Talk:Cedar Point

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
WikiProject Ohio This article is part of WikiProject Ohio, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Ohio. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
This article is part of WikiProject Roller Coasters, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Roller coasters. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents

[edit] Canada Sightings from Magnum

It is possible to see main land Canada from the top of Magnum, as I personally have been able to experience the sighting.

As for Pelee Island, you are not that easily able to view it from Magnum, but it can easily be seen on most days on Millennium Force, as it is only a matter of a mile or so away from kelley's Island, and not much further from Cedar Point.

So yes, it is possible to see mainland Canada from atop Magnum. (Hyde244 00:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC))

Regarding the "urban legend" of seeing Canada from Cedar Point, it is actually possible to see the Toronto skyline (not any land, and mostly just the CN Tower) from the top of Magnum on a clear day. It's been done.

Hmm... I'm going to go out on a limb and suspect that the tower you're seeing is Perry's Monument at Put-in-bay. If you could see Toronto from Cedar Point, you'd also be able to see the Detroit skyline, as it's much closer. The only Canadian territory that can be seen from Cedar Point is Pelee Island, and it has to be a really clear day. --Birdhombre 06:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Correct. Mainland Canada is geometrically much too far to see on any day, no matter how clear, much less Toronto.
Toronto is on Lake Ontario, anyway.
  • Please see Horizon, the math there will explain why mainland Canada can't be seen. IronGargoyle 00:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
It would take some pretty wild conditions (think mirage in a desert) to see mainland Canada, as it's about 30 miles away at its closest point. Even accounting for refraction in the atmosphere, it is difficult to see beyond 18-19 miles, and the portion of mainland Canada that could be visible does not appear to have any mountainous features that would increase your siteline. See http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/horizon.html. This debate is really moot, as math and physics are pretty clear cut no matter what people have claimed to see. Bgtgwazi 15:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cedar Point

The article for Six Flags Great Adventure also claims that it has the most rides in the world, at 72 (that claim is also sourced by the Guiness Book of World Records). This claim is obviously contradictory to the one claimed here. I've deleted the claim here, as the other seems better sourced (and cites a higher ride number).

Cedar Point has some of the tallest rollercoasters{may be spelled wrong} in the world like Top Thrill Dragster second tallest in the world.

I'm deleting the part about having 3 of the 5 tallest/fastest coasters in North America, as it is verifiably false, sadly. I'll leave the part in for now about 2 of the 3 tallest/fastest in the world, although this is a debatable claim (I personally agree with it). Sly Si 18:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It's also (according to rcdb.com) false that Cedar Point has 2 of the top 3 in NORTH AMERICA, let alone the world. They DO have 2 of 5 in North America (TTD-2nd; MF-4th [height and speed]), but with regards to world records, Millennium Force drops to 6th in height (behind 4 US coasters, Steel Dragon 2K (Japan), and Tower of Terror (Australia)) and down to 7th speed (behind previously mentioned roller coasters and Dodonpa, in Japan). RCDB ranks MF as 5th for both, but their numbering system does not account for ties (Superman and Tower of Terror tied at 100mph) nor coasters that are standing, but not operating (Steel Dragon has been SBNO for 3 years). I do suppose it's dependent on if you account for Superman: The Escape and Tower of Terror in the records. They ARE rollercoasters, but not complete-circuit roller coasters. Thus they should be given credit where it is due in terms of records. VexedTechie 20:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. The debatability I mentioned revolves around exactly the coasters you mentioned. The questions to answer are: 1. Are Superman and Tower of Terror "roller coasters" in a strong enough sense to be considered in the height/speed records? 2. Does Steel Dragon count if it's SBNO? 3. If we're trying to describe the X "tallest and fastest" coasters, how do we deal with Dodonpa, which may be in the X fastest, but not the X tallest? I have no idea how to answer 3. Perhaps the wording should just be changed to say "tallest". As for 1 and 2, I think the best thing is to put a CONCISE note in the article about the debate, as perfectly reasonable people can and do disagree. Sly Si 01:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, would it be safe to report Cedar Point as having "2 of the top 3 tallest operating complete-circuit roller coasters"?

[edit] SFMM vs CP

Regarding my edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cedar_Point&oldid=48652438): The debate between who has more coasters has been ongoing for years. The problem I see with having the wording that I removed is that it is opinionated. There is no specific criteria or definition regarding counting roller coasters. If a roller coaster is Standing But Not Operating (SBNO) does not mean that it shouldn't be counted, nor does it mean it should be counted. The Superman: The Escape is classified as a reverse freefall launched coaster. Wicked Twister is classified as an Impulse roller coaster, Top Thrill Dragster is classified as a hydraulically launched coaster. By definition, amongst the community, they are all roller coasters.

Since the wording (and the edit war) was adding/removing comments that weren't really justified, I've removed them. They are commented out in the article in case someone finds an official document from some respected authority that affirms either of wording that has appeared. Until then, I believe it's unencyclopedic and should probably be omitted. Stratosphere 02:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dewikification of Rides

I've gone and removed all the garish redlinks from the non-unique rides lists. In addition, incorrect wikilinks, such as to Motorcycles and Sky Ride.

What I would suggest is that you have a look at what I've done at Luna Park Sydney#Current rides, and adapt that to these lists. Basically, what you'd do if you follow this example, is to write a small number of sentances concerning the ride, mentioning things such as the year it was introduced to the park, the type of ride (wikilink to this if an article exists), and any other interesting facts. It's make for a much tidier and informative list. -- Saberwyn 08:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project Maverick

Cedar Point is currently constructing its new attraction for 2007. Not much is known at this time, but the construction area is located on the site of the recently removed White Water Landing. At this time, the only fact known is that the manufacturer of the ride will be Intamin AG, with a possible name of Maverick.

Whoa, the manufacturer "is known" to be Intamin? Last I heard, it was S&S Power, the same company that made Skyhawk. Rumor is that Skyhawk was a "teaser" for the 2007 project, much as Wicked Twister was Intamin's "teaser" before Top Thrill Dragster. I'm not sure what to believe. "Maverick" may not even be the name of the 2007 project; Cedar Fair trademarked it, but it could also be used for one of their other parks. --Birdhombre 20:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is red track outside the Breakers Express covered in a blue tarp. When the wind picks up, it looks suspiciously like Intamin's trademark box-track design. The common opinion on forums such as coasterbuzz and pointbuzz are that it IS, in fact, Intamin-built track. VexedTechie 02:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
After I typed that, I checked out some of the links ThePointOnline had regarding 2007, and found this thread, which shows the pictures VexedTechie is referring to. I agree, it looks Intamin to me. I guess we don't know for sure that these pieces of track are for Maverick/2007, but it certainly is interesting. --Birdhombre 02:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I was at Cedar Point on Thursday, May 11 (minimal crowds, always a plus) and the wind picked up rather heavily. In the morning, as I drove past the Breakers Express, it appeared as if the wind had pulled half the tarp out from the track, as I could see the length of a track piece. I would venture a guess that it is, in fact, for the 2007 project, as the shade of red was FAR brighter than that of Top Thrill Dragster, the only other red, Intamin-Built ride. I also snapped a fair share of photos of the construction site in frontier-land. If those photos might be incorporated into the Cedar Point page, let me know. I'm new with image uploading on Wikipedia. VexedTechie 04:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Not sure if you've all been following, but Pointbuzz has a rather regular-intervaled photo update gallery of construction for the 2007 ride. Pointbuzz 2007 Watch

It is most assuredly a roller coaster. I just had my wedding there last weekend (8/12/06), and the supports were already in place and clearly for that of a roller coaster. Just checked the CP website and they've already laid track in the intervening week. It's red, and very much of the Intamin style.


I believe until September 7th, not to have any links to leaked information about this roller coaster.

[edit] External Link Re-Organization

I feel as if this it getting a little out of hand. The past couple edits to this page (to which I've payed attention) were solely the re-organization/shuffling of the external links section. It seems as if it's a "politics"-thing...posting the links that others would like to gain web-traffic for. Could we reach the agreement that as newer, relevant links are added, they are to go on the bottom of the external links section? VexedTechie 04:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I honestly think that we are getting a little too eager in deleting virtually every link in the external links section. I would definitely like to see some of these restored. Yeah, there were some rather blatant commercial sites there, but Point Xtreme? come on... that's a good site. Yeah, we obviously don't want a site just selling tickets, but if a site has some useful information on the park or pictures of the park, I think it warrants being kept. Irongargoyle 17:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Welcome to Wiki, where editors are too full of themselves. Sorry, you're not going to have any luck talking to these people. Their heads are in the wikiclouds. Read this for a good perspective: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=11109 The fan sites should be listed in order of size and/or how established they are, with new ones going to the bottom. Then there is no argument. Doesn't matter as the Wiki elite don't get it!
I don't agree completely with that page you linked too, but I do thank you for the perspective on how to add fan sites to the bottom of the page if I make that decision at some point. Best, Irongargoyle 13:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Since "how good" a site really is, is a matter of one's opinion, why not just list them in alphabetical order, after cedarpoint.com and be done with it. Then there's no dispute as to who is where. 04:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I never said anything about "how good" any site was. That's what all you fan site guys need to avoid. Just trying to help you guys come up with an objective way to list your sites. Size and establishment is pretty easy to see and is about as objective as your going to get. Which is something that Cedar Point Online .com kid didn't get. But like I said, it's all irrelevant, because the Wiki self-righteous police have spoken.
I think the external link section right now is really bad and needs work. Many of the sites that are currently on it should not be. Two links that should be added are to Point Buzz and The Point Online. The order should be CedarPoint.com, PointBuzz.com, ThePointOL.com, PointPixels, and DMOZ. Cedar Point Online is a new website that does not offer any information, it just promotes itself. The Theme Park Review Page is only about Maverick, and therefore should not be on this page. TPOLMike 16:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The "Facts" Section

Just a comment. The facts section has become rather large. It might be a good opportunity to break the list up and convert it into actual prose, rather than a bulleted list. -- Stratosphere (U T) 01:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, the part about someone getting scalped at Geauga Lake are completely false. Snopes has an article about it here: http://www.snopes.com/horrors/techno/scalped.asp Rpachico 02:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 16 vs 17

Isn't "(as of 2007)" enough of a qualifier for the number of coasters? Irongargoyle 03:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The industry doesn't count a ride if it isn't finished, that's all I'm saying. The pertinent information regarding the coaster count is addressed in the section under "Maverick." If you put (as of 2007) as a qualifier, not only does it sound strange (as if we're in 2008 referring to last year), but you'd need to increment all the other references in the article regarding 16 coasters and 68 rides by one, but then qualify those with (as of 2007). My opinion is to leave it out of the count, at all, until the structure is complete. I agree it's a technicality, but it's main purpose is to maintain consistency and readability throughout the article. Cheers -- Stratosphere (U T) 03:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Banshee Naming Issues?

The article states:

The name was quickly changed when the marketing department realized the full negative connotations of the word 'banshee' and all 'The Banshee' stickers, pins and other promotional materials that had been given to employees were recalled.

Perhaps I'm an idiot, but what are the "full negative connotations" of the word "banshee"? I don't think I'm so far out of the mainstream that these problems could be considered common knowledge, so it would be nice to have a better explanation in the text. --Gmaletic 06:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better if we just borrow the text from the Mantis (roller coaster) article:
Mantis initially was to be named "Banshee," but had the name dropped because of complaints about the word's death-oriented origin. Two months after dropping the Banshee name, Cedar Point renamed the coaster Mantis (but the sound the coaster makes as the cars roll, originally intended to sound like a wailing banshee, remains). As the coaster's name was changed, so was its logo; Dorney Park adopted the Banshee logo for its hypercoaster Steel Force, which opened in 1997.
The story goes that naming a roller coaster after a demon of death wasn't the best idea. Although considering how much my feet ache after riding it, I think the original name might be more appropriate. ;) --Birdhombre 12:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm..."Banshee" is a problem, but other rides called "Demon Drop" and "Disaster Transport" aren't? These rides are supposed to sound scary...that's the whole idea. This whole "Banshee" naming story doesn't sound that plausible to me. Would anyone have a problem with removing it entirely from this page? (That is, unless someone can come up with a substantive source for the story.)--Gmaletic 22:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
It would be nice if we could get word straight from the source (Cedar Point). I'll offer these up, for what they're worth: Roller Coaster Database says a newspaper printed the definition of "banshee," after which CP changed the name to Mantis, which had already been on a list of possible names. According to this page, the name change took place a mere four days after the original announcement. Many people seem to confirm the "they changed it because of the death connotation" story, but no specifics on whether someone complained, or if it was a newspaper article, or CP did it entirely on their own.
Incidentally, this page includes a picture of the original Banshee logo, which might be an interesting item to include in the Mantis article. --Birdhombre 23:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Skyhawk

There is a somewhat orphaned article about this coaster. It survived an AfD debate, but the general consensus was to merge it into this article, which makes good sense. I may do it if I find the time, but essentially listing it here as a to-do. --KeithB 05:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Skyhawk is not a coaster. I don't think that Skyhawk should be merged with this page, it would look incredibly tacky. Skyhawk should be included (as it already is) in the Screamin' Swing page, as that is it's brand of ride. Since it is not unique to the park, it doesn't really need its own special page. (Coasterman1234 20:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Resorts

I think a new section should be created for the resorts at Cedar Point. Cedar Point is not just an amusement park, but it is a vacation destination for many families every summer. The resorts should be mentioned on this page. The resorts are: Hotel Breakers, Sandcastle Suites, Lighthouse Point, Camper Village, Breakers Express, Castaway Bay, Cedar Point Marina, and Castaway Bay Marina. More information may be found at http://resorts.cedarpoint.com TPOLMike 04:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/e/d/Talk%7ECedar_Point_9e51.html"