[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/Jump to content

Talk:Geauga Lake

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

Recent move attempt

[edit]

A move discussion above supports the amusement park article's title as "Geauga Lake" not "Geauga Lake (amusement park)". I undid a recent attempt that went against previously established consensus. Georgia guy, please start a new move discussion if you wish to change the title. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did, at Talk:Geauga Lake (Ohio). Georgia guy (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That move discussion only concerns moving the lake article to the primary topic position. It does not discuss what to do with the amusement park article, which already occupies the primary topic position. Your proposal should have addressed both moves. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes to lead

[edit]

I undid this edit for a couple reasons. First, MOS:DASH doesn't favor em dashes over en dashes, or vice versa; it only suggests using them consistently throughout the article. Second, a redirect is not reason enough to force the redirected term to appear in bold. Per MOS:BOLDSYN, we should only be bolding significant alternate titles, not all alternate titles. "Six Flags Ohio" was used for one season and is rather insignificant in comparison to the other titles that have been bolded.

As for the location of Geauga Lake, none of the cited references I looked at mention that it's in Bainbridge Township. It may in fact be true, but if the trend in reliable sources only mentions Aurora, then Wikipedia should reflect that in the article. Doing otherwise could be considered a form of original research. Are there sources that say otherwise? If so, let's include those in the article before adding it in the lead. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Google Maps, for starters, and just type in "Aurora, Ohio" and it will show the boundaries of the city. Note that much of the waterpark is even outside the city of Aurora and all but a small portion of the former Geauga Lake is as well. The majority of the lake itself is also in Bainbridge. That's not a highly controversial fact and typically does not need its own citation simply because, like I did, readers can find maps on their own. Another recent article also verifies it is in Bainbridge Township ("The land straddles both Bainbridge and Aurora..."). All it took was a quick web search under "Geauga Lake" and "Bainbridge". You can also do that instead of simply reverting and then accusing of original research. When facts like that are simple and non-controversial, always assume the editor knows what they're doing. If it really bothers you, put a "citation needed" tag on it or simply do your own search. Stating where something actually is isn't original research. And since we have articles for both Aurora and Bainbridge, we can be more precise in mentioning location.
As for the alternate title, I disagree. Because the Six Flags Ohio name was significant enough to have a redirect made, there is no problem having it bolded in the lead. "Significant" is a matter of perspective and consensus. It may have been used only one season, but "Worlds of Adventure" wasn't used much longer (three seasons) or even "Geauga Lake and Wildwater Kingdom" (three seasons). The precedent I have seen at other articles is if there is a redirect for an alternate name, that name is bolded at some point, usually the first instance. I would also argue it's more or as well-known as "Giles Pond" or "Picnic Lake", which you added to the lead. Just looking at the page stats for "Six Flags Ohio", it's still getting regular views, meaning people are looking for the park under that name.
My understanding with spaced en-dashes is that they typically aren't used in pairs like that. But commas (which were originally there) also work there. From what MOS:DASH says, though, when using the spaced en-dash, you need to use the {{Spaced en dash}} template instead. --JonRidinger (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "All it took was a quick web search...You can also do that instead of simply reverting and then accusing of original research"
Just to be clear, the so-called "revert" you are referring to is here. Information, which has existed in the article for quite some time, was removed. It wasn't a revert per se, so let's get that straight. As for "accusing of original research", accuse is a strong exaggeration. I simply said if the trend in reliable sources supports Aurora only, then going against that trend could be considered a violation. That's far from an accusation, which should have been obvious by the use of the conditional "if". And for the record, I haven't re-removed Bainbridge following your revert, and instead chose to discuss it here per WP:BRD. Perhaps you overlooked that fact as well.
Secondly, locations can be controversial, and sorting out that controversy isn't always as simple as looking at a map. Take your Google Maps reference, for example. If you click on the Wildwater Kingdom waypoint, the address will show as "1100 Squires Rd, Aurora, OH 44202", which agrees with the park's website. However, any person looking at the map could draw the same conclusion you spoke of regarding the amusement park, seeing that the water park is physically located in more than one area. They might assume then that both areas need to be stated to describe the park's location. So far, this hasn't happened at Wildwater Kingdom (Aurora, Ohio), and I imagine that's because a majority of reliable sources don't mention Bainbridge when describing the water park's location. When I looked at the cited sources in the amusement park article, the same appears to be the case. While some mention Bainbridge, most do not. Realize that I am not challenging its physical location, which is where I think the disconnect is coming from in this discussion. I'm simply suggesting we describe the park's location the same way it is typically described in reliable sources. The source you posted above and many like it are in reference to future plans for the property – a discussion being had by both Aurora and Bainbridge officials. The nearly 600-acre plot of land is likely being split up under separate zoning policies implemented by both districts. These "discussions" have nothing to do with the way the park self-identified its location when it was in operation (see this), nor does it impact the way reliable sources reported the park's location prior to its closing (see this and this). Talking about the amusement park and talking about the property itself are two separate, distinct discussions. This article is mainly about the amusement park, and its location was best known to be Aurora, OH.
  • "I would also argue it's more or as well-known as "Giles Pond" or "Picnic Lake""
This is a moot point for two reasons. First, no one is attempting to bold these terms. Second, these were the first names on record for the amusement park. Their level of recognition doesn't matter, since we are summarizing the park's early history (or beginnings) in the lead.
  • "Just looking at the page stats for "Six Flags Ohio", it's still getting regular views, meaning people are looking for the park under that name"
If you look carefully at the redirect, you'll notice its traffic is averaging roughly 6 hits/day, which is pretty low compared to Geauga Lake's 375 hits/day. That's only 1.6% of the overall traffic, which isn't very convincing if you're going to use that stat as your main justification for significance. Even more alarming are the conditions surrounding the redirect. Four articles shown here are still using the old "Six Flags Ohio" wikilink. This makes the 6 hits/day stat misleading and less relevant. Until those old links are eliminated from Wikipedia, there's no guarantee where the hits are coming from (searches vs. clicking outdated links in other articles). There's too much of a concern here to bank an opinion on traffic alone.
  • "From what MOS:DASH says, though, when using the spaced en-dash, you need to use the {{Spaced en dash}} template"
Seriously? Are we reading the same thing? When I look at the guideline, I see:

To ensure correct linewrap handling, the {{spaced ndash}} template (or its {{snd}} shorthand) can be used

Clearly there is a difference between "can", "should", and "need", and somehow you've gone with the most extreme interpretation. This is just an observation, but if you continue to misinterpret policies and guidelines like this, you're going to end up in a lot more of these discussions which can be easily avoided. Let's also not lose sight of the fact that your first attempt at changing my en dash was to replace it with an em dash (diff). That was NOT recommended by the guideline, and it seems like you're backpedaling a bit at this point in this latest MOS:DASH proclamation. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First, physical location should always be accurate, and many times that means an entity is in more than one jurisdiction. Because Wikipedia isn't a paper encyclopedia, we can be more precise in a subject's actual location since we don't have to worry about print space. The park has an Aurora ZIP code (the billing office is in Aurora...I used to work there), hence many sources referring to it being in Aurora, but that in itself does not establish it is only physically in Aurora anymore than Southeast High School (Ohio), which has an address of "Ravenna, Ohio 44266" is in Ravenna. It's actually a good 10 miles from Ravenna, but the Ravenna ZIP code covers much of rural Portage County. Same for Field High School (located in Brimfield but has a Mogadore mailing address), and Springfield High School (Lakemore, Ohio), which has an Akron ZIP code but is located in Lakemore. ZIP codes do not correspond with city or community boundaries, so their use for identifying where something physically is can be problematic. The majority of the property that this article is about is in Bainbridge, which the source I gave you in my last reply shows, along with Google Maps and other available map sources. Wildwater Kingdom is also in both. That editors used "Aurora, Ohio" in the title does not negate that (I changed it to just "Ohio" since there isn't another Wildwater Kingdom in Ohio). Aurora is the larger and better-known of the two anyway. But how the park "self-identified" is irrelevant and has no effect on the mention of where the park actually is in the lead. There was a time Sea World Ohio "identified" as being in Cleveland (see http://www.themeparkbrochures.net/1988/swohio1988_1.html), despite being a good 20 miles from the city. Marketing and simplicity for convenience doesn't restrict precision here. Wildwater Kingdom hasn't been changed...yet. The reality is that article has received very little attention (had a whole seven edits for 2015...).
I still disagree about the placement and bolding of Six Flags Ohio in the lead. The fact it was only a one year name does not make it insignificant. It was a name the park was known by and other editors felt it was important enough to make a redirect. It would be one thing if it were clearly a temporary name or was a "working title", but it wasn't. It was an official name for a year, complete with literature, ads, and merchandise. There are also still mentions of it in secondary sources. It is ultra prominent? No. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be included, especially in the historical context of its mention in the lead when the park was rebranded as a Six Flags (the first Six Flags in Ohio). It does not add a significant amount of text nor is it some obscure, largely unknown trivia factoid. And while we're not talking about bolding "Giles Pond" or "Picnic Lake", they're still mentioned in the lead (indicating they have some significance) while you're arguing that "Six Flags Ohio" shouldn't be bolded or mentioned in the lead. Neither "Giles Pond" or "Picnic Lake" is a redirect to this one. I would argue if they're not significant enough to be bolded as past names, they should be in the history section only, not in the lead.
As for the minutiae of the dashes, sorry, that's how I've seen it done. I've rarely ever seen the en-dash used as a break on Wikipedia. When I replaced it with the em-dash, that's from past experience when other editors did the same thing on my edits or edits I saw, and my interpretation of MOS:DASH. Extreme? Eh, not so much; probably more of an absolute interpretation. Policies and guidelines do change, and apparently that's been updated. I don't check guidelines every few months; I go on what I know, so I stand corrected. You'll note that when I placed the template, it didn't alter the appearance of how you wrote that sentence, so I'm not sure why that appears to have upset you. But hey, if you want to take it out, be by guest. And yes, you are the first person who has ever taken issue with that in my 11 years of editing. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also noticed in looking back at the talk page that we had a similar discussion about location back in 2012. See Talk:Geauga Lake/Archive 1#Location. Seemed to have been resolved then, so I'm wondering what changed? --18:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
That discussion you referenced above was back when I was much less familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I've learned a lot since then, and Wikipedia should strive to be an accurate representation of what appears in the sources. Mentioning Bainbridge in the lead, to me, gives it WP:UNDUE prominence in the lead. It should instead be mentioned in the body in a discussion about the aftermath that followed the park's demise. However, I am willing to drop the Bainbridge issue for now, as it's not important enough to fuss over any further. I still think we should use the phrasing found in a majority of reliable sources, but since there are at least a few sources that reference Bainbridge, the issue is a minor one. At some point, I'll try to find a proper venue with a broader scope to discuss issues like this, since it tends to crop up in multiple articles (as this isn't the first time I've seen it being debated). As for the other minor issue, the en dash, it's worth noting that the MOS:DASH section on dashes has remained essentially the same for the past 3 years. It would be unreasonable to assume that an experienced editor would check for updates every few months, but it is reasonable to expect an editor to at least check it before citing it. While I have come across articles with em dashes, a vast majority in my experience use and favor en dashes. Apparently, your mileage may vary. The issue isn't so much about which one is preferred; it's the fact you changed it unnecessarily from one format to the other when both formats are acceptable. Enough said about that, moving on.
The one point remaining is the appearance of "Six Flags Ohio" in the lead. I understand your argument that "Giles Pond" and "Picnic Lake" are not any more significant than "Six Flags Ohio", but realize that the reason they appear in the lead is because they help describe the park's beginnings, which is important in a summary. "Six Flags Ohio" describes a brief change that occurred near the tail-end of the park's history, in addition to only lasting a year. It is not as important when summarizing a park's overall history. Had it occurred at the beginning and been useful to a brief summary of the park's historical beginnings, I would support it just as much as the other names. Unfortunately, it's not, and its absence from the lead clears clutter in an effort to make the lead more concise. The name belongs in the history section of the article, but to a reader who may only read the lead of the article, it is an unimportant detail that can be left out. Whether there were 5 name changes or 20, not all of them would need to be in the lead. The initial park name(s) and the most significant names that follow are the ones we should keep; "Six Flags Ohio" is not among them. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We disagree on the significance of the names. The change to Six Flags Ohio was a significant development in the park's history, since it was the first name change in around 100 years and coincided with the opening of four new roller coasters. That it only lasted one season was simply because of later developments with the acquisition of SeaWorld. If it didn't interrupt the flow to not mention its initial name upon becoming a Six Flags, I'd support its removal, but it creates a gap. I can appreciate the need to de-clutter a lead, but I don't feel this adds significant amount of text to consider it "clutter". I would counter-argue that removal of the Giles Pond and Picnic Lake names in the lead does little, if anything, to lessen the reader's understanding's of the park (that it developed from a recreation area), especially since to understand the names, you need some context of who "Giles" is and some background on the "picnic" part. Even more important, those early names don't refer to the park, they refer to the lake. "Six Flags Ohio" has context, was the beginning of a distinct era for the park, and was clearly an official name, so seems logical to mention, on top of the redirect.
As for Bainbridge, it's really not a matter of WP:UNDUE since it's a verifiable fact, not an opinion or viewpoint. You mention taking "extremes" in guidelines...be careful you aren't doing the very thing you've said I have done for punctuation. I have shown several reliable sources that confirm the reality the park was in both jurisdictions. And again, citing a ZIP code or publicity materials doesn't negate the reality of where something is actually located. Nothing wrong with being reasonably precise, nor is there any requirement that an article can only have one location (Carowinds is another example...it's in two different states). It's similar to a school that has campuses in more than one town. You list all locations. WP:UNDUE would be, for instance, if we had a large and highly-detailed section or paragraph in the lead about the controversy surrounding the park's closure or about the park's location, but very little about the general history and/or rides. --JonRidinger (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good point about WP:UNDUE. It refers to opinions and viewpoints, and not verifiable facts. My position was focused on the way the location was described in reliable sources, which appears to overwhelmingly favor Aurora over Bainbridge. In that light, it appeared to be a "viewpoint" from the sources, regardless of where the actual property resides. After giving it more thought, however, I've come to realize that it's really nitpicking on my part. I do not plan on revisiting the location issue at this point. Also after re-reading the lead and taking your argument into account about the first change to the name in 100 years, I've decided to drop my opposition to its presence in the lead. Not sure all former names need to be bolded, but that's an issue for another venue (WPTALK:MOS). I do appreciate your persistence and response, so hopefully we can put this behind us and move forward. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...it's good to discuss and get on the same page, plus I definitely learned something about using en-dashes I didn't know! Also thanks for catching my mistake on "Pre-Amusement park era". Yes it should be a hyphen as you fixed, not a dash. I went through and did that without thinking when I was putting the dashes in for the years. Oops! --JonRidinger (talk) 01:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Yeah, I suppose I overreacted a bit! On another note, I noticed there isn't an article on the defunct Funtime, Inc. Might be worth creating one, as there's a lot of info out there (looks like one of the co-founders was originally from Sandusky). If you have time to get one started, great, but if not I may find time in the next few weeks or so. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Geauga Lake. 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) 19:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Geauga Lake. 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) 04:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Geauga_Lake&oldid=1195603598"