Talk:Canada's Wonderland/Archive 1

Archive 1

PST

Should there be mention of the Park's recent PST fiasco? The park wasn't giving customers a PST exemption for certain items including food and merchandise. Reported numerous times by Citytv...[1]

I'd lean toward leaving that out of the article. It seems like a bit of a contemporary triviality that no one will care about in 5 years. If the problem persisted and they were charged it would worthy of inclusion. --NormanEinstein June 28, 2005 22:42 (UTC)

By all accounts, the park has been overcharging customers for years. Citytv has been following the story for over 2 weeks, and the park has yet to make any changes since the story was first aired. The station estimates that the park's customers are paying an additional 5-10 million dollars each year because of this gaffe.

Management blames the student staff (the largest summer student employer in the GTA I believe) for this problem, but the management themselves should be making more of an effort to educate all of its vendors about the problem.--Madchester June 30, 2005 05:29 (UTC)

Funnel cakes

This article is useless without mentioning the park's funnel cakes! --Madchester June 30, 2005 05:27 (UTC)

Haha, I agree. Sana 08:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Employer

PCW is not only the largest student employer in the GTA, it is Canada's Largest employer of Young People (though they don't specify what exactly Young People are.) --Dzmatt August 16, 2005 17:59 (UTC)

Fact-check for mine buster

The mighty canadian mine buster is NOT the longest wooden roller coaster in Canada. Le monstre at laronde is. Monstre = Track 1=1218 meters Track 2=1227 meters

Frontier Canada

If anyone has one of the original park maps - could they be so kind as to scan and upload a high quality version of it! - I would do it if I had a copy of that map! - if you have extras I would buy it from you! Thanks - User: Themepark

Well I don't know if it would scan but I know in the men's washroom in Maintenance there is a 5x5 foot map of the park from like 1982 or something.

Well if you could scan it in - that would be great!!! - if you need help reassembling the image in photoshop, just send me the sections and I can do it for you. User: Themepark

It won't be easy, because only Park Maintenance have access to that. No other employees do, so it's not going to be easy. cncxbox 24 August 2007.

Wild Beast is the fastest.

Wild Beast is faster than The Great Canadian Minebuster. Wild Beast goes approximately 56 mph. The Great Canadian Minebuster only goes approximately 55.9 mph.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.46.141.191 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this a joke? You may want to realize that 55.9 ≈ 56, and as both given speeds are approximate, there is no case for distinction here. –Dvandersluis 16:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It is quite perceived that Wild Beast may be faster since it's bumpier and the gravity pushes you more on this ride than any other. While the official information is in km/h, it should not vary by a lot. – cncxbox 05:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Section?

I removed this because I couldn't decide which section it should be in: An episode of The Littlest Hobo was set at Canada's Wonderland in the very early days of the park. Would this belong in a new sectioncalled something like culteral impact or even trivia? RJFJR 13:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think a trivia section could be appropriate. – Dvandersluis 14:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. RJFJR 19:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Name change

I think most (if not all) references to "Paramount Canada's Wonderland" have been replaced with just "Canada's Wonderland" now (I went through all the pages that came up in a search of "Paramount Canada's Wonderland" and replaced the text). A bunch of links to other articles on this page became redlinks previously, because the text was changed but the actual pages weren't moved, but I've fixed that. We do need to get a picture of the logo, though, since the previous one seems to have been deleted. –Dvandersluis 16:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The new logo sucks. How can they not have the mountain in the logo? Come on! Tenspeeder 22:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Mountain was also in Paramount logo, so it was nixed, same as the stars 142.204.70.20 20:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I have added "Paramount Canada's Wonderland" under the "Recent History" section to denote the fact the park was renamed to this after it was acquired by Paramount Parks. Toward the end of the section I note it has since been remaned to the original "Canada's Wonderland" following its acquisition by Cedar Fair. Grimey109 18:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Major Attractions by Year

I marked this section for a potential split. I'm not sure if the information within it is necessary to be collected in one central place (I'd purport that at least 90+% of it is contained within the various CW articles already, such as list of roller coasters at Canada's Wonderland), but it shouldn't be on the already bloated main article. –Dvandersluis 21:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I believe the section should be deleted entirely from the article. I also believe the information contained within this section is (or could be contained) in each of the articles pertaining to the rides listed. Also, this section is somewhat of an eyesore. Grimey109 18:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Deaths at the park

Several people have died! Not on rides, but elderly, heart attacks, there was a shooting hence the metal detectors. Check your facts! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.250.76 (talk • contribs)

No reported deaths by any of my co-workers (yes, I work at Wonderland). So I don't have any verifications, do you? – cncxbox 24 August 2007. —The preceding signed but undated

I work at wonderland too, and I have not heard of any guests dying other than the drowning 20ish years ago. Sigz 19:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It was in the summer of 1985. A mentally retarded man leapt into the water behind the falls to retrieve his frisbee, and he got pulled under by the currents and drowned. This is not simply something that I heard somewhere from someone. I remember the story being in the newspapers and on the television news. Whoever wrote that garbage about no-one ever drowning at Wonderland doesn't know what s/he's talking about. I've removed it. I have searched the 'Net but haven't found a reference to the tragedy yet. The walkway behind the waterfall has been closed since then. Kelisi (talk) 11:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. It might have been 1988 or 1989 as a writer lower down says. I was under the impression, though, that it was the year after I worked there (1984). I've tried other languages now, and still I can find no reference. I'd consult the library, but I'm abroad at the moment. Kelisi (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe I can settle this once and for all. Rodney Joyce, a Grade 12 Student from Sir William Osler High School died May 23, 1998 after chasing a frisbee into the water behind the falls. blamed for Wonderland drowning Inquest ordered into tragedy that killed Scarborough teen. Also: standards needed at parks, says jury probing teen's drowning. I have made a few inquiries to people I know at the company who have all verified this story. cncxbox, I'm not sure who you asked, but I guess they may not have been around that long. 74.13.124.103 (talk) 04:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoops forgot to login! (Was me above)Sigz (talk) 05:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

ok, if the rest of the community wants to put it in and cite The Toronto Star, then go ahead. This is conclusive evidence then. However, there's no other evidence about "several" people died. Nor has there been proof of shootings within the park. I've heard outside but not on park premises. - cncxbox 22:46 02 June 2008 (UTC)

False Statement

"Unsubstantiated rumours have swirled that a person died at the base of Wonder Mountain. However, other than a shooting which took place outside the front gate (stemming from an earlier argument from off park property), there have been no confirmed deaths at the Park that were not as a result of 'natural causes'". - This statement is completely false! Somebody did die at the base of the Wonder Mountain. It happened on Victoria Day back in 1988 or 89. A guy drowned by falling into the pool at base of Victoria Falls. Go to the Library and do your research! This whole article REALLY needs to fixed!!

This is quite true, as I was there when this happened (although only 2 at the time). My parent's friend who was walking with us in the park (a VP at the time) jumped in to try and save the person. They were playing frisbee in the path behind victoria falls when the frisbee fell into the water and one of the men jumped to get it, but failed to stay afloat. This is why the path behind the falls is closed.207.164.201.118 20:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

However, there are no official records exist to check back to at the moment. Victoria Falls has always been exclusive to the divers and no where else. cncxbox 24 August 2007

Why don't you move your lazy ass off your computer chair and go to the library! If you check past Toronto Star articles from May 1988 or 1989. You're definitely going to find records pertaining to this. It was big news at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.106.21.196 (talk) 19:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the Victoria Falls thing was true, but if people actually can get pulled underwater, then why do they have those cliff diving shows where the people just dive down and climb out? - 99.238.90.70 16:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I have yet found any records from the company, nor have I found anything like this after talking to my supervisor or other higher ranked colleagues. Your statement is still currently unfounded until hard evidence can be found. cncxbox 16 February 2008. —Preceding comment was added at 01:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Metal Detectors

"Another common myth surrounding the Park is that the metal detectors were a result of the above mentioned shooting. However, the metal detectors were planned prior to the shooting, following the lead of several American parks."
All reference of the shooting has been removed. This point under "Facts" mentions something no longer in the article.
Sana 08:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The park has metal detectors in all sorts of entrances, including the Employee's Entrance, so I don't think it was because of the shootings. -- cncxbox 16 February 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 01:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

the metal detectors at Gate 2, 6 and Front Gate went in after the shooting. They were part of the Zero-Tolerance Policy that went in around the same time. Sigz (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

2008 Attraction

Resolved

Would a picture taken by an enthusiast be enough confirmation to but CW's 2008 attraction down as a B&M rollercoaster? 66.65.240.77 00:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it would be definite confirmation of the roller coaster, but it certainly wouldn't hurt to post it (here or on the article) to let people decide for themselves. - zachinthebox _{(User • Talk)} 04:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You can clearly see the construction site right next to The Italian Job. From what I know, it used to be a lake which they just filled to make this new coaster cncxbox 24 August 2007

The lake is not being drained or filled. Part of the coast near Kingswood has aquadams in place to facilitate the install of the supports for the ride. The dams will be removed when construction is done, and the rest of the lake remains untouched. Sigz 19:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The speculation is over: the long awaited roller coaster is now open to the public. Johnny Au (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this just a comment or is there something that needs to be changed on the article? Could you be more clear, please. Thanks. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It is just an action to remove this section from the talk page. Johnny Au (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Splash Works belongs here and there is not sufficient material for it to stand alone. This follows from the International Festival (Canada's Wonderland) merger, which I just executed as per AfD. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree, it needs to be expanded (which I just did a little of), but unlike "International Festival" which is just a non-notable section name of the park, Splash Works is an actual water park, (and one of the largest in Canada). Epson291 (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

CW-Starlight-Spectacular-Logo.jpg is up for deletion

Please see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 August 16#File:CW-Starlight-Spectacular-Logo.jpg for discussion. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 13:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

International Street (Canada's Wonderland)

This new article on the opening street is new, and more importantly a GA! Literally, within a day of being public, it received that status. Wow. Anyway, I'm developing an article on Medieval Faire, and welcome anyone else editing the page. The only reason I'm doing it on my username space is so that if development takes more than 5 days, then it can still be nominated as DYK. -- Zanimum (talk) 02:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations! Keep up the great work! Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

File:WildBeastCW.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:WildBeastCW.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Peer review (of sorts)

I was recently approached by another Wikipedian asking me if this article should be nominated for Good Article status. I suggested not to nominate it, but I offered to do a bit of a review of the article myself. I've loosely based this upon the criteria for Good Articles but I have structured it more like a peer review. The article on the whole is quite good, except I feel that a lot of information has been tacked to the article here and there without consideration. This has caused unverifiable information to exist in the article and a large number of prose problems. Firstly, take a look at some of the things that can be improved in the toolbox on the right. Secondly, here is a list of points to consider improving. It is longer than what I originally intentioned, but by no means is this an exhaustive list. After these changes are made, the article should be extensively copy edited and then possibly nominated for a GA review.

• Infobox - consider revising so these points make sense and are accurate
  • "48 thrill rides & 200 attractions total"
  • "16 (1 under construction) roller coasters"
  • "20 acres (8.1 ha) Waterpark – Waterpark, Outdoor Wavepool, 16 Water Slides water rides"
  • Slogan - the most recent should be sufficient here
• Lead fails to summarise the whole article per WP:LEAD
• Park history
  • Second paragraph in the history section is just one sentence - needs breaking up into a few sentences
  • The last 3 paragraphs of "Origins" are unsourced - this sort of information should be verified
  • There is a big gap in history from 1994 to 2003 - did anything happen then?
  • "An image of the two parking areas can be seen on the left." - where?
  • "The park also announced its addition for 2008" - tense, also announced? What else did they announce?
  • "An arial view" - should be "An aerial view"
  • 2011 onwards is part of the 2010s not 2000s
  • Why is the VIP Tour in bold?
  • "opened the parks new" - should be "opened the park's new" - also is this information timeless? (i.e. will it still be new next year?)
  • The latter part of the history section details the rides that the park opened at particular periods in time. This is not the case for the majority of the history section. I think the information about Behemoth, WindSeeker, Starlight Spectacular and Leviathan be removed for consistency. Maybe the "Major attractions by year" table could be moved up into a subsection of History. In the example below, I've modified some of the section headings which I feel would help break up some of the information a bit.

1. History

1.1 Park history

1.1.1 Origins

1.1.2 Construction and opening

1.1.3 Kings Entertainment era

1.1.4 Paramount Parks era

1.1.5 Cedar Fair Entertainment Company era

1.2 Major attractions by year

• Themed areas
  • "Flight Deck, which opened in 1995 as the "Top Gun" (based on the movie Top Gun) with a movie theme was a shift in the design of the park as it was the first ride to no longer be themed to match the "land" in which it was situated. Since then, almost all new rides have not been themed to be connected to the areas." - is this a sly attack at the park or is there a source that can verify this and its importance for inclusion here?
  • "The Medieval Faire section of the park set in a medieval Europe theme in both environment and names of rides." - reword needed.
  • "However, it has diminished in recent years due to the advent of unthemed new rides" - again. See the comment above about Flight Deck.
  • "Rides Wild Beast and Dragon Fire" - reword.
  • "and had a layout similar to Canada's Wonderland." - statement tacked on the end of a sentence. Doesn't make sense in context.
  • "section of the park and is home to 14 games and 6 rides in the area" - double up here
  • "Depending on their respective department, Canada's Wonderland staff often refer..." - original research (OR)
  • Why is Mountain in bold?
  • "The original rides of Krachenwagen and Klockwerks with its pseudo-German name, and the former ride of Bayern's Curve, which featured a fake man in traditional German dress with a massive horn with German fencing around it, fit into its international theme." - I got lost in this sentence. Singular, plural and ordering need to be fixed.
  • Look up the definition of "treed" and fix appropriately.
  • "...and Action Theatre, as well as Launch Pad, a set of six trampolines, which is a pay-per-experience attraction" - another series of tacked on statements
  • "For operational purposes, these rides are considered part of the Mountain operational group." - OR
  • Consider shuffling the ordering of information about Splash Works.
  • formally or formerly?
  • "this area continues to be referred to as either Expo or Expo/Action Zone by staff members" - OR
  • "The first ride accident in the park's history was August 23, 2003, when the Jimmy Neutron Brainwasher fell apart. Three children were sent to hospital as a precautionary measure." - can this be checked for verifiability?
  • "For operational purposes..." - yep, you guessed it - OR
  • "Sister Paramount Parks" - still referring to them as Paramount Parks
• Attractions
  • 200 attractions? There's just shy of 80 in the full list further down the page.
  • "record for North America's greatest variety of rollercoasters" - there's a record for that?
  • Do the "Children-oriented roller coasters" need to be split from the rest?
  • "Besides the large number of roller coasters it has" - being the first sentence in a section, it should define what "it" is first.
  • "...large number of roller coasters..." / "huge variety of flat rides" - WP:POV (the statement about the park have a large number of roller coasters could probably be sourced, e.g. RCDB)
  • Consider providing links to Enterprise (ride), Pendulum ride, Top Scan (Ride), Teacups etc...
  • Try to be consistent with italics and quote marks in the "Major attractions by year" section
  • Again, consider providing links to ride types and manufacturers in the "Ride Manufacturer and/or Type" column in the "Complete listing" table.
• Starlight Spectacular - could be merged into park history or attractions depending on whether it returns or not
• Location - why is Magic Wonderbus in bold?
• Promotions - incorporate into history section if verifiable
• Logos
  • Again, this information could be incorporated into the history section.
  • Is there really a need for 7 non-free logos? One or two should be sufficient (e.g. current logo in infobox and the first logo in history section). See WP:NFCC #3a.
• General things
  • Sizing of images could be standardised (e.g. either 220px (default thumbnail) or 250px instead of anywhere between 200px and 300px as they are now).
  • The bulk of the statements made in the article are unverified. "Citation needed" tags need to be addressed (by either finding sources or removing the statements altogether).
  • The information in the infobox should be checked for factual accuracy (e.g. it says there are 200 attractions, but in the complete list of attractions further down the page there are ~80).
  • Forum posts are not valid sources.

Congratulations for making it to the end of the list. Feel free to reply here with any queries. Good luck to all those improving the article. Kind regards, Themeparkgc  Talk  08:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this article does need significant improvement before it can be considered a good article and I am a frequent editor of this article. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 16:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's one of those rare cases (see my talk page to see what I mean) but anyway, I can try to see what I can fix in the article from what has been mentioned in the original post. Because of certain reasons (see my talk page) if I were to be the only one to make changes....well this could take quite a long time. If someone else were to help it may speed up the process. Oh and just to keep this long list organized, once you have made changes to the article...strike out what you changed in the list made by Themeparkgc. This will help keep the list organized and help other see what has already been completed and what still should be fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I will try to see what I can fix. Others that are interested please help. (If I stop at any point, I will take the working template off and put it back on when i begin fixing the article again.) Thanks!!!--Dom497 (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

That's too much work to keep putting the working template...so I'm just going to stick with not doing that and just edit the page when I can.--Dom497 (talk) 22:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I also added a link to Incidents at Cedar Fair parks on the section about the Jimmy Neutron Brainwasher accident and also edited that article to include it with the new citation. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 23:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Before I nominate this article for GA status, the following sections (from the article) below still need references:

• First paragraph in 1980-1999 section
• Statements within the 2000-2009 section
• Some areas within the Action Zone section
• The entire Children Area's section (including Planet Snoopy and KidZville)
• Intro to Attractions section

If anyone has any references that fall under one of the above categories, please add it to the article. I will also try to find references on the internet. Remember that YouTube is not a valid reference.--Dom497 (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated the article for GA status. There are probably a few tweaks that still need to be fixed that I couldn't find, but the review should point it out.--Dom497 (talk) 23:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

A newly added section called "Incidents and Accidents" should be written as "Incidents and accidents" with a lowercase "a". We also have to check every IP edit carefully as well. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 01:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You bet!!!--Dom497 (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Always look at the history of edits made on the article carefully. Often, IP users do not follow the Manual of Style, mainly because they are simply unaware of it. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 03:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Canada's Wonderland/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: DeadlyAssassin (talk • contribs • count) 09:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long, maybe shrink it by merging short sections. I'd pay particular attention to the Themed Areas section There is a mixture of SI and non-SI units used. e.g. you use acre in the lead. Also you should use &nbsp between the value and the unit (you do this most of the time) The lead should be 3-4 paragraphs for an article of this length per WP:LEAD You should avoid using galleries in articles, per WP:Galleries. Maybe try to incorporate the logos in the text? I think the lists are too long for this article, I'd consider spinning them off into separate list articles
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	You rely on CW themselves, we need to be careful when using primary sources (WP:PRIMARY), are there any other reliable references to be found? CWmania is a fan site, definitely not WP:RS RollerDB, IMDB and Wikias are user edited and are also not considered reliable There are a fair number of more reliable sources to be found on google books that might help
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The facts and figures really need to be inline cited, I checked a couple and the details aren't reflected in the sources (even ignoring their reliability as identified above)
	2c. it contains no original research.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article really revolves around the rides, which in a way is fair enough, but I'm missing things, some examples being visitor numbers, maybe how much the park makes, any controversy (some mentioned before it openened, nothing now?), you mention how much it costs to get in? As I mentioned lots of focus on the rides, but what about other attractions like live entertainment? Some bits are mentioned in the Theme Areas section, but there isn't much there.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	File:Canada's Wonderland logo.svg doesn't have a valid fair use tag attached.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	I didn't complete a full review, and haven't commented on the prose because with the issues I have identified I don't think this is a Good Article yet and requires quite a bit of work to be done still. I see on the Talk page that Themeparkgc did a review and he was right when he said "After these changes are made, the article should be extensively copy edited and then possibly nominated for a GA review". I think this is still premature, you've got a good start but there's a fair bit still to do in my opinion.

Oh well. We did as much as we can. We need to check more carefully next time. I recommend that we address these issues fully before nominating for GA again. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 15:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

As an uninvolved observer, I would like to point out that File:Canada's Wonderland logo.svg does not need a fair use tag because it consists only of simple text; therefore it cannot be copyrighted and is public domain (hence why it was moved to Commons). jcgoble3 (talk) 16:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I extremely agree with Jcgoble3.--Dom497 (talk) 18:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

From my talk page:

Yes, I do agree with you. More importantly...this review isn't even complete. The message he mentioned on my talk page was that he stopped because of the issues he found. The review summary has 4 question marks which means that he either needed a second opinion or didn't finish the review. A review shouldn't be stopped half way through just because of the issues he found... it should be completed no matter what. Please send back to me if you support this.
— User:Dom497

I agree with this. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 19:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• Gents, the time I spent in checking the references, the images, etc led me to believe that the article isn't ready for review (especially the reliance on non reliable sources). It's the nominator's responsibility to make sure that they are satisfied that an article meets the good article criteria, which this one doesn't do. You've had feedback from myself and Themeparkgc to that effect now. It can take many hours or days to complete a detailed review, and the idea that a review should be completed "no matter what" isn't realistic I'm afraid. I'm not sure why there is such a rush on this, and there's a lot to be proud of in the article, but I would suggest that Johnny Au was right when he said "We need to check more carefully next time. I recommend that we address these issues fully before nominating for GA again." --Deadly∀ssassin 21:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

All this GA stuff has gotten in my head to much. I'm taking a break from editing this article for who knows how long. Anyone willing to fix the article...by all means go ahead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dom497 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I am also taking a break from editing the article, though I may occasionally edit it. Remember that there is no deadline. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Disney World North

Note that anyone with a Toronto Public Library card can access old issues of the Toronto Star and Globe and Mail. The front page of the September 10, 1979 Globe and Mail shows construction director Bob Smith holding a model of the mountain. It indicated that the symposium of firms that constructed the park were known as Family Leisure Centres of Canada Ltd, and it says that the park was commonly referred to as Disney World North during this phase. These are good points that could go in the article, but I wasn't sure where to stick them in and figured a regular editor of this article would know where to put it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I am somewhat a regular editor towards this article. There are only 2 problems: 1: Even though I live in the GTA, I don't have a library card and 2: Even if someone were to get their hands on the paper, it probably would be considered Original Research which would probably be deleted from the article within a few days.--Dom497 (talk) 19:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I have access to the papaer, and being sourced to the Globe and Mail would make it not original research.

Oziewicz, Stan (September 10, 1979). "Disney World North". The Globe and Mail. Vol. 136, no. 40, 485. Toronto. p. 1. If you need a screenshot of it, I can email one to you. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

That would probably do just fine. I don't think the picture will be needed. Also, I can add the info sometime tomorrow as I'm kinda busy right now.--Dom497 (talk) 19:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :) Let me know if you need any additional details whenever you get to writing it in that case. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Just before I add anything, Family Leisure Centres of Canada Ltd were the ones who helped build.....the park, the mountain or both????--Dom497 (talk) 19:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

They are the ones who purchased the land, built the park and initially operated it (and may still, I'm not sure). Taft was one of the two halves of FLC. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Ride articles

I did attempt this a few months ago creating 5 ride articles related to Canada's Wonderland. I don't know exactly why I stopped but as of today I will resume trying to create an article for every ride at the park. Unfortunately, between the time of me stopping creating the articles and now, the PCW Junkies website was taken down permanently. Because of this it will be a bit harder to find info without Original Research. Currently, I am developing a article for Orbiter.--Dom497 (talk) 19:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have finished developing the Orbiter article. I will start developing an article for another ride soon.--Dom497 (talk) 22:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know, the PCW Junkies website has been archived at the Wayback Machine. Let me know if you need assistance in citing an archived page. Themeparkgc  Talk  02:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Good. We can use the archive then. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 14:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know!!!! By the way, can pictures from the site be used here under the "promotional material" license or not?--Dom497 (talk) 20:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Considering the images are probably not promotional images created by the park, we cannot license them under that. Themeparkgc  Talk  22:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok...anyway I finished developing the Timberwolf Falls.--Dom497 (talk) 23:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay on the next article. I am kinda busy outside of Wikipedia so it could be a while before the next article is complete (I will be creating the Xtreme Skyflyer article next)--Dom497 (talk) 19:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Finished the Xtreme Skyflyer article...finally.--Dom497 (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Next up... Night Mares.--Dom497 (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The Eruption

In 2001, to celebrate CW's 20th birthday, Paramount created one of the best shows probably ever created in CW history (better than Starlight Spectacular by 10x) There was fire, fireworks, the ground shook, the music was very very very load and it was crowded. Im getting this all from the own knowledge, so I can't add it to the article. There are sources that prove this show existed...but the descriptions are very vague. Anyone with photos or a video please tell me as not only do I want to refresh my memory, but add this to the article as well.--Dom497 (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Good idea Dom, you can also try and reach out to friends or familly that was there to, and see if they have any pictures.P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 21:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, but it should be part of the history section and the section should be no more than one paragraph long. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 21:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Nope...none of my family members have photos. :( All I really need is a reliable source to confirm this and then I can add it to the article. Does anyone have one?--Dom497 (talk) 19:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I think I was able to find ads in The Star for this, during my research for International Street (Canada's Wonderland), but I believe those would be dismissed as "primary sources", as pamphlets were in GA2 for that article. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe that advertising falls under primary sources, as they serve to promote said advertiser, which is the basis of this article and thus present biases in favour of them. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 03:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Canada's Wonderland Userboxes

Just created two Canada's Wonderland userboxes for registered users!--Dom497 (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

This user lives near Canada's Wonderland.

This user loves to go to Canada's Wonderland.

International Festival (Canada's Wonderland)

I'll be making a article for the International Festival part of the park. If any of you want to help develop the article feel free to edit the article on my user space.--Dom497 (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

This shall be an interesting challenge. Like International Street, there's limited newspaper references after the opening season. Unlike the Street, it has a relatively generic name that pulls up tons of irrelevant International Festivals.

International Showplace was listed as being part of International Festival, in early articles. Park maps, now, list it as International Street. While the longer history of Showplace is good where it is, we need to put a little summary of Showplace in the Festival article. -- Zanimum (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

US or imperial gallons?

Canada's Wonderland#Timeline 7,570 m³ (2,000,000 US gal; 1,670,000 imp gal). So we are dealing with US gallons here. Peter Horn User talk 01:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 02:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess so, if it converts that way, I'd say yes. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

To increase DYK views...

International Street (Canada's Wonderland) only got 23 views on 3 September 2011, the day it was on the front page in DYK. The next day, it got 14. Medieval Faire is queued up for DYK, the day of the season opening. If it gets lousy viewership, I'm going to suggest we spam the front page with a 5 bold article DYK. It would, if nothing else, get us in Wikipedia:Did you know/Hall of Fame#DYK hooks with 5 or more articles.

These are in prep as well:

• User:Zanimum/Action Zone
• User:Zanimum/The Grande World Exposition of 1890
• User:Zanimum/Food at Canada's Wonderland
• User:Zanimum/Entertainment at Canada's Wonderland

If Med Faire gets low views, is this agreeable? -- Zanimum (talk) 01:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Another article that we could add is the International Festival article that is currently under User:Dom497/International Festival (Canada's Wonderland). I probably won't be able to finish it anytime soon as I am focusing on another article for a potential GA status or even a possible FA status.--Dom497 (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Right, sorry, as soon as I logged off the computer, I realized I hadn't mentioned your article specifically. My proposal was that it be released to the article space at the same time as the four above, if Medieval Faire bombs in terms of views. I'm in no rush to release any of the above articles, so it would be whenever all five come to a state where we're comfortable. (I was going to pitch this in the section where you first mentioned the Alpen article, but there was already the gallon topic.) -- Zanimum (talk) 14:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Just an opinion but I don't think there needs to be a food or even an entertainment page. Especially food, there doesn't need to be an article just for food at Canada's Wonderland. We've run into this problem in the Kings Island article. We're trying to get it to GA status and we made the decision to leave the food out.--Astros4477 (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

While I welcome the input, Astros, here's my reasoning. Unlike Kings Island, Wonderland is fortunate to have Wilf Seymour, publicly discussing the processes behind the department on his blog. While he seems very proud of the food, the posts are open and frank enough to discuss HACCP certification, experimentation, even when he flat out thinks a location isn't successful (despite the food quality/selection itself). It's not a marketing piece, like Inside Track. It's also important to note that Food @ CW's status as an article doesn't negatively affect the CW article's chances at GA or FA status, each is judged on its own. -- Zanimum (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Medieval Faire (Canada's Wonderland)

Just an alert that I've finally decided to finish the Medieval Faire article I started in August. I invite further editing, I'm sure there's room for improvement. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering when you would finish that article for the past several months. Looks like I got my answer...and also, great job!--Dom497 (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

May 5 around noon, Medieval Faire will appear on the front page of Wikipedia, as part of DYK. Just a heads up. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

...sorry, tomorrow at noon. -- Zanimum (talk) 20:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Eastern time or UTC? Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 03:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, it was eastern. Over 2000 views, better than what International Street got, I'll tell you that. Granted, the Wonderland Theatre appeared with it, so that always boosts viewership. -- Zanimum (talk) 13:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

GA Review #2?

Just want to know if anyone believes that the article is ready for another GA Review. In my opinion it is but I don't want to nominate it just yet if there is still work to do.--Dom497 (talk) 21:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

There is still a lot to do. There is a "Current... attractions" section as well as an "Attractions" section (the header of one or the other should be changed at least). There are several unsourced statements (every paragraph should end with a citation), and several {{citation needed}}'s in the the text. In the areas and attractions section, most/all of the tables and lists have extensive statistics and descriptions without any citations. The year each ride opened should be cited. The fast lane section is very very short and could benefit from some of the content from the linked hatnote.

This is just with a quick skim of the article. It needs a lot of work before it is GA worthy. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree. I frequent the article often and I see that there is much work to be done, particularly unsourced (and possibly original) content. After all the citation needed tags are cleared will we try nominating for GA. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 21:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

There does need to be a little more cleanup but I'm against adding citations to each attraction for the year it opened. Nearly all amusement park articles don't have that because they can be found on that specific articles page. If there is no specific page for that attraction, a citation can be added to the description that covers all that. --Astros4477 (talk) 00:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I just took a quick look at the article and when I read it again, its not ready yet. Other then the citations, the intro/lead of the article should be longer.--Dom497 (talk) 13:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Other than adding more citations, what else really needs to be done?--Astros4477 (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Some sections have vague times (as well as the use of words such as "now," "currently," and "present day"). You can add some dates to them. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The article was copy-edited by a user from the Guild of Copy-Editors, so it is a major step towards getting the article to have GA status. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 12:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I requested the copy edit....I forgot to tell you guys!!! And I do agree with Johnny! :-) --Dom497 (talk) 12:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope that the article becomes GA status. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we should remove the pictures from the Themed areas section. They squeeze the charts and make them longer and harder to read. The images can be found in each Themed area article too.--Astros4477 (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 15:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Help please! Med Faire GAN

Hi all-- if anyone can help with fixing the Medieval Faire article based on Talk:Medieval Faire (Canada's Wonderland)/GA1, that would be awesome! -- Zanimum (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Photos

A great set of recent, CC-licensed photos can be found here. I'll upload some myself in about a week but if anyone wants to do it in the mean time feel free. Themeparkgc  Talk  03:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Park history

The park history section is grossly undersourced. I've added tags where I think the most immediate attention needs to be paid, though there are many more that will need additional sources. Where offline books are cited, there need to be page numbers. Planning relies too heavily on the CW Mania source. Many statements in that subsection aren't even mentioned in CW Mania. Please help by adding more references if you can. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

That can be done. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 01:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Restarting International Festival

@Johnny Au: @Themeparkgc: @Dom497: In 2008, International Festival (Canada's Wonderland) was AfD'd, with the result being merge. Given that there's now three roller coasters and a third flat or dark ride (Wonder Mountain's Guardian), do we all agree there's enough content to have a deletion review, or perhaps even just simply restart from scratch? -- Zanimum (talk) 23:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Note that the 2014 park map doesn't define the section that the attraction is in, but the height guide does. -- Zanimum (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@Zanimum: Check here: https://www.canadaswonderland.com/uploads/downloads/CWC-2014_Guest%20Assistance%20Guides-FINAL.pdf Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

@Johnny Au: Thanks! Would anyone object to me starting a deletion review, to try and restore the old article? -- Zanimum (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@Zanimum: Go right ahead, but please wait for others to reply. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 18:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I say the article should STAY deleted. Are there any reliable refs that can be included? If not there's no point in creating the article. I've always questioned why I created the White Water Canyon area article...I might PROD it soon.--Dom497 (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

There's planning docs, the souvenir guides from the first two seasons, things that don't exist for WWC. -- Zanimum (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

If there are ref's, than I'm good with it!--Dom497 (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Canada's Wonderland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130809114012/https://www.canadaswonderland.com/what-s-new/monsters-of-the-deep-3d to https://www.canadaswonderland.com/what-s-new/monsters-of-the-deep-3d

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)