Talk:Elitch Gardens

Untitled
These two articles are redundant; however, each has unique content. I think a merger would be most appropriate, with one article title made into a redirect to the other. I added the tags to suggest the shorter of the two articles, Six Flags Elitch Gardens, be merged into the more comprehensive one. Much as I prefer the historic name, I vote for Six Flags Elitch Gardens to be the title of the article and Elitch Gardens to redirect there, because the longer name is the current official name of the amusement park.

I did notice no sources are cited on Six Flags Elitch Gardens, the shorter of the two. This also should be addressed. Ginkgo100 01:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the merger. Six Flags and this article are very distinct not only in geography but history. I doesn't make sense for me to talk about the redevelopment of the old Elitch site on a page about an amusement park. The reality is that they are simply two distinct places. The other article only mentions the old site once, which I think is fine. I think it would be better served by expanding that page's information about the amusement park, just as this page has an expanded section about the redevelopment of the site. Vertigo700 05:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm perhaps somewhat biased (I started both of these articles) but I also disagree with the proposed merger. The "old" Elitch's (this article) was an old time, traditional amusement park with a fair amount of historical significance to Denver. The other place is a Six Flags park, pretty much like all the others. I think there's a clear distinction. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Good points. If there is no merger, then I think a disambiguation template should appear at the top of each article clarifying its intended topic. Ginkgo100 01:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I vote for the disamb template at top. This gives the reader instant acces to the other if they end up there by mistake, and each wikilinks to the other in 'history' sections. BabuBhatt 08:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. Hope this is acceptable to everybody. Ginkgo100 13:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Elitch Gardens (Amusement Park) should be here instead
The placement of Elitch Gardens and Elitch Gardens (Amusement Park) are backward. Virtually no one looking for "Elitch Gardens" is looking for something that no longer exists, but something--the amusement park--that still exists. The articles need to be swapped so that the most useful article is the first found. -- David  Shankbone  14:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Since the existing park seems to have reverted to the original name (the Six Flags folks definitely rebranded it as "Six Flags Elitch Gardens"), I think perhaps the best approach might be to merge the two articles preserving the content here in a history section. If this makes the single article too long, the content here (and probably a bit about the Six Flags ownership) could be put in its own article called something like History of Elitch Gardens, linked from a one paragraph summary in the other article (i.e. Summary style). -- Rick Block (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good solution. -- David  Shankbone  17:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The Roller Costers section
The section in the article about Roller Costers is in reference to the new location. Only the Sidewinder was at the original park. Since the Mr. Twister, the Wild Cat, and the Sidewinder have their own sections above, I think this section should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.229.227.141 (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)