Talk:Six Flags America

Untitled
"Many local people who has been going to Six Flags America when it was Adventure World have stated that the park has gotten worse since it became Six Flags America." Not only is this statement opinionated, but there is also a grammar mistake, it should be "who have been going to Six Flags America...". I'll change the grammar. -Big Brother is Watching

My contribution to this article is taken from my writeup of the same name at Everything2, which in turn is taken from research and many, many visits to the park since the mid-1980s. -Etoile 21:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ultra Twister
The park nor SF has ever said Ultra Twister will be installed for 2007. The new GM is Terry Praether not Terry Parker. Don't believe me, check the press release on the website.

Missing Rides?
Perhaps I've been gone from D.C. for too long (or simply haven't visited it for so long) but it seems that the list is missing some rides since I've been there (2001).

Are the Two-Face: The Flip Side (stand up coaster), and Joker's Jinx (sit down type) all defunct now? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.33.24.132 (talk) 07:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC).
 * SFA has never had a stand-up coaster, Two-Face is an inverted coaster. It has been closed since 2008 according to RCDB; this doesn't surprise me considering how often it broke down.  Joker's Jinx, my favorite in the park, is still operating. -Etoile (talk) 03:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed dead external link
I removed the following link because the server does not exist any more:


 * American Midway's review of Six Flags America

Also, I have removed the redundant headers on this talk page.

Cheers

--Starionwolf 23:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments on Criticism
I do not recall criticism about "factual errors in the portrayal of Colonial America themes." The other criticism I think is justified based on press accounts and my own experience with my kids. I have been there several times in 2007 with my kids and I think the "thug" factor, while present, is not as bad as in past years. Six Flags America is slowly improving, in my view, with a lot of room for improvement. I make no changes to the article based on this, but put it forth for discussion.


 * "Thug atmosphere?" Come on folks, let's keep the racism out of wikipedia. I removed that sentence.  68.50.210.146 04:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the word "thug" is not appropriate, however, I think race is irrelevant. A "thug" is a "thug" regardless if he (or she) is black, white, blue, purple, or Klingon. Don't make everything about race. Good call on removing the sentence, though. Sallicio (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Sallicio


 * I was there the afternoon of July 12, 2007 and saw four "thugs" escorted out in handcuffs on the bridge by that balloon ride. OK, don't call them thugs -- call them young adults, which I just did. I do maintain, however, that the park is consistently improving under new owner Dan Snyder.

Citations are sought for Criticism. There are many. One I found is this article, "Striving for More Family Value -- Six Flags Looks to Clean Up Its Parks and Finances With a Focus on Fun for All Ages" by Alejandro Lazo in The Washington Post, July 2, 2007; Page D01. Here is the link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/01/AR2007070100888_pf.html As soon as I figure out how to format the citation for the article, I'll add it. I don't know the format for citations, how to add footnotes, etc.

the tv spokesperson (old guy)
Help. I've got to know. Who is he?

is there a bio for him?

is he really old? or artfully put together?

thanks! Billbrandt (talk) 13:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Woodmore vs. Largo vs. Upper Marlboro
As a Marylander who use to live in College Park (close to Six Flags) and have been to the amusement park under its various names (Six Flags, Wild World, Adventure World, etc.) I had never even heard of Woodmore until these changes were made. Every time I heard about the park I either heard its location as either Largo, Upper Marlboro or Bowie. I think the difference is that both Largo and Woodmore are unincorporated area whereas Upper Marlboro is an actual city. The key is the reliable sources. There are tons of hits both reliable and not for both Largo and Upper Marlboro. I don't see any for Woodmore, other then a google map placing it there. It should either be Upper Marlboro or Largo and since the official site lists it as Upper Marlboro it should stay that. Largo is probably said most often since that is the exit for Six Flags off the Capital Beltway. Marauder40 (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Reading a map and saying "it's in X, not in Y" definitely falls under the definition of original analysis, which certainly should not be used as the basis for an edit. Technically, the park's website would be a primary source, but it would be allowable as the location of the park isn't really self-serving or promotional in that sense. -- McDoob  AU93  14:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said, there are lots of sources other then the Six Flags site itself that list it as either Upper Marlboro or Largo. It isn't really interpreting a primary source to just use the address that the primary source uses. None of the sources list it as Woodmore.Marauder40 (talk) 14:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You are correct. WP:PRIMARY only says we generally shouldn't use a source produced by the article subject that's talking about itself (such as a website about the article subject written by the article subject). However, there are instances where it's allowed, and this would be one of them. -- McDoob  AU93  14:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Where does it say this exactly? I know you've mentioned this before in a previous conversation, but that appears to be an interpretation of the policy and not explicitly stated in the policy itself. That interpretation can be somewhat confusing considering the example given in the policy: "a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source". Here, the author of an experiment has written a scientific paper about that experiment, and this is an acceptable primary source per the policy. To say "a source produced by the article subject...generally shouldn't be used" doesn't agree with the example given.
 * Where does it say this exactly? I know you've mentioned this before in a previous conversation, but that appears to be an interpretation of the policy and not explicitly stated in the policy itself. That interpretation can be somewhat confusing considering the example given in the policy: "a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source". Here, the author of an experiment has written a scientific paper about that experiment, and this is an acceptable primary source per the policy. To say "a source produced by the article subject...generally shouldn't be used" doesn't agree with the example given.


 * By the way, I reverted the changes made by Dnywlsh, who was trying to say it was in Woodmore. The park's website and multiple secondary sources (Gazette.net, WJLA (ABC7 in Baltimore), The Baltimore Sun) all state that it is in Upper Marlboro. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The key phrase I refer to is this one: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." In the past, that has been interpreted to refer to information sourced to the subject or its producer. Some examples would be an edit for an article on the iPod based on Apple's website. For "straightforward, descriptive statements", that source would be OK. For more controversial statements—things like "the world's biggest X" or the "world's first Y"—that can often be found on a company's website for their products, that site wouldn't be appropriate and thus PRIMARY would apply. In the case of amusement attractions, PRIMARY should be interpreted to minimize the use of park websites as sources unless it's something very simple and not promotional. If a third-party source backs up the statement, then the third party would be the source for the edit. -- McDoob  AU93  16:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * So in other words, you really meant to narrow the focus to company websites and not all self-authored primary sources. That would have been an important distinction to make in the quoted statement above. Also, some statements on a company's website about its products can certainly be used. Per WP:USINGPRIMARY, the types of company statements we shouldn't use include those that directly compare its products to its competitors or any kind of self-analysis on performance or marketing, but we can use objective comparison claims such as "OurCo is the oldest widget business in Smallville" or "OurCo sells more widgets than anyone else in New Zealand". So even after adding the narrow focus to your original statement, it's important to note that we shouldn't automatically ban all claims made on a company's website simply because it's the company making those claims. There will be many exceptions, so many in fact, that I wouldn't go as far as you did and say "we generally shouldn't use [self-authored sources]". That implies that a majority of them are unacceptable. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually I think there will of course be exceptions, but not that many. Considering Wikipedia's emphasis on independent sourcing, where third-party generally trumps first-party, I think the system in place (investigation on a case-by-case basis) is working just fine. For clarification, I agree that the park's website can be a valid source for this edit (in which city the park is located); if a third-party source backs that up, so much the better, and it should be used first. If no third-party source exists, the park website would be acceptable since it is a rather basic piece of information. -- McDoob  AU93  17:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I realize I was nitpicking! Thanks for clarifying your position. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * GoneIn60 - The park is physically located in Woodmore, Maryland, as indicated by the CDP boundaries shown on Google Maps, and Wikipedia's own page on the area. The city boundaries of Upper Marlboro are fairly small. Everything outside of that area, although it may be referred to as Upper Marlboro, is actually technically part of other CDPs and unincorporated areas, since it is outside of the city limits. A mailing address is different from where the park is physically located. CDPs are usually not used for mailing addresses, but they are in some cases, usually when the population is high enough, like Edgewater, Maryland, which is usually just thought of as part of Annapolis. CDPs usually cover areas that extend far beyond an actual city's boundaries. The park's website and the sources are all incorrect, since they are using the mailing address, which is listed as being in Upper Marlboro. I suspect this is related to the same reason why you've never heard of Woodmore, they're just using Upper Marlboro for simplicity reasons, since most people would have the same reaction to Woodmore: "Where's that?" I understand that the sources you've found are the only information that you have to go by, per Wikipedia's guidelines, but the CDP is the actual physical location, since it is outside of Upper Marlboro's actual boundaries. Dnywlsh (talk) 04:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time and effort to explain. I can understand the argument that the park is physically located within the unincorporated limits of Woodmore. When you look at the boundaries for Woodmore, that is clearly correct. However, using the same Google Maps source, if you click on the Six Flags waypoint, it shows its location as Upper Marlboro, likely going by the mailing address as you aptly point out. All the analysis of why these sources are claiming Upper Marlboro over Woodmore needs a proper reference before it can be mentioned in the article. The map, unfortunately, isn't enough especially since the waypoint on the map represents a contradiction. Also, articles on Wikipedia should strive to be a representation of the facts presented in reliable sources. Even if that representation is incomplete, Wikipedia isn't the proper platform to introduce new facts and research. Therefore, from a Wikipedian perspective, it should be fine to leave it as Upper Marlboro for now. I'd be interested to hear what other editors think at this point. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * ZIP codes add another layer of confusion, which I think may be why the Six Flags website indicates the park is in Upper Marlboro. Google Maps, when searching for Six Flags, lists that the park is in Woodmore, but they show the full address as being in Upper Marlboro. The same zip code, 20774, is used by several CDPs, including Woodmore, so it gets confusing. Dnywlsh (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is that none of that equals RS. The key is what do the reliable sources use.  It doesn't matter where it technically is, other then maybe a line stating so in the body of the article.  Even that would need a source.  The only RS I have ever seen either list it as Upper Marlboro, Largo, or Bowie.  None of them say Woodmore.  Both RS and common name policies apply here.  Although technically it may be within the boundaries of Woodmore, doesn't mean that the RS say it is there.   It may technically also be part of some subdivision, do we also mention that subdivision?  How are we to know whether Google drew the boundary correctly or not?  This is interpretation of a primary source that doesn't even come out to explicitly say "Six Flags America" is part of Woodmore.  Marauder40 (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm kinda thinking we've got it all squared away at this point. Though Dnywlsh believes that there's more to the story, I don't believe he/she is challenging Upper Marlboro at this point. I think it's clear – or at least I'm hoping it is – that without a reliable source that uses prose to support Woodmore, we shouldn't change it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As a former Town Commissioner for Upper Marlboro, I will be happy to challenge Six Flags being in "Upper Marlboro". First off, in no case should this article link to the Upper Marlboro page -- it should link to Greater Upper Marlboro, as wikipedia uses census naming for their places in the US.  However, I'd argue that Six Flags isn't even in Greater Upper Marlboro.  See a | Google maps outline of Greater Upper Marlboro.  Note that it doesn't extend above Central Ave (MD 214).  Growing up, we always said that Wild World (one of its previous names) was in Largo, but it's closer to either Mitchellville or Bowie.  (note that the Bowie wikipedia page is for the City of Bowie, and I'm not aware of a 'Greater Bowie' designation.)  Woodmore and Kettering are considered more neighborhoods/subdivisions, so wouldn't be appropriate to use. (Similar to Marlton, which will show up as a region on Google Maps, but it's a rather large neighborhood of subdivisions within the Upper Marlboro postal region, or Westphalia to the west of the Town of Upper Marlboro, which used to be considered "Upper Marlboro", but had a |sector plan completed in 2007 ).
 * I'd recommend saying Six Flags is in "unincorporated Prince George's County, between Largo & Bowie", which would accurately give the location without having to make a judgement call as to what to call the area nor why the hell Six Flags keeps insisting they're in Upper Marlboro. Jhourcle (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we all agreed to keep it Upper Marlboro for now until more reliable sources appear that dispute the location. Unfortunately, personal experiences aren't a good substitute for solid references. Also no offense, but your description of the park's location sounds a bit convoluted and uncertain. If we were to inject your proposal into the article, it would undoubtedly draw attention and get reverted back by waves of editors that pass by the article. At the very least we need a reference to link to in a citation tag, which would help alleviate some of that concern. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you reverted my "near" change. Technically "in" would mean that it is within city limits.  The fact that different RS list it as in Largo, Bowie and Upper Marlboro tell you that it isn't "in" Upper Marlboro.  It technically isn't "in" any town, it is between several.  Of course we could always do what the Busch Gardens Williamsburg article does and list the county.  It is definitely "in" Prince Georges County.  Honestly I think "near" is better. Marauder40 (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Clearly, this is a contentious subject that has been discussed at great length here. So while I appreciated your effort (as I noted in the edit summary), any future change should be hashed out here. The use of "near" may very well be a decent alternative, but it's not clear that there is any evidence the address listed on Six Flags website is incorrect. That's the strongest example of support for Upper Marlboro, and I believe we should stick with that until a better source clarifies the actual location in more detail or addresses the controversy. If we assume there's a controversy, then it can be seen as original research. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * First off you can see from the history of this section it was ME that brought up the topic due to someone that kept trying to change it to Woodmore. Stating that the park is IN a city just because the mailing address of the park is Upper Marlboro isn't valid.  From Upper Marlboro's own government web page, "The incorporated Town of Upper Marlboro is 0.4 square miles, less than one mile across and half a mile wide. 4.65% (0.04 square miles) of that is water."  Six Flags is nowhere even close to .4 square miles from there.  Just like Busch Gardens doesn't claim to be in Williamsburg even though their address features Williamsburg, you can't say that Six Flags is "in" Upper Marlboro either, because it isn't.  I don't live "in" the city that is my mailing address either.  The only TRUE options are "near Upper Marlboro" or in "Prince George's County".  Obviously saying Woodmore isn't correct, and saying Largo, and Bowie (both of which can be shown in RS) isn't any more correct.Marauder40 (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright, on second thought, I think I can settle for "near". I'll undo my revert. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you.Marauder40 (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, guys. I made an edit adding Woodmere while editing on an IP on an unsecure computer but I didn't realize that this discussion had happened until after I made it. However I need to inform you that there is a consensus, established from talk page and noticeboards, that CDPs should be indicated. 2011 Tucson shooting uses "Tucson" in the title but clearly indicates the shooting as taken place in Casas Adobes, Arizona. See discussion threads and this one. Also when an editor objected to me adding Annandale, Virginia to ENSCO, Inc. I opened a noticeboard page at WP:OR/Noticeboard (where it was determined not to be original research) and according to that and the discussion the consensus was to indicate both the CDP and mailing address city. I believe this broad consensus is transferable to all US-related articles. If any editor objects it will be necessary to open an RFC or noticeboard to get the participation of the wider community.

See a related discussion: Talk:Centennial_Airport

However I am willing to move CDP info out of the lead into a "location" section in the article body giving the exact details if you think this will improve the quality of the lead. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Holiday in the Park?
It seems an IP editor keeps trying to imply that Six Flags America will be adding Holiday in the Park. When asked to provide a source they list a shareholder report that is behind a registration required wall. First off, provided the source the list source actually says it, it is a primary source. Second, it needs to be reported by something else to establish notability. The new VR version of the Superman ride has already been established in RS, yet "Holiday at the Park" at Six Flags America hasn't been yet. Please wait until a valid RS picks this up before adding it back in again. Even if is true I think we should do something like on the Hershey Park page where they lists "Easter Weekend, May-September, Halloween and Christmas" as the season. To imply putting up a few lights and running a couple rides equals completely open for the season is a stretch. I would give April-October since everything at the park is open except for the water park during early and late season, but usually Holiday at the Park only includes a few rides. Also, note that the Six Flag America site itself hasn't added this to their calendar yet. Marauder40 (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:PAYWALL doesn't automatically disqualify a source as being reliable, and a WP:PRIMARY source can be used in certain circumstances; the park expanding its schedule using a press release would be a valid example where it could be used. That said, not much more has been said, and as you noted, the park's website hasn't been updated, either. I do agree we can wait a bit. -- McDoob  AU93  19:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I know about WP:PAYWALL, I was going more for the fact that the shareholders report is a primary source that hasn't yet been picked up by a single secondary source so as such has problems with both being a primary source and not necessarily being notable YET. As such it is as an issue with the fact that WP is not the news or for press releases even before the press releases actually happen ;) Marauder40 (talk) 19:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Press releases can be speculative, and yes, things can change even if the press release is 100% accurate. The press release could be used as a source to mention that Six Flags is planning on adding HITP to Six Flags America, but I would agree that it doesn't establish the dates for the park's operating season. For all we know, the event will close at the end of December and not in January, so that particular component of the edit would be original interpretation. The fact that SFA is considering HITP and chooses to make that publicly known in a press release is reasonable. -- McDoob  AU93  20:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * First of all, I was able to confirm that the report at the Seeking Alpha source does in fact state that Holiday in the Park is coming to Six Flags America in 2016. However, the report does not specifically mention the dates involved, nor are those dates listed on the official website yet. As for the announcement, like you said, it doesn't exist in other sources yet, including the park's twitter and FB feeds. I completely agree that until additional confirmation shows up in other sources, we should revert back to the previous "March through October". The IP editor(s) should comment here instead of edit-warring. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)