Talk:Cedar Point

Zistel

In the event that anyone else has the opportunity to actually edit this Article, and without being forced into a lengthy discussion, or a purposeful edit-war causing a lock-down of the Article: note that despite assertions in a recent edit to the Cedar Fair article, however, there was no known business operating at this location in 1872-1877, and even Zistel's 1870 attempt could hardly be classified as successful, because there is no actual evidence that his transport service operated for more than a few weeks during that year, while he was simultaneously transporting patrons separately to other Lake Erie destinations. And by 1873 he had sold his steamboat 'Young Reindeer' to a Toledo company, and afterward there were no known transports to Cedar Point, nor was Zistel involved with his prior business, because he was instead busy operating his own new resort, Atlantic Gardens, within Sandusky City. And several sources state that there still was no dedicated transport in 1878 when James West built a bathouse on the CP peninsula, and the only actual contemporaneous mention of West's operation, indicates that West was reducing the rates of his bathingsuit rentals, which would seem to indicate a lull in patronage. But any modern sources which indicate that there were "resort seasons" here between 1872-1877, are simply mistaken or else intentionally misleading. 2607:FB91:100B:2D6C:84D3:617C:5031:C149 (talk) 02:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Go ahead and make changes. Editors are encouraged to be bold and fix articles themselves. The article doesn't say anything specific about Zistel's success, nor does it say there were resort seasons between 1872-1877, so it's unclear what you're arguing against. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think they were arguing about anything. Maybe it was just meant as helpful information for any of us interested in working to improve this article so the general public has access to information that isn't being told on other websites? Isn't that the whole purpose of Wikipedia to be the place to find information which other websites don't have? Not just being a website where editors copy information which is already available on a lot of other websites anyway? What would be the point of only doing that? People could just go to the other websites for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:0:902:0:0:0:17 (talk) 19:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

the whole purpose of Wikipedia to be the place to find information which other websites don't have - To comment on this quickly. The "point" of Wikipedia, as you say, is to reflect the important details as reported in reliable sources, not to host information that isn't available on other websites. If the source is in print, fine, but Wikipedia should not be reflecting anything that isn't in any reliable sources. However, may I also note that Wikipedia is also licensed under the Creative Commons, while other sites may be copyrighted so, in fact, reflecting information from sources is not the only "point" of Wikipedia. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Improvement is welcome. Just be prepared to cite reliable sources for any new claims you add to the article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The above statement is interesting, it is nothing more than speculation. The nameless IP debater has offered no proof or links to back up these theories. While we do know that Zistel sold his steamship in 1873, that alone does not mean that people stopped coming to the resort. We know there was a dock, we know there were facilities. We know that the beach was a popular picnic area. Maybe he sold his steamboat because people didn't need transportation and that particular enterprise proved nonlucrative. There are other sources that indicate people used sailboats and private boats to get to the beach. We know that Zistel had other enterprises but does this prove that he abandoned the facilities that he built at Cedar Point? Who's to say he didn't hire a manager to oversee the operation at the point? Maybe he sold it. Do we know for certain that the bathhouse or beer garden did not open? If people were visiting the beach, using the facilities and having a good time, how is that not a season? The fact is we do not know what was happening between 1870 and 1877 because there is not enough documentation. The park celebrated the 150th anniversary of the first known commercial enterprise, which most historians agree was in 1870. It may be a stretch to claim 150 continuous seasons, but until someone can offer more proof, I wouldn't call it mistaken or intentionally misleading.—JlACEer (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Well said! --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm personally still perplexed by the above statement that "we know there was a dock" beginning in 1870. Source, please? 2607:FB91:177A:433B:38B8:60B9:EBF0:2F3B (talk) 01:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

p.s. according to the CP p.r. guy's own CP history published in Inland Seas, it was Capt.Dwelle who built the first steamboat dock in the 1880s. 2607:FB91:177A:433B:38B8:60B9:EBF0:2F3B (talk) 01:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

You are cherry-picking what you want to respond to by focusing on the dock. Regardless if one existed, we know there were facilities present and that Cedar Point was a popular picnic area at the time. We also know that historians agree that 1870 was the beginning. It isn't logical for them to settle on this year if it really didn't start until 1878. And regardless of what happened with Zistel between 1870 and 1877, there aren't sources that say the facilities were abandoned and that people stopped coming during that time. It's one thing to speculate and complain, but it's another to back it with reliable sources, which this IP editor has yet to do. Until that changes, this discussion is settled. Wikipedia is not the place to flesh out theories and log complaints. Take that to reddit or some other forum. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

SFMM 20 Roller Coasters Instead Of 19

I know this is a really small detail but with the opening of Wonder Woman: Flight Of Courage on the 16th of July, Six Flags Magic Mountain now has 20 operating roller coasters instead of 19 2605:B100:E006:65F6:9D3E:E796:807B:20ED (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Updated, thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Top thrill removed

Top thrill needs removed as it has been retired by CP 98.28.176.97 (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Top Thrill Dragster's status is SBNO (Standing, but not operating). The 420-foot tall hill is still very much at the park, but everything else is about removed, demolished and gone. It's not 100% removed/retired as of May 2023. 72.240.14.59 (talk) 01:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Top Thrill is being modified in some way but will reopen in 2024 according to the park. We have it marked as "Closed" until it reopens. We no longer recognize SBNO as a status, since it has been deemed a jargon enthusiast term. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't the page be updated to reflect the news Cedar Point just released about Top Thrill 2?

https://news.yahoo.com/cedar-point-debut-world-tallest-155950142.html Fishnet37222 (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The news was just released today, so it took some to get it into the article, but it's there now. More details are still needed on ride specifications. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Correction: It has been added to the main Top Thrill 2 article. This article still needs work. Will begin soon. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

It's ineffective to merge the Top Thrill Dragster information into the new Top Thrill 2. They are essentially two different subjects. The percentage of former and remaining Top Thrill Dragster components, is such a minor percentage, that Top Thrill 2 is technically not the same as Top Thrill Dragster. The mere fact that Cedar Fair opted to also re-utilize part of that former name, is not sufficient reason to simply and solely merge the information for Top Thrill 2, with Top Thrill Dragster's information. 2607:FB91:174F:9AEB:1544:BB1:BA38:FB0E (talk) 07:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The same was done for Steel Vengeance (formerly Mean Streak), Twisted Colossus (formerly Colossus), and Iron Gwazi (formerly Gwazi), the latter of which has even been promoted to a Featured Article. It's actually ineffective to split a medium-sized article into two short articles, forcing editors to navigate to two different pages to learn the entire history of an attraction. If the modifications, redesign, name changes, etc., are all considered an evolution of the ride, then it makes sense for that evolution to be described in one place. If you still disagree, consider beginning a new discussion at Talk:Top Thrill 2 where the discussion belongs. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion also belongs HERE. The coaster in question is not some independent attraction in the middle of nowhere. It is obviously an integral part of the Cedar Point article. And the fact that you now dispute that, is highly disturbing, and also the fact that you are equating coasters that were indeed "modified", with this one that has been almost totally removed for the, almost entirely, new construction. 2607:FB91:174F:9AEB:1544:BB1:BA38:FB0E (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

These examples are similar. Not one original track element remains on any of them. Some of the original support structure was retained in each case, but the track layout is completely different, producing a completely different experience. I mean, they were all wooden coasters that were transformed into steel coasters! That's a big transformation, probably even more so than Top Thrill 2. Yet, in each situation, the article was simply renamed. Your argument that we should treat those differently than Top Thrill 2 doesn't make any sense. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Cedar Fair currently seems to be promoting Top Thrill 2 as a new coaster. Not a modified one. Perhaps if you, etc., are patient, instead of jumping forward with assumptions, the several articles which will be affected by the new coaster, will be better comprehended by the people for whom these articles are intended. Need I point out that these articles are NOT intended as a sole expression of your, etc., personal opinion, or an extension of your personal domain? 2607:FB91:174F:9AEB:1544:BB1:BA38:FB0E (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Do you think any of those examples were promoted as the same coaster? Curious to hear your explanation, because that still isn't making any sense. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

It depends upon your definition of "same coaster". i.e. Steel Vengeance is the same CONFIGURATION as Mean Streak in its overall course. It merely no longer shakes the brains out of its riders. 2607:FB91:174F:9AEB:1544:BB1:BA38:FB0E (talk) 17:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

In just one example, the LA Times wrote, "...a rehab project such as Twisted Colossus allows a park to renovate an aging ride at a reduced cost while marketing the makeover as a "new" ride" (article link). So despite your claim, Twisted Colossus was marketed as a new coaster, and like the others, it should have been. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I challenge you to make a list of the technical changes, and the similarities, from Dragster to TT2. If, after you compile that list, and you still are confident that the former one has simply been merged into the latter one, then feel free to continue your current apples-or-oranges reasoning. 2607:FB91:174F:9AEB:1544:BB1:BA38:FB0E (talk) 17:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

No, that's quite alright. On Wikipedia, we replicate what the sources are saying and avoid original research. If you feel a change is needed, then the WP:ONUS is on you to seek consensus for the changes you want to make. You can begin the process by opening a new discussion at Talk:Top Thrill 2 to discuss your concerns. You, of course, are free to continue the discussion here, but for splitting the article in two, that discussion really belongs on that article's talk page. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

"Splitting the article in two" is exactly what YOU are ultimately achieving. My recommendation is instead to restore the Dragster article, and create a separate article for this almost entirely new TT2. So much easier. And so much more easily comprehended by the readers, that way. 2607:FB91:174F:9AEB:1544:BB1:BA38:FB0E (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

"so much more easily comprehended by the readers" – If you say so, but I'm not convinced for the same reasons the other examples listed above have just one article. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree. This will likely be my last comment here about it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Ultimately, the examples you provided, may be "oranges" instead of this potentially new "apple". Only time will tell, based upon the sources that appear in the meanwhile. But also in the meanwhile, you personally have introduced confusion into the Cedar Point article, about a coaster that doesn't yet exist. Which is extremely perplexing, considering the amount of past criticism which has emminated from you, towards other contributors who are over-anxious to edit without first consulting the appropriate sources. 2607:FB91:174F:9AEB:1544:BB1:BA38:FB0E (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I have no issue with removing Top Thrill 2 that's listed in the Cedar Point ride chart. In fact, that is probably a good idea, since as you stated the ride hasn't opened yet. Coverage of Top Thrill 2 could remain in prose only in the History section or some other section. Is that what you are proposing? -- GoneIn60 (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be misinterpreting the initial complaint. Which was the fact that you yourself are intent on describing this as a "modified" coaster, but self-admittedly without you accessing reliable sources which support your personal viewpoint. 2607:FB91:177A:433B:38B8:60B9:EBF0:2F3B (talk) 08:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

p.s. I see that, in one particular instance, you had quoted a news source which made speculations about TT2. So I guess that you are of the opinion that Wikipedia is not merely encyclopedic, but also omniscient about events that haven't yet occurred. Hopefully some future editor of your contributions will be less reliant upon speculation. 2607:FB91:177A:433B:38B8:60B9:EBF0:2F3B (talk) 01:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Verifiable speculation is acceptable. Read WP:CRYSTAL. I have no idea what exactly you are referring to since you didn't provide any examples. Also, check the page history to verify I was the one that added something before hurling accusations about my actions. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Sailboats 'docking' offshore???

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

"Docked" needs to be replaced with "anchored". If you're at a dock, you're docked. If you're floating offshore, you're anchored. Master picker of nits here, and old time sailboat sailor. See: "In 1878 James West opened a group of bathhouses near the beach. Although there was no steamboat service, sailboats often docked just offshore." 2600:1700:BF10:69D0:C909:64AA:CAB5:62E (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I changed it to docking and anchoring. It is likely the dock that was in use a few years prior was still there. However, it probably couldn't accommodate everyone visiting.—JlACEer (talk) 01:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

U said probably. but however since when exactly on wikipedia rules is probably a sufficient reason to state something probably? Dont you have a source which states there was still a dock here in 1878? And if u dont have a source then why did you keep the word docking at all? 2607:FB91:10AE:51F2:44A6:2253:48DC:38B6 (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

small rowboats don't need docks and don't need to anchor offshore. They just pull up onto the beach. 2607:FB91:10AE:51F2:44A6:2253:48DC:38B6 (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

So if there was no steamboat then how did people get there if not in small rowboats? In big pleasure yachts or something? I think your whole statement needs reevaluated. 2607:FB91:10AE:51F2:44A6:2253:48DC:38B6 (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

And how do you know how big the 1870 dock was anyway? Was it only big enough for the one steamboat? Or also accommodated dozens of pleasure yachts in 1870? Aren't u just filling in blanks with your own imagination not source references? 2607:FB91:10AE:51F2:44A6:2253:48DC:38B6 (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

and b t w, there is no mention of James West, at all, in the Francis book that is referenced in that statement. Doesn't anybody here bother to check these edits for accuracy? Or just too busy picking on inexperienced newbees? 2607:FB91:10AE:51F2:44A6:2253:48DC:38B6 (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The Francis Images of America book has a photo that was taken in the 1880s; the caption states the photo was taken from the Bay Steamship Dock. According to that source, the dock was still there. All of this is pointless discussion since the text was removed several weeks ago.—JlACEer (talk) 04:10, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

The point is obvious. That questionable information should never have appeared in this article. But, unfortunately, the article has certain people controlling its content, who constantly violate Wikipedia standards. And until that control ends, this article will continue to contain false and misleading information. 2607:FB91:174F:9AEB:1544:BB1:BA38:FB0E (talk) 06:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

"questionable information should never have appeared in this article" – Anyone with an internet connection can edit Wikipedia. Junk, unsourced claims, vandalism, trolling on talk pages, etc., happen all the time unfortunately. Feel free to pitch in and help out when it happens. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Many contributors have attempted to help improve and correct the edits of two specific controlling editors here. With the result being a lock-down of this article, and the rapid disappearance of suggestions on this talk page. So, @gonein60, get real. In fact, get real gone. And then afterwards this article might finally get repaired and be encyclopedic instead of a rambling non-encyclopedic mess that it is, currently. 2607:FB91:174F:9AEB:1544:BB1:BA38:FB0E (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

"the rapid disappearance of suggestions on this talk page" – This is called archiving, a standard process for busy talk pages on Wikipedia. The archives are accessible at the top and also in the talk page history. You can read more about that at WP:ARCHIVE. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Update: I've struck the uncivil comments above by the IP editor who has been warned and even blocked for incivility in the past. Focus on ways to improve the article, backed by reliable sources. Do not treat this page as a vessel for personal complaints that fail to offer up any real solutions. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Coaster total.

The new Wild Mouse coaster will open on 2023 Opening Day. Is it too soon to change CP's coaster total from 15 to 16? I'll wait to see if I hear back from any other editors. I don't wanna cause a fuss by prematurely changing it. Thanks. SummeRStorM79 (talk) 17:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. Please wait until the coaster actually opens. Let's not forget what happened with Maverick.—JlACEer (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, I kind of knew twas gonna happen. Someone couldn't wait & went ahead & changed the coaster total. Does it need to be re-edited back? I'm not gonna mess with it, but did wanna get your feedback? SummeRStorM79 (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2024

Can someone please add that today in 2024, there is a Solar Eclipse ceremony at Cedar Point. Can someone add this to the timeline? Please. 2601:40A:8400:1820:427:7832:BEB5:8A5D (talk) 16:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

There are probably solar eclipse ceremonies/gatherings at various sites around the country along the path of the eclipse. These are not notable to the subject of these articles. Just because they occur does not mean they deserve coverage on Wikipedia. See WP:DUE for more info. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)