Talk:Geauga Lake/Archive 1

Untitled

I have been attempting to update the page and organize the information a little better. Hopefully the article is of a higher quality now. Jesmcsel 02:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Untitled

It would be useful, IMHO, to find and cite the articles dealing with Cedarfair's heavy handed dealings with the local community and the resultant bad press during its first two years of ownership. 71.31.154.68 (talk) 04:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Untitled

i want to know who much are tickets — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.241.124 (talk • contribs) Jul 29, 2004 00:51

I believe they are $25 for adults and $15 for kids under 48". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.157.252 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 16 June 2006

http://www.geaugalake.com/public/trip_planning/prices.cfm

$24.95 if over 48", $9.95 if under 48". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.157.252 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 16 June 2006

Page Overhaul

I notice a LOT of mistakes and useless information in the page, along with some disorganization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgtbbum (talk • contribs) Jan 25, 2007 22:14

Previous Names & Management

I don't have the proper information, but this area needs to be clarified. Two seperate amusement parks developed on either side of the lake and eventually became one. As it reads right now it says A-B owned Geauga Lake, but they actually only owned Sea World which was a seperate park from Sea World. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob Page III (talk • contribs) May 12, 2007 01:50

Texas Twister Removal?

Someone made a edit stating that Texas Twister had been removed on June 18, 2007. However I have not found any evidence to back up that claim. The ride is still listed on GL's website and I have found no newspaper articles. I find the ride's removal doubtful because it was just repainted for the 2007 season. Also, it is extremely rare for a park to remove a ride mid-season. I have reverted the article back two versions to remove the edits. Unless a source can identified, this information should not return. --Coaster1983 02:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GLWWKlogo.jpg

Image:GLWWKlogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Article split

Should this article be split into Geauga Lake for the historic amusement park, and Geauga Lake's Wildwater Kingdom for the currently operating water park? It doesn't seem to make sense to have the history of the amusement park merged in with the article about a water park operating at the former Sea World. A quick look for a similar situation reveals Action Park, which has another a separate article for current downsized operations. Zzxc 02:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This makes a great deal of sense, especially as the new waterpark operations open. --Rehcsif (talk) 04:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The waterpark may close after 2009, based on the fact they are adding nothing new for 2009 and rampant rumors. I would wait to split it until it is seen that the water park is going to stick around for more than another year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.120.15 (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe it should be split, the article as it stands doesn't capture the full story of either Sea World Aurora or Geauga Lake Amusement Park. It was better when they were separate parks, in my opinion.Wikip rhyre (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Attendance figures?

Are attendance figures for the parks available? How the Detroit/Toledo/Cleveland market can't support 3 parks (Cedar Point, Geagua Lake, and Sea World) is a mystery to me. Geagua lake had more character than any other park in Ohio (IMO) Wikip rhyre (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Two Looping Coasters

I checked RCDB, and in 1978 when GL's Corkscrew was completed, the only coaster with inversions at Cedar Point was their Corkscrew. I've also always heard (though only verbally) that GL was the first US park to have two inverting coasters at a single park. Someone may want to put some more time into that particular reference... 207.58.228.18 (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Name

This article says the current name of the park is Geauga Lake's Wildwater Kingdom and just Wildwater Kingdom. It needs to be cleared up what the official name is. The Cedar Fair website has it as Geauga Lakes Wildwater kingdom but the actual parks website just has it as Wildwater kingdom. I know the signs at the park just say Wildwater kingdom and no longer Geauga Lakes Wildwater Kingdom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astros4477 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. It appears the Geauga Lake was officially dropped from the name. Check this article GoneIn60 (talk) 08:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Would it be worth keeping this article about the former theme park and splitting off another for the current water park? Themeparkgc  Talk  09:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I would support separating them into two articles - Geuga Lake and Wildwater Kingdom. GoneIn60 (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I would also support that, an article titled Geauga Lake showing the history of the amusement park and another article titled Wildwater Kingdom(Aurora, Ohio) would work. That would better show the history of the park and the difference today. Astros4477 (talk) 20:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Move

I believe this article should be moved to Geauga Lake. The current Geauga Lake article serves very little importance as theres no citations and is not updated. I think it would be easier for readers to find this article if it was moved to Geauga Lake. Plus most of the information in the Geauga Lake article is also listed in this article. --Astros4477 (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, what is your intent for the current article at Geauga Lake? Themeparkgc  Talk  21:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Well we could combine the information in the Geauga Lake article with the Geauga Lake amusement park article since some of the info is already in this article or we could rename the current Geauga Lake article to "Geauga Lake area" because I sometimes see it refered to as that. So we would move Geauga Lake to Geauga Lake area then move Geauga Lake (amusement park) to Geauga Lake if we decide on the second option. --Astros4477 (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

As you are the one that is nominating it, could you please start a new section with the following with the reason parameter filled in.

==Requested move ==
{{subst:move-multi
| current1 = Geauga Lake (amusement park)
| new1 = Geauga Lake
| current2 = Geauga Lake
| new2 = Geauga Lake area
| reason = 
}}

This will allow the proper requested moves process to take place. Themeparkgc  Talk  22:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to make sure, where do I post that? --Astros4477 (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

This talk page. Themeparkgc  Talk  23:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 1

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Merger and unmerger while discussion was ongoing clouded the issue, but apart from statements that the amusement park is clearly the primary topic, no information about its Wikipedia usage or long-term significance (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) has been provided. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• Geauga Lake (amusement park) → Geauga Lake
• Geauga Lake → Geauga Lake, Ohio

– I believe it'll be easier for readers to find the Geauga Lake (amusement park) article if its under the Geauga Lake name. If Geauga Lake (amusement park) gets moved to Geauga Lake then the current Geauga Lake article will be moved to Geauga Lake, Ohio. This will clear up any confusuion because readers are more familiar with the amusement park than the actually Geauga Lake. Astros4477 (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Note: the original proposal was for the lake to be at Geauga Lake AreaD O N D E groovily Talk to me 15:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Don't move, the lake is at an article called "lake" and that's where it should be. I think the best move may be to just remove the parentheses. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 00:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Really, the article currently at Geauga Lake is little more than a pre-history of the amusement park anyway. There should be an article for the actual body of water, which is mostly located in Bainbridge Township, but partially in Aurora too. That article could be named "Geauga Lake (Ohio)" or "Geauga Lake (body of water)" with hatnotes on each article. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose – the Lake name is recognizable for the lake. There's a hatnote there for the park. Leave it. Dicklyon (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of naming the current Geauga Lake article as Geauga Lake (body of water) then moving the amusement article to Geauga Lake. --Astros4477 (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem with that is simple - the amusement park is out of business, but the lake is still there. Having to say an article called Lake refers to a body of water is inherently ridiculous, and the fact that the lake article needs improvement doesn't change it. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 21:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as saying it's "inherently ridiculous" since many times a town or other entity takes the name of an adjacent lake and becomes far better known than the lake itself. It has to be treated like any other title on Wikipedia: which use of the title is more prominent right now? In doing a simple online search, "Geauga Lake" almost exclusively refers to the amusement park, not the lake. You typically see "amusement park" attached to the name when it is referencing the closure of the amusement park side (especially since the remaining waterpark was first referred to as "Geauga Lake's Wildwater Kingdom) or in the few instances where the lake itself is being mentioned. Most of what I could find where the lake itself is being referenced are historic references from the era when the lake itself was the draw, not the amusement park. Now, with the amusement park closed, in the future the lake itself may be the more prominent use of the term "Geauga Lake", but as it stands now, from what I could gather using Google and local news sources, the most widespread use of the term has to do with the park.

Another option is to simply merge the two articles together, similar to Lake Buena Vista, Florida and Lake Lure, North Carolina. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment if Geauga lake is moved, I'd suggest Geauga Lake, Ohio instead, to be more consistent with other US place names on Wikipedia. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to change the request to Geauga Lake, Ohio. Most people searching Geauga Lake are looking for the amusement park. Someday the actual lake might be more important but I don't see that happening until the amusement park site is sold and redeveloped and I don't see that happening for several years. It's about what's easier for the everyday reader and 99% of readers are looking for the amusement park. --Astros4477 (talk) 03:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

"Geauga Lake, Ohio" is representative of the form used by settlements, "Geuaga Lake (Ohio)]" is the form used by landforms... (on wikipedia at least) 70.24.247.54 (talk) 06:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

But the (Ohio) is only used for disambiguation (that is, if there's another lake of the same name someplace, which seems unlikely. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 15:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment - The revised move proposal (to Geauga Lake, Ohio), still hasn't changed my mind, BTW, it's just better than Geauga Lake area. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 15:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment - Perhaps Geauga Lake should be moved to a disambiguation page if there is no consensus to make the amusement park the primary topic. The most important point mentioned here is that most visitors typing Geauga Lake are likely searching for the amusement park and not the lake itself. I have yet to hear anyone deny that claim. The fact that the park is now defunct doesn't appear to have changed anything. GoneIn60 (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Yes, this is a case of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and the primary topic of "Geauga Lake" is clearly the amusement park. That is subject to change of course, but for now and the foreseeable future, that's going to be true. The question is what to title the article on the lake or whether to just put the info on the lake itself in the article on the amusement park. Another disambiguation option is Geauga Lake (geography) --JonRidinger (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of merging the two. Like you mentioned, there is nothing in the existing article that really talks about the body of water. Instead the article currently reads as a pre-history that leads into the founding of the amusement park. Since the article doesn't appear to have enough notable content to stand on its own, it only makes sense to merge it into the History section of the amusement park article. GoneIn60 (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I have merged Geauga Lake with Geauga Lake (amusement park). I have also changed the request just to move the amusement park article to Geauga Lake. It looks like the decision was to merge the two articles then move Geauga Lake (amusement park) to Geauga Lake. --Astros4477 (talk) 02:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Close as moot I have no objection to the merge. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC) - Doh! merge reverted D O N D E groovily Talk to me 17:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• Since there is now only one article, it should be moved to Geauga Lake. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
• Merge by all means. Some one had pre-empted closure by overwriting the article on the lake with a redirect. This was a destructive edit and I have reverted it. When an adequate merger has been undertaken, the resultant articel ought to be at Geauga Lake. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

How was it destructive? I merged all the viable information into this article. A lot of it was repeated so there wasn't much to do. --Astros4477 (talk) 15:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is a mess due to the changes while the discussion was underway. Lakes are rather notable and the article on the lake is well past being a stub and must remain. Now is that the primary topic? That is a different question. I suggest closing this discussion and starting a new multi part move to determine what the primary topic is and if it is not the lake then what the name of the lake article should be. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The original request was a multi-part move but someone removed it following the attempted merger. I have since restored it. Themeparkgc  Talk  22:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Better to close and relist as suggested since it is the changes like that that have messed the discussion up. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
      • You're an admin, Vegas, go ahead and close it. You're only involvement has been to say the discussion is a mess, so I don't think you're violating the uninvolved admin rule doing that. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus is that the amusement park is the primary topic. Aervanath (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

---

• Geauga Lake (amusement park) → Geauga Lake
• Geauga Lake → Geauga Lake (Ohio)

– I have requested this move once again because the consensus above was to relist it. I think the main reason to move it is that when Geauga Lake is searched on line, nearly all the results are about the amusement park. I have requested the Geauga Lake page to be moved to Geauga Lake (Ohio) because that seemed to be the best suggestion above. I don't see any reason to over ride this because the amusement park is currently the most popular search. --Astros4477 (talk) 03:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Astros4477 (talk) 03:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Don't move The closing admin last time noted that no evidence of Wikipedia usage or long-term significance was provided last time for the move. Even if this has more page views or search results, based on the principle of least astonishment and by all logic the lake should have first rights to the word Lake. A person who has never heard of this place upon seeing an article ending in the word lake expects an article about a lake. Also, long-term significance is greatly in favor of the lake, which will still be there in ten years, even 100 years, compared to the amusement park which is already closed (and the remaining water park renamed). The incompleteness of the lake article is no reason to rename. There is plenty more that could be said about the lake (geologic history and environmental issues, for example) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Page view statistics clearly show more traffic at the amusement park article by nearly a 4:1 ratio that would likely be greater following the proposed moves. Couple that with web search statistics that even show a greater disparity (not one hit in the first 150 about the body of water), I'd say you have a pretty good case that the amusement park is the primary topic. The lake article can always be restored as the primary topic at a later date should it ever gain enough notoriety. Even now, the article fails to discuss the body of water and instead discusses historical information that really belongs in the park's article. That questions its notability in my opinion. I'm not convinced geographical locations should get an automatic pass to exist, and apparently there have been discussions about this before (see WP:Notability (Geographic locations)) GoneIn60 (talk) 07:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I dispute that the historical stuff belongs in the park article. That historical stuff isn't about the amusement park, it's about other things that have been at the lake before the park. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. I was ranting about the lake article's notability which is getting off-topic. But to respond, I can certainly understand keeping some if not all of that information in the article if it were complete. My concern is that the geographical perspective is missing. The main focus is recreational attractions that have existed there, which could just as easily be merged into the amusement park article similar to others like Cedar Point or Coney Island. I'll leave that to another discussion, since this one is not about merging articles. Here we are focused on the primary topic of which I believe to be the amusement park. GoneIn60 (talk) 15:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support The primary topic is definitely the amusement park. The closing admin merely pointed out that no one had posted any specific evidence supporting that claim; he/she did not dispute the claim itself. As for history, "pre-history" is definitely appropriate for the amusement park article. When writing history for cities, it is pretty much required that background history (what and who was there before the city was founded) be included. The amusement park would be no different in that regard. The "pre-history" helps put the foundation of the park in context so that the location makes a little more sense. The new article about the lake will have some duplicate information (but more in summary form with "main article" hatnotes) from the amusement park and current water park articles, but will also have geographical information that wouldn't be appropriate for the amusement park. --JonRidinger (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. As a Greater Clevelander, Geauga Lake is the amusement park. Of course it is located on a lake and takes its name from the lake, but with rare exceptions, anyone talking about GL is likely referring to the park, not the body of water. older ≠ wiser 13:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • But for those of us not in Cleveland, seeing an article called "Lake" about anything but a lake is rather astonishing. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Why? What evidence is there that the lake has any notability distinct from the park? older ≠ wiser 13:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Isn't that what hatnotes are for? Even for "those of us not in Cleveland", the amusement park would be the target of any such search with very, very few exceptions. I think this line of reasoning about the name disregards the importance of the primary topic. GoneIn60 (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Was this park really called just "Geauga Lake" - no "park" or "fun" or amusement as part of its name? That just seems odd to me. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 23:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• The park was just Geauga Lake. No logo refers to it as Geauga Lake park. For one season it was Geauga Lake Family Amusement Park but that was only one season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astros4477 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 9 March 2012‎

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Location

I've noticed there's been some back-and-forth regarding the location. Both are true. The park's mailing address is Aurora, but ZIP codes often do not coincide with actual locations. The original Geauga Lake park was wholly in Bainbridge Township. Sea World, where Wildwater Kingdom is now, is mostly in Aurora, and during the Geauga Lake & Wildwater Kingdom era, the park's administrative offices were inside the city limits of Aurora, even though most of the park is not in the city limits. The lake itself straddles the line between Bainbridge and Aurora (and also Portage and Geauga Counties). This map is a closeup of the NW section of Aurora. Aurora is in white. Geauga Lake (the lake itself) is on the right side of the map and you can see how much of the lake is actually in Bainbridge vs. Aurora. The amusement park was on the north side of the lake and the water park (and previously Sea World) on the south side. --JonRidinger (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of all that. I knew most of the lake was actually in Bainbridge but didn't realize most of the park was as well. Thanks for pointing it out. Should we stick with the mailing address? Where was the entrance to the amusement park located? GoneIn60 (talk) 02:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm more of the usage of the actual location, though I would recommend using both ("Bainbridge Township & Aurora, Ohio") since this article is about the entire history of the park. The original park was in Bainbridge, though like I said, during both the Six Flags Worlds of Adventure years (2002-2004) and the Geauga Lake & Wildwater Kingdom years (2005-2007), the park was in both entities since it encircled the lake. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

This is similar to Carowinds in the Carolina's. The main address of the park is in Charlotte NC, but the park also extends into Fort Mill SC. Both locations are listed on the page.--Astros4477 (talk) 12:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)