cedar Point Amusement Park/Resort, and The Ohio Historical Society"? It makes the claim that Cedar Point was a popular beach resort in the late 1870s, which didn't happen overnight. This means its founding happened at some point before the late 1870s. The Ohio Historical Society, now known as Ohio History Connection, is essentially a nonprofit organization that manages the state historical archive. This is a major authority on the subject, and not one that would be easily discounted. This is another dagger in the 1882/1883/1888 theories.
Again, this is all speculation on our part. There are too many plausible explanations and interpretations of why earlier sources appear to be reporting different dates. We really can't change the 1870 claim without a highly-reputable source making a direct challenge. The park is not the only source making this claim. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
As far as the years 1882 or 1888 are concerned, neither are correct. The "current" enterprise started in 1897 with the formation of the Cedar Point Pleasure Company. But none of that is relevant. Parks change ownership all the time. Just because we can't trace direct ownership all the way back to the start of the resort doesn't change the number of years of operation. If that were the case, all of the SeaWorld and Busch Parks would only be a few years old. The current ownership has absolutely no connection to Sea World's founder George Millay or to Busch Gardens' founder Anheuser-Busch. Except for the original three Six Flags parks, the bulk of those properties were acquired from other owners. Newhall Land and Farming owned Magic Mountain from 1971 to 1978. Are you going to argue that Six Flags Magic Mountain should not be celebrating its 50th season? And yes, 2020 is the 50th season, the 50th anniversary will occur next year.
James West operated a bathhouse in 1878. Its popularity over the years attracted the attention of Benjamin F. Dwelle who signed an informal lease with the property owners in 1882. There does appear to be a gap between 1870 and 1878, but that is also not relevant. The current ownership is celebrating 150 years since the start of the first commercial operation on the peninsula. The fact that there was a few years gap in operation doesn't mean they can't celebrate 150 years (spare us the married/divorced/remarried argument). Last year we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Apollo moon landing. As I'm sure you are aware, we haven't been going to the moon every year since 1969. That doesn't change the fact that NASA celebrated the 50th anniversary of when it first happened. Cedar point is celebrating 150 years since the first commercial operation and that sentiment is being echoed by dozens of media outlets throughout Ohio, Michigan, and several national publications — even the LA Times. That is what will be reported on Wikipedia.
If and when you find a source that clearly states Cedar Point is wrong for celebrating 150 years, feel free to bring it to our attention. Everything you listed so far has been intriguing, but not convincing enough to change the article.—JlACEer (talk) 05:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
.....I am glad that you both seem to have reached a consensus. So I just did a little more investigating about those “founders”, and I discovered that a FindaGrave (F-a-G) contributor has created a “virtual cemetery” for them, there at F-a-G....but more to the point, also states on their F-a-G profile that he/she is in the process of writing a book about this exact controversy! Although I don’t yet know exactly what that person’s qualifications are, but I will try to contact them and let them know my findings anyway (and particularly about that primary-source-statement as personally orated by the 1952 Cedar Point representative!)...and perhaps you will eventually have the published source you need, to meet Wiki standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:84A:8DC5:93E:3559 (talk) 11:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
If and when such a source would appear, it would be assessed just like any other source and given the due weight it deserves in relation to existing sources. The publisher and author would both come into play. And as far as consensus is concerned, this is more along the lines of WP:NOCONSENSUS at this point, which of course can always change when new arguments and perspectives are brought to the table. By the way, I didn't see you address the historical marker claim, the 1883 dilemma created by 1952 sources, or some of the valid points made by JlACEer above regarding the "current" enterprise technically dating back to 1897. Do these revelations have any impact on your position? Settling on a year in the 1880s seems to compound the problem, not solve it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • As a side note: Please increase your indent on each reply by adding another colon. You can look at previous replies to see the pattern. Also, there's no need to include the "nowiki" html tags that surround the 4 tildes (~~~~) in your signature. I'm using them to prevent Wikipedia from converting those tildes into a signature so you can see them. Hope that helps!
....nope...nothing further to address about your(plural) various digressions (nor etc.)....except to say that Cedar Point is either the lousiest business-records-keeper, ever.....or? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:84A:8DC5:93E:3559 (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough. We can't get ahead of the sources. We are limited to repeating what the consensus (in sources) is saying. If no one's talking about this controversy, then we can't either. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC) --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
....by the way....a minor point...but the Firelands Pioneer (series) reference was specifically published in Apr.1925 (as you can see by the headers of some of its specific pages). However, an observation about Wiki’s strict source-reference guidelines....no worries, because in regard to “historical” publications (of any date, but especially newly written material)....the general public is reasonably prolific about ‘forwarding’ the actual full publications to other readers...no matter who the ‘author’, or ‘publisher’ of the ‘history’. Ergo, Wikipedia is probably the least ‘forwarded’ source-of-information, of history-related content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:84A:8DC5:93E:3559 (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Not sure I quite follow the minor point you're making, but it sounds like the gist of what you're saying is that Wikipedia is a not a good source of information for history-related content. I would actually agree with that. Wikipedia is NOT a source, it's meant to be a reflection, and it's far from perfect in that regard. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
......ummm, that was actually two separate ‘points’....the minor point being that have you repeatedly referred to the 1925 reference as a “1921” reference...a natural oversight due to the google book apparently being a bound set of volumes. But while I am back on here, I will point out that the Firelands Pioneer (series) first began publishing in 1858, and fairly continually from then into the 1920s. It is locally considered to be a highly reliable source (generally). Errors do occasionally creep into it, of course, like any publication. But one thing you can be assured of....it was not bought-and-paid-for by a large corporate entity...unlike almost ALL of the “modern” publications here in the general Cedar Point propaganda-machine radius (many of whom’s advertising income, comes from.....(you guessed it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:84A:8DC5:93E:3559 (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is a reliable source, and for that reason, it does have a presence in the Cedar Point article. I don't think anyone is challenging that. You did say "minor point" (singular), so thanks for clarifying that you meant to say "minor points" (plural). Also it would be great if you didn't lead and end with a series of periods (or ellipsis). It's OK to write in sentence form here! --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

———- My second (separated) ‘point’, was, that, unfortunately, I have now learned, that I came to the wrong website (here), to contribute "truthful" data, and with too much integrity, in doing such. But at least, now, I will know better, next time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:84A:8DC5:93E:3559 (talk) 19:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
It's unfortunate that things didn't quite work out the way you intended, but to look on the bright side, the article was updated with "...the first concerted effort to operate the peninsula as a public resort" and properly linked to the Firelands source in the process. Your contribution is appreciated and hopefully you'll consider making more. We can also revisit this down the road if new information warrants the need to. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
...no worries! Despite that I came here looking for ‘truth....but perhaps at least now maybe I have a path forward, with a fellow truth-seeker elsewhere....instead of the “verifiability police” on here!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:84A:8DC5:93E:3559 (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
(...oddly, the entire formatting of this page has changed...but anyway)...question for ‘G’: do you agree with ‘J’s assertion that it doesn’t matter if there was a gap in operations of, say, a year or even a couple of years, whereupon a new owner began operations again? For instance, would you, yourself, be perfectly accepting, if you leased a site, opened a business, but it failed within a year or two...and then, a few years later, someone new leased the site, perhaps even utilizing your former structure...and likewise used the ‘name’ of your former business, as well as them asserting that they had begun operations based upon your original opening date? (...I was reluctant to ask it, simply because, as the saying goes, curiosity-killed-the-cat....but...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:84A:8DC5:93E:3559 (talk) 01:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
....I suppose I should consider that a rhetorical question....at least in specific regard for a subsequent business to assert that they personally opened much earlier than they actually did....that would obviously not be good business-practice.
But, anyway, you also wanted my thoughts about the marker-plaque, which i would point out, that if the 1925 LOCAL historical society could have wrong facts, then why does the Ohio society’s statements, necessarily warrant total trust?...particularly in the generalized wording that was utilized (...and, which seems to be contrary to ‘J’s assertion that there was a seven year gap in operations between 1870/1878.
And,yes, J, Cedar Point is free to make any publicity statements they wish, and celebrate any random event they wish. But that is not the issue, here....the issue, is ...does this Wiki entry represent their true, actual, tenure(...or does it instead represent a totally nonsensical “opening date”, etc.)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:FC04:ACC6:E142:1168 (talk) 03:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
....p.s., that marker-plaque inscription: “CEDAR POINT BECAME A POPULAR BEACH RESORT....”(etc.) — is there perhaps a potential alternate meaning to that, being “Cedar Point (PENINSULA) became a popular beach resort (not Resort as in a business-enterprise, but resort, as in destination)? [Be aware, that the wording on those plaques are very character-limited...and, if they had instead utilized the words “peninsula“ and “destination”, they would have far exceeded their character-limit.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:FC04:ACC6:E142:1168 (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
"...if the 1925 LOCAL historical society could have wrong facts"
This isn't about "wrong facts". This is about loose interpretation. In your reading of the Firelands source (1925), you are assuming that they are laying claim to the exact year Cedar Point was founded. For proof, you are pointing to this excerpt (with my emphasis in bold):
It was during the year 1888 that Stoll, Adolph, the Kuebelers, Charles Baetz and B.F. Dwelle formed a co-partnership for the purpose of founding and operating a resort. They erected a pavilion which with many added improvements and alterations is still standing and used as a dining hall. For many years Cedar Point with its wonderful sand beach on the shore of Lake Erie had been the play ground of Sandusky, and an excursion to Cedar Point was one of the joys of the childhood days of many of our citizens. But it was not until the formation of this partnership that any concerted effort was made to locate a resort to be operated for the benefit of the public, nor was there any public means of transportation between Sandusky and the Point.
As I mentioned earlier, this source is not making the claims you once stated were being made. It is recognizing the partnership and the events beginning in 1888 as a significant period of advancement for Cedar Point. It calls the partnership the first "concerted effort...to locate a resort to be operated for the benefit of the public". What about individual efforts that came before? Are they different because they didn't focus on "the benefit of the public"? Does it specifically say there were no efforts at all before 1888? No, it doesn't say any of that. We have to take this information at face value. You, on the other hand, are interjecting your own personal analysis and interpretation into the equation, which is a form of WP:SYNTHESIS, but we as Wikipedia editors are not permitted to do that. Only secondary sources can. And do we have any secondary sources citing 1888 as the year the park was founded? Nope, not even one that I'm aware of.
Secondary sources have concluded that Cedar Point was founded in 1870. They cite the construction of the peninsula's first entertainment venues including bathhouses and other amenities. You came across several primary sources that, for one reason or another, seem to focus on other dates. There are many explanations for this, some of which are noted above. If you need help understanding the difference between a primary and secondary source, please see WP:PSTS and WP:USINGPRIMARY. Historians take many primary sources into account to help draw a complete picture. They publish these findings in secondary sources. Primary sources are crucial to the process and can be very reliable for some aspects, but on their own, they often don't fully represent all significant aspects of a given event or topic.
The Firelands source was probably among the better secondary sources available in the early 20th century on the topic of Cedar Point. Like most secondary sources, it consisted of both primary and secondary source material. As time went on, it transitioned from being a secondary source to becoming a primary source for modern secondary source publications. It is one of many primary sources available to historians today. Those who have assembled and anaylzed these primary sources have drawn a conclusion that is different from yours, probably because they have more to look at than you do and specialize in this sort of thing, but the reason why they draw a different conclusion is irrelevant. We are not investigative historians that can go against the grain and present a new finding, regardless if it has merit or not. This doesn't mean you can't take your findings elsewhere, start a blog or fansite and publish away to your heart's content. It just can't happen here without the backing of reliable sources. I hope this is clear, but if you need further explanation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, please take it to WP:TEA or ask me more on my talk page.
Also, I'm not sure if the following book is cited in the article or not, but I suggest you scroll down and read its introduction page:
Cedar Point – David W. Francis, Diane DeMali Francis
There you will find how the efforts that began in 1870 are integrally connected to the efforts that took place in 1887 and 1888. This is one of many reputable sources that define Cedar Point's history in this fashion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
...G: if you wish to rely on post-1960 sources about this subject, there is a brand new one that is probably the most comprehensive of all. It was compiled by the Cedar Point history museum’s director(?). (I have not sought it out, myself, because obviously it won’t contain anything that reflects negatively on CP’s current publicity campaign.) Anyway, in regard to that other book you just referenced....clearly they did NOT do their own personal research about the Zistel subject, within OLD historical documents....otherwise they would have easily discovered that Zistel was NOT the first person associated with a public resort/bath-house, there. (When I previously mentioned to you, that you should forget that I previously mentioned it to you....I meant, simply forget it for WIKI purposes...not for your own personal knowledge. Unless, of course, you simply don’t believe me, about it.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:FC04:ACC6:E142:1168 (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
There's no reason to believe there's a conspiracy or cover-up when you're talking about numerous unaffiliated sources all being on the same page. Unfortunately, it appears we may be at an impasse, unless you're able to produce additional secondary sources that converge on a particular year. Scattered dates and inconsistent theories only muddy the water. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
hmmm....”conspiracy theory”?....well I myself was thinking more along the lines of “sin-of-omission”. But I certainly wouldn’t refer to the fact that most ‘historians’ are simply “parrots” who merely copy from earlier “parrots”...that’s certainly not a “conspiracy”....just pure laziness by using their “beaks” instead of their brains(?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:FC04:ACC6:E142:1168 (talk) 13:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
.....and, note, that the CP historical-plaque is certainly NOT a “conspiracy”, either....because...despite that CP, themselves, co-sponsored it....nowhere in that text is the word “Zistel”, or “1870”....oversight?,sin-of-omission?, but absolutely NOT any “conspiracy” to falsely promote a (nonsensical) ‘founding’ year (because, no such ‘year’ even appears on that plaque.... I guess that they just didn’t have space on it, for “founded 1870”....instead simply a much longer vague statement about those ‘founding’ years?)....but, no, definitely, unequivocally NOT a conspiracy with that plaque. (Do you have any other potential examples of a “conspiracy”? I am certainly willing to take that possibility under consideration, if you have other examples.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:FC04:ACC6:E142:1168 (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Opinions and unfounded claims are fine for blogs and fansites, but there is only limited tolerance for that here. This page is for specifically discussing how to improve the article. If you have nothing more to add, with the backing of reliable sources, then it may be time to put this to rest. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
....Sir(?, Madame?, Miss??)...most of my comments are directly in response to your comments. ( If you don’t wish for someone to reply to your comments, then why bother to mention them in a forum that is unquestionably for discussion. If you change the topic, why would you be hypocritical of the consequences?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:FC04:ACC6:E142:1168 (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

You want to see the article changed in some way, correct? If so, then provide additional sources and say exactly what you want changed. Both are needed to move this discussion forward. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

...I merely came here to the ‘talk’ page, to post some sources that were apparently not suitable for the ‘article’...as per your instructions. The sources did not necessarily require further discussion, but you began one. You subsequently also asked my opinion about many of your opinions...which I declined to give at the time. I am prepared, now, to address them. But now that I am ready, you seem to be threatening me with some sort of gag-order...key word being “threatening”...because, by what authority can you “put this to rest”? [Especially after all of the pondering, theorizing, pontificating, and digressing that YOU(etc) have done here. Does Wiki now give you the authority to shut me up, and suppress MY voice?] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:FC04:ACC6:E142:1168 (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
You read between the lines...a lot. I was trying to make this as simple as possible for you at this point. You said you had additional sources; I am simply asking for those. What you have provided so far resulted in one change, but there is no consensus to use the others (and you can scroll up to see why, even if you disagree). If you're not really an experienced editor in disguise hiding behind an anonymous IP address, let me inform you that verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion (WP:ONUS). It's only a minimum requirement to be considered. If you weren't aware of that before, then you are now.
Also when I said "put this to rest", I was referring to my own efforts here. I was on standby thinking you had more sources to add to this discussion, but it appears that I no longer need to be. If you wish to continue a one-sided discussion, be my guest. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

A simple quick googlebooksadavancedsearch for books published betwween 1888 thru 1898 is all you need to do to see that the business name of the CEDAR POINT PLEASURE RESORT COMPANY was the name of the company that was foundered by the year 1888 just like that other messager kept trying to say so something is very wrong when people try to claim other wise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:C:5110:0:0:0:36 (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cedar_Point/Archive_1&oldid=1136596870"