Talk:Cedar Fair

Star Trek: The Experience
Cedar Fair will also be managing this as they will with Bonfonte (as they once did with the KC @ Mall of America). I've edited the article.

Early history
Per this discussion, apparently there may be a need for broader discussion concerning Cedar Fair's early history. Can Cedar Fair be traced back at all to the companies that ran it during its first 50 years or so? I restored some content with a source, and obviously more expansion would be needed if we continue down this route, but it would seem somewhat odd to me if we didn't talk about Cedar Point's founding and early beginnings in some way if there is a connection at all. Otherwise, we may need a separate article that deals with Cedar Point Pleasure Company and/or G.A. Boeckling Company. We can be very brief about it if we keep it here, because I agree this article should focus on the modern entity Cedar Fair. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

When Cedar Point refers to its own history (as written by Cedar Fair), it seems to mention and bring up the older entities that were consumed and eventually became absorbed by Cedar Fair. If that's legit, then it would seem to make sense to include the earlier iterations as a prequel historic perspective to give readers some background. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @gonein60: just as a minor technical correction, to my knowledge there was no such company as the Cedar Point Pleasure Company. That seems to be a conflagration of the actual legal name of the Cedar Point Pleasure RESORT Company, which was the predessor company of the "Cedar Point Pleasure Resort Company of Indiana". So be sure to check the David Frances book and etc. for confirmation of these official legal names. It's time these faulty facts get removed at least from Wikipedia, wouldn't you agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB91:100B:2D6C:84D3:617C:5031:C149 (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What are you referring to? The article currently states "Cedar Point Pleasure Resort Company" and "Cedar Point Pleasure Resort Company of Indiana", respectively. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I was specifically referring to your above statement,, and also the CEDAR POINT article. Also @gonein60: the odd statement you just now made in your article edit. I am not aware that even Cedar Fair itself claims that any public business operated anywhere upon the CP peninsula in 1873, 1874, 1875, 1876, or 1877. Please let's not be sloppy with wild editing assertions, but if in doubt then instead let common-sense reign. Ok??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB91:100B:2D6C:84D3:617C:5031:C149 (talk) 21:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That was simply a typo on my part here. When I restored article content, I got it right. Also feel free to correct it on the Cedar Point article, or discuss it on that talk page if needed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "the odd statement you just now made in your article edit"
 * What statement are you referring to and what change are you proposing? The content in the article follows the Francis book source and how it refers to the 1870s as a part of the park's "rustic beginnings". This statement is provided for context, leading up to the formation of CPPRC. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * According to Francis, the popularity of the peninsula "grew slowly" in the 1870s. Your own statement seems quite an embellished leap from that. Such as "success". What 1870s success are you referencing? Not from Francis, nor any other published source that I have seen. Nor does Francis state that any of that "slow growth" occured during 1873-1877. Anyway this article is a technical article about the business proceedings of Cedar Fair. So be sure your editing assertions match what Cedar Fair asserts about their own business predecessors, not what historians said. Reserve the historians' versions for the Cedar Point article. Or if perhaps you discover a discrepancy between Cedar Fair's assertions and other reliable sources, it is your obligation as a Wikipedian, to present the opposing viewpoints here in this Article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB91:100B:2D6C:84D3:617C:5031:C149 (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * anyway I have already expended too much of my time at the moment, so I must attend to other, and more pressing matters. When I am able to resume here, I will assess what progress has been made. In the meanwhile, it is actually the Cedar Point article which needs more attention, as per my many suggestions there. But it's certainly your prerogative to devote your time to this Cedar Fair article, instead of the article that is probably much  more accessed by the public, than this one.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB91:100B:2D6C:84D3:617C:5031:C149 (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * oh, in all fairness, I should caution you, that if you decide to do your Wikipedia duty and you duly post any conflicting information which would potentially damage Cedar Fair's reputation in any way, they will undoubtedly not like it, and not like you. Perhaps even in a big way. Are you certain that you have the courage to do your Wikipedia duty? That's a rhetorical question, obviously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB91:100B:2D6C:84D3:617C:5031:C149 (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't expect other editors to do the work for you. You just wrote paragraphs over one very small issue, the word "success". If you are able to formulate better phrasing with the passion and time you expend on these talk pages, simply do it. If there's a problem with your attempts, we'll discuss it. It really is that simple. Wikipedia is an active work in progress. All editors are encouraged to be bold and fix it themselves instead of just talking about it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "So be sure your editing assertions match what Cedar Fair asserts about their own business predecessors"
 * Hard stop. You need to be made aware of WP:PROMOTION which clearly states:
 * So in other words, we do not base company articles solely on the way they perceive themselves. We include information published by independent, third-party sources. Secondary sources are particularly strong in that regard, as they are one step removed (or more) from the article's subject. If you are saying we should ignore them to protect a company's image, then that of course would be in violation of WP policy. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm saying, that from what I can see, your, both, past activities in the Cedar Point article, demonstrate a biased tilt in favor of Cedar Fair. As a result, I don't expect much actual progress there, or here, from either of you. Prove me wrong. And also, don't pretend that you haven't repeatedly impeded multiple contributors' efforts to constructively edit these Articles, by forcing incessant discussions about edits, where no discussion was ever necessary. Your hypocrisy is so glaring, that I honestly cannot understand why either of you have gotten away with your nonsense for so very very long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB91:100B:2D6C:84D3:617C:5031:C149 (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe your problem is that you don't like what sources have written, or you don't like the requirements behind what passes as a reliable source on Wikipedia. All you have to do is edit where you believe improvement is needed and provide a reliable source to back any new claims not supported by existing sources. You don't need to resort to discussion first. Be bold and edit, and be sure to cite those sources. Also as a reminder, assume good faith is essential here if you really are interested in contributing and collaboration. Comments like "I don't expect much actual progress there, or here, from either of you" contradicts AGF. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If you need help understanding how to cite on Wikipedia, we can help, or you can also ask for assistance at WP:TEA. You can also look over WP:REFB, which even has a video that shows you how it's done. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Forgot to mention earlier, but there's a historical marker inside the park, erected by several entities including Ohio History Connection (formerly The Ohio Historical Society). It says "Cedar Point became a popular beach resort in the late 1870s". Other sources have noted this as well. So I don't think it's a stretch by any imagination to call the park's growth in the 1870s a success. Nevertheless, the statement has been modified to remove that phrase, so this is a moot point for now. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Forgot to mention earlier, but there's a historical marker inside the park, erected by several entities including Ohio History Connection (formerly The Ohio Historical Society). It says "Cedar Point became a popular beach resort in the late 1870s". Other sources have noted this as well. So I don't think it's a stretch by any imagination to call the park's growth in the 1870s a success. Nevertheless, the statement has been modified to remove that phrase, so this is a moot point for now. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

@JlAcer
For JIAcer, regarding your recent deletion of pertinent information which I attempted to post to the Article as corrections to faulty prior edits. Some portions of the faulty text were very pertinent to the article, if, and I stress the word IF, that prior text has been accurately stated. But they were not accurately stated, which is why I had posted the corrected information, and included my source references within the reason for the edit, because, as you asserted on my talk page, those source references were already within the CP article itself, so, based upon your own assertions, it was not necessary for me to add those pre-existing refs. However, you deleted my corrections anyway, under the sole premise that I was an "IP vandal". Can you please explain your "IP vandal" reasoning, here on this thread? And also please explain why you don't feel that my corrections were pertinent. Also please explain why the former, faulty information is no longer pertinent, because apparently all prior editors accepted that former information as being pertinent, despite being faulty. What now suddenly changes the pertinence of the prior official legal predecessor names of the Cedar Fair company? Thank you. 2607:FB91:100B:2D6C:84D3:617C:5031:C149 (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The comment was explained to you here. We can use this talk page to discuss article content issues including the edits you were trying to make, but it should not be used to discuss a behavioral dispute that you may have or be insinuating. Take that to your talk page, talk page, or to WP:ANI. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @gonein60: all of my above comments were in direct relation to improvement of the article. Including any behavioral issues with others, as you called them. I could care less how someone behaves elsewhere on Wikipedia. But, in my opinion, specific behavior in regard to specific subjects surely belongs attached to that same subject, so that other editors of a specific Article are aware of that behavior concerning that specific subject.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB91:100B:2D6C:84D3:617C:5031:C149 (talk) 20:27, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The comment, "explain why you don't feel my corrections are pertinent" can and should be discussed here. The "IP Vandal" reasoning was already explained on your talk page, and there's a link to that comment here in this thread. If further back and forth is needed concerning that issue, then this is not the appropriate forum to continue that discussion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is the text that was deleted: "Cedar Point opened in 1870 as a recreational area. The park was developed over the years rarely changing management. The park belonged to the Cedar Point Pleasure Company." YOU (unnamed IP user) DELETED it — NOT ME — YOU. I RESTORED it, then you DELETED it again. It was at that point that I decided the deleted material (1870 beginnings) may not be pertinent and certainly was not worth my time to argue over. This is the problem that we have had in the past. You can't follow along with how things transpired. I never said the information you added was not pertinent. I didn't think the information YOU DELETED needed to remain. That is why I left your edit in place. Do you understand that? YOU DELETED the text, not I. I never stated that anything that you added was not pertinent. I said the deleted text (1870...) may not be pertinent. In any event, I am not going to continue to engage you. You need to step away again. You are clearly not here to improve this article, all you want to do is debate. You take words out of context, you misinterpret others, then you ask questions and demand explanations for things that didn't even happen.— JlACEer  ( talk ) 22:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Headquarters Location
Some editors seem to believe that the company headquarters have moved from Sandusky, Ohio, to Charlotte, North Carolina. While it's true that several principal officers including the CEO, COO, and other top executive staff are largely based out of the Charlotte location, Richard Zimmerman, the President and CEO, was in Charlotte prior to becoming CEO in 2018, he simply stayed there when he assumed the new title. The CFO is still in Sandusky and all the partnership shareholder reports, SEC filings, and IRS tax documents still list Sandusky as the corporate headquarters. The "official website" here: https://ir.cedarfair.com/company-overview/default.aspx clearly states in big, bold letters, "Headquartered in Sandusky, Ohio." Until all of those things change, particularly the company's listing on the stock exchange, the wiki page should reflect Sandusky as the headquarters.— JlACEer ( talk ) 16:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. We need reliably-published information to tell us otherwise. For anyone else finding this thread, these comments were left at User talk:StatsFreak, who is an editor who believes the headquarters has moved. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Here are some relevant sources I came across:
 * Is Cedar Fair slowly moving its headquarters away from Sandusky? – Cleveland.com
 * Official Company Info page – cedarfair.com
 * The first article states that they may be setting up for a move, but nothing has officially been announced. In fact, it mentions that city officials were still trying to offer the option of moving to downtown Sandusky as of June 2021. The second link is an official link, the same one that provided above. Officially, they have not updated their headquarters location even on their own website. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll add to that the SEC listing and the most recent quarterly report (form 10-Q), both of which show the principal executive offices in Sandusky. All of this can certainly change in the future, but as of May 2022, everything is still listed as Sandusky.— JlACEer ( talk ) 20:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Update
With the recent Six Flags merger announcement, there is no doubt that the new HQ will be in Charlotte, NC. That info was included in Cedar Fair's press release. Norrisrk (talk) 13:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Clearly there is no debate anymore. Curiously, the press release indicates there will still be a significant presence in Sandusky but mentions nothing about Arlington, Texas.— JlACEer ( talk ) 13:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is all recent news about a merger that had nothing to do with the previous discussion. In fact, the combined company will operate under the Six Flags name, so the eventual HQ move to North Carolina doesn't need to be covered in the infobox of this article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This will become very interesting in the next few months. However, no pages should be combined until after the two companies merge, sometime in 2024. Even then we may want to keep this Cedar Fair page. I'm not sure what the precedence has been for company mergers.— JlACEer ( talk ) 14:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We would keep this page intact. Its history is extensive, and there isn't enough room in one article to cover the histories of both Six Flags and Cedar Fair. Worth having a discussion at some point though on how we move forward. It might be best to create a new Six Flags article including short history summaries on both companies, while the full history of each company remains in their older articles. Some smart renaming would need to happen. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)


 * FYI, I've dropped discussion notices at several venues pointing to Talk:Six Flags. We may want to use that discussion as the primary discussion moving forward. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Six Flags which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

First five words
Currently, the first five words are: (depending on how you count). I either simply try to put this proffered distinction out of my mind or I might think about it.

Should we be referring to "Cedar Fair Entertainment Company" as the name, since it would seem like "Cedar Fair, L.P." is the actual legal name? Did they perhaps mean "formerly", even though that doesn't seem right either?

I just point out that I think it. Fabrickator (talk) 04:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Good point. It was awkward. I rephrased it, hopefully for the better. No sense in stating legal entity names first (or at all really), and if anyone really wants it in the lead, they can state it in parenthetical notation with a proper source. My 2¢. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)