Jump to content

Talk:Six Flags

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

Warner Bros. Movie World parks[edit]

What about the Warner Bros. Movie World park in Australia? I have seen the Warner Bros. Movie World parks in Germany and Spain, on the Six Flags web site, years ago. I never saw the same web site ever list the Australian park but it is still open. Can someone explain to me the status of the Australian park, past and present? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.65.109.102 (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WBMW Australia is operated by Village Roadshow, presumably under license from Warner Bros., according to Screamscape. Six Flags has never had a hand in this park. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article rewrite[edit]

I worked on revising the flow and wording of the article. I think it reads a lot better, with fewer headings and a natural, timeline flow to it. I'm certainly open to opinions and other editors' revisions. One idea I had was regarding the listing of Six Flags' properties. I think this would look a lot better as a table, with columns for park name, location, year park opened, year it became a Six Flags park and lastly a notes section for any additional noteworthy data (such as Six Flags New Orleans being closed indefinitely due to Katrina damage). For the former properties, it should include the name, the year it opened, the year it joined the family, the year it left and a notes section for what happened (closed, sold, etc.) I'm going out of town this weekend, and was wondering if someone with more table experience could start this. Let's keep at it! --McDoobAU93 12:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Six Flags"[edit]

regarding the Six Flags: This is not "alleged." The following flags have flown over the state of Texas at one point of time or another: Spain, France, Mexico, The Republic of Texas, The United States and the Confederate States of America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Txredcoat (talk • contribs) 13:04, 23 April 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it is, i just dont think there should be a link to SFOT there.(Also sign your posts)Nathanhillinbl 20:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia[edit]

How is it that Six Flags is said to own 30 parks in the trivia section despite the fact that the first few lines of the article specify that they have 21? It looks like this portion of the article is out of date, so it should be either corrected or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.133.132 (talk) 02:18, April 21, 2007‎

Article[edit]

Based on this article, http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/11687695.htm, Six Flags is most likely banning all sex offenders from their parks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"mainly due to 9/11"[edit]

Why do you say that SF's debt is attributed to 9/11? Everyone knows that 9/11 overall helped hurt the US economy. Therefore I removed it and I don't think it should be put back (unless there is a specific reason SF was hurt by 9/11.)

The events of September 11, 2001 had little to do with Six Flags' enormous debt. They essentially bit off more than they could chew by acquiring so many smaller parks. Their attempt at re-branding these parks was a failure and they lost money. The management at Premier Parks destroyed Six Flags when they took over; most of them were real estate brokers who knew little about operating a chain of themed parks. I'm quite certain that those people would like for you to believe it was all because of September 11, 2001. I have little doubt that's what they like people to believe. Jay77tx 12:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia[edit]

It states "the population". Population of what?

  • --- Population of the United States, sorry forgot to put that.

I asked for a citation on the passes offered for eating a cockroach during Fear Fest. I've never heard of this particular promotion.

Does the whole "built from the ground up" thing only parks that were built solely by six flags, or does it mean built solely as a theme park? If its solely as a theme park, The Great Escape would fall into that category.Nathanhillinbl 03:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angus Wynne and his partners built three parks: Six Flags Over Texas, Six Flags Over Georgia and Six Flags St. Louis, then known as Six Flags Over Mid America. After that, the company began acquiring parks and then appended "Six Flags" to their names. Since that time, based on my research, the corporate entity calling itself Six Flags (regardless of who owned it ... Bally's, Time Warner, Premier Parks, Daniel Snyder) has not constructed a new Six Flags theme park. Frankly, I don't believe the Dubailand development would count either, since it's being built by Tatweer under license. As to the water parks, technically they are Six Flags properties, so they could well count, and a few of those (for example, the Six Flags Hurricane Harbor locations at Magic Mountain and Great Adventure) have indeed been built by Corporate. The point of the statement is that only those three parks have been known as "Six Flags" parks since they first opened to the public. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Six Flags Darien Lake[edit]

I looked but could not find the name of Darien Lake's water park. Anyone know the actual name?

It doesn't use any particular name, the sections of it are called Hook's Lagoon, Crocodile Isle and Barracuda Bay, but it doesn't use the generic Six Flags moniker of "Hurrican Harbor." Zotdragon 15:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Darien Lake's water park is completely included with the park, and is not a seperate entity of any kind. Therefore there isn't a complete "name" and no reason to list it seperately on the site. ClarkCT 05:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Six Flags New Orleans[edit]

At this point, the company still owns and has rights to operate Six Flags New Orleans. I see no reason to put it under 'formerly owned/operated'. Just because it is currently closed doesn't mean they don't still own the park.

They want out of New Orleans. They've already pulled some of their hardware from the park and moved it elsewhere. Besides, Six Flags never owned the property upon which the park sits... they are only leasing it from the city of New Orleans. Jay77tx 12:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PARC Operations References[edit]

I won't edit the page because I prefer to stick to my local pages (Darien Lake), but FYI: to edit your wiki links as you see fit, articles now exist on the following as shown:

Thanks. ClarkCT 05:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:SixFlags Logo.jpg[edit]

Image:SixFlags Logo.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 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 11:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism and Controversy[edit]

This section seems biased and poorly written, I'd like to delete it unless it can be revised. 74.67.53.38 22:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Premier Parks[edit]

My primary problem with the current property list is that you say "listed in order they joined the six flags family" but the parks purchsed by Premier prior to Premier purchasing Six Flags are listed in that same order, as in the year Premier bought them, not Six Flags Theme Parks (the company prior to 2000 when Premier Parks PKS reorganized under Six Flags Inc SFI). I realize this is confusing in itself trying to sort SFTP from SFI in the first place, but the order "purchased by six flags" is incorrect. I'm not sure how to rectify this, other than to split them out or denote which company they were a part of prior to being purchased by which company. (Is this comment confusing yet?)

And I agree that there isn't enough info about Premier Parks here, which there should be as they are technically the original formation of the current Six Flags Incorporated. →ClarkCTTalk @  00:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think what I was most trying for with these tables was to reflect when they became "flagged" parks, as it were. Unfortunately, that term really isn't encyclopedic, and you're right in that the terms currently presented are kinda murky, since many of the older Premier Parks had been acquired by Premier and then were "flagged" after Premier acquired the Six Flags brand. Maybe it should say "the year it became a Six Flags park," but that would leave out parks like Great Escape, which is owned by the company but not "flagged."
McDoobAU93 (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on coming up with a new format, probably still in a table but either divided or with added columns. Unfortunately everything I can think of is probably going to get confusing. I'll keep working on it. →ClarkCTTalk @  00:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a new set of tables for the current properties - you can preview it at my Sandbox. If you have any problems with it please let me know. It may read somewhat confusing, but I think with a little expansion about Premier in the rest of the article, which may be my next project, it should be fine. →ClarkCTTalk @ 02:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Citation[edit]

Will add citation about recently rolledback edit about Geauga Lake later. Nathanhillinbl (talk) 11:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I googled several key words searching for some news article that Six Flags has re-acquired the Geauga Lake park ... nothing. If you decide to add this back, include your citation at that time so it can be verified by other editors. Additional research suggests no such transaction has occurred, as Cedar Fair's website still shows Geauga Lake as being one of their properties, and Six Flags' website does not show any parks in Ohio.
Fair warning: fansites or rumor websites do not count as verifiable or reliable sources. For what it's worth, many of the rumor websites I do read, such as Screamscape, are usually well ahead of the curve when it comes to chains unloading parks. Screamscape has said that Cedar Fair is considering unloading some parks, and Cedar Fair has confirmed that they are considering that action; Screamscape listed parks on the chopping block, while Cedar Fair merely said it was exploring its options. Neither mentioned Geauga Lake.
In summary, unless and until a verifiable source (no fansites or rumors) appears for this, Geauga Lake belongs in the "former properties" category.
McDoobAU93 (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When did it open?[edit]

This article claims that Six Flags over Texas opened in 1954, the year before Disneyland opened. The actual article for Six Flags Over Texas claims that it was a visit to the recently opened Disneyland park that inspired the creation of the park, and that it opened in 1960. Which is it? MrItty (talk) 03:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The park Six Flags Over Texas opened on August 5, 1961. (Source: "Six Flags Over Texas Celebrates 50th Anniversary") However, this article "Six Flags" is about the marketing, operations, and management company. Senator2029 “Talk” 17:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi Lock this article[edit]

We need to semi protect this article. Please do this.--99 time 14:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockers99 (talk • contribs)

No u.140.198.42.45 (talk) 01:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Potential source[edit]

An anon IP added this news story discussing plans for Six Flags to refinance some of its debt ... but no content that this source corroborated. I'm moving it here in case somebody has a chance to incorporate the information into the article. --McDoobAU93 15:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Date of establishment[edit]

The article is in Category:Companies established in 1961, but the infobox gives 1962 as the year of establishment. Further, the article states

The Six Flags chain originated in 1959 with the creation of The Great Southwest Corporation...

The correct date with a source/reference is needed. Senator2029 “Talk” 15:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Six Flags/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I only gave it a B-Class rating because almost all of the content is listed in one section (History), and the rest of the article is listings. The lists should probably be put on a separate page (such as See List of Six Flags parks). Also, the "News" section is not very encyclopedic. If anyone wants to take a crack at fixing this, please do so. I may get around to doing it later. Feel free to disagree with me. -Jcembree 04:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 04:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 06:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Six Flags. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 23:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2010–present[edit]

Is it possible that instead of listing everything that had happened to the company in a timeline to summarize it a bit more? --Jpp858 (talk) 22:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Properties impacted from Covid19[edit]

@Dyll222::The Campgrounds that are alongside Six Flags Darien Lake is not included in the "26 properties" that the company recognizes. 23 of which are in the United States and the other three are La Ronde, Mexico and Six Flags Hurricane Harbor Oaxtepec.

(Sources:
Six Flags Darien Lake is still currently closed. I assume the company, includes the campgrounds as the same operations with Darien Lake. They don't even list the campgrounds on their main SixFlags.com website, yet they do list Six Flags Great Escape Lodge & Indoor Waterpark. The two properties at Great Escape, as well as every other property listed on their main SixFlags.com website, is a total of "26" properties. I included Six Flags Safari on the list of properties due to the significance of it now operating separate from the theme park and that it was the first Six Flags attraction to open during these times. I can understand an argument of removing the Six Flags Safari from that list. Someone can add a note next to the "closed" Six Flags Darien Lake, stating that the campgrounds reopened on June 25 (if significant), similar to the notes placed on Discovery Kingdom and Great America listings. White Water Bay at Fiesta Texas opened later as well as Hurricane Harbor St. Louis than their respective theme parks, yet as well share the same operations as their respective parks, and don't have a listing on the main SixFlags.com website, so those two are not listed.--Jpp858 (talk) 04:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpp858 stop changing the Darien Lake opening. The campgrounds are significant to the property, they bring in a lot of revenue for the theme park. Stop changing it, if Great America can have their water park registered as open then Darien Lake can have their campgrounds registered, both are significant. Dyll222 (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dyll222: Where is your source about the campgrounds being open? This would need to be cited in the EFN note in order to remain. Also, according to Darien Lake's operating schedule, the park itself is considered closed. Therefore, the main entry in the chart for Darien Lake also needs to say "Closed". The campgrounds do not represent the park as a whole. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.sixflagsdarienlakelodging.com/campground-reopening/ Dyll222 (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever was asking me there’s the source ^ Dyll222 (talk) 23:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dyll222:, there is a reason we don't source SixFlags.com for information, and I believe GoneIn60, can explain more on that. But if you want to find sourcing for editing, this article can help with what references are considered reliable. I agree in removing the chart and focusing more on the individual park pages on the impact of COVID-19 on operations, (see Six Flags Fiesta Texas). --Jpp858 (talk) 13:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dyll222, thanks for the response. There are different types of sources we can use in articles, and you can read WP:PSTS to learn more about that. We can use primary sources like the one from Six Flags you provided for certain claims, and this would be a situation where it qualifies. However, we need to keep a couple things in mind. First, the chart itself is a problem as discussed below and has been removed. Second, we take significant coverage into account before including content on Wikipedia. So even if we can verify something is true, it might not see the light of day on Wikipedia unless we're confident there's been a good amount of coverage in sources.
Primary sources can verify something is true, but usually we also need secondary sources to show significant coverage. The campground doesn't have its own article and only has one line in the Darien Lake article for these reasons. It's a tiny aspect that doesn't deserve any attention here in the main Six Flags article, and tracking its COVID-19 situation is probably more suited for a blog or fan website as opposed to an encyclopedia, in my opinion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COVID-19 status chart[edit]

Beginning a new section here...

I'm not sure the chart itself is encyclopedic. Per WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NOTNEWS, Wikipedia shouldn't be used as an up-to-the-minute travel status of various amusement destinations and rides. We favor long-term, historical significance, and 15-20 years from now, the daily updates wouldn't have any real significance. The entire situation can be summed up in a brief sentence or two about the overall impact COVID-19 had on the park properties. In my opinion, the chart should be removed and instead allow the individual park articles to track reopening dates. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and that's why I have stayed away from this particular edit war. Things change daily and there's no reason for this content to be included in an article that is supposed to be about the company itself, not the individual parks.—JlACEer (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Getting to see y'all's opinion on it and feedback, I to believe that removing the table would be for the best. The Six Flags article should just list the impacts on the company and not the individual park itself. I agree to removing the table if it hasn't already. The things that impacted the company, is the company wide shutdown of operations and what has been implemented to stop the spread of the virus.--Jpp858 (talk) 22:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like we're in agreement! Since you contribute heavily to the Six Flags' articles, we can leave that part up to you (summing up the COVID-19 impact in prose). Obviously, it's still ongoing, so it would be worded in present tense until this thing is over. Also, feel free to remove the chart after waiting another day or two to see if anyone else chimes in. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Six Flags Pass[edit]

I don't think mention of the change to the Six Flags Season Pass program is encyclopedic enough to merit an entry on the timeline. The change only applies to the basic season pass. Several of the big chain parks have been trying to transition season passholders over to memberships and Six Flags is no different. All four membership options allow access to every Six Flags outdoor park. The multi-park option has not been dropped, it has simply transitioned over to memberships and the difference in price between a single-park season pass and the multi-park membership is less than $20 per year.—JlACEer (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It's not an encyclopedia worthy element of company history. Fact is also that it's been removed by at least four editors and keeps getting reverted by one. That's plain edit warring against obvious consensus. oknazevad (talk) 19:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also agreed. If Schoup, who has been edit-warring here (and elsewhere), disagrees, let them bring it to talk to gain consensus. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Cedar Fair[edit]

I didn't see a topic about it anywhere else on this page, but how will this page change after the merger with Cedar Fair? https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/02/investing/six-flags-cedar-fair-merging/index.html 23.131.176.50 (talk) 11:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Too soon to say. The merger was just announced today, and who knows what regulatory issues might come up. Plus nothing is mentioned about any theming licenses. oknazevad (talk) 16:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also see Talk:Cedar Fair#Update. Because of both companies' extensive histories, the best way forward may be to rename the current Six Flags and Cedar Fair articles, and move forward with a new Six Flags article. Open to suggestions on how the older ones would be renamed, but if we do it that way, then we can have "Further information" hatnotes in the History section that link to the older articles. There's too much info for one article I'm afraid. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dropped discussion notices at WT:COMPANIES and WP:TEA --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I'm not proposing any action at this time. As Oknazevad points out, a lot can still happen between now and the finalizing of the merger. However, it would be good to get a head start on how we would approach this. Perhaps we can rename the current Six Flags article to something like History of Six Flags, moving the "Current properties" and "Flash Pass" sections to a new Six Flags article. Just a thought. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It also depends on how the merger is structured. The article linked here states the Six Flags name is going to continue. If it's structured as Six Flags buying Cedar Fair, then Cedar Fair becomes a clear historical company article, and the Six Flags article continues, as it is the same company.
On the other hand if it's technically a case of Cedar Fair buying Six Flags and taking the name, then moving the Cedar Fair article to the Six Flags name and renaming this one to have the historical dates as a disambiguator would be consistent with other corporate mergers of similar nature.
Then again, we didn't do that for the Six Flags/Premier Parks merger. The current Six Flags company is actually the original Premier Parks, which took the Six Flags name when they acquired the original company in 1998.
Of course, there's also a chance that the merger is scuttled by regulators, or at least sees some of the combined company being made to divest properties as a condition of regulatory approval. Though the article clearly shows that the companies are trying to make it seem like they're complimentary, not competitive, it's pretty obvious that they have overlapping areas. Knott's Berry Farm and Magic Mountain are both in the LA area, Dorney Park and Great Adventure both draw from the NYC and Philly areas, and California's Great America and Discovery Kingdom are both in the Bay Area.
(Which also reminds me, both these articles can use a locations map like one sees on a sports league's article.) oknazevad (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to the statements issued, neither company is buying the other — it is considered a merger of equals. However, when all is said and done, Cedar Fair unitholders will own approximately 51.2% of the capital and Six Flags shareholders will own approximately 48.8%.—JlACEer (talk) 01:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Started typing that last night, but looks JlACEer beat me to the punch. Here's the source that says the deal was described as a "merger of equals". Here's another where it was reported that Cedar Fair shareholders will own 51.2% of the company, while Six Flags shareholders will own 48.8%.
If they had chosen a new name for the combined company, this would probably be handled in a similar manner to Sirius XM, where the history of each predecessor is covered in separate articles. Because this is a similar situation where the history is extensive for both companies, it may be best to take a similar approach. Create a new article that briefly covers the history of both companies and then hatnote link those sections back to the original articles on each. The only wrench getting thrown into the mix is the fact that the new company retains the Six Flags name, so the original Six Flags article needs to be renamed before that can happen. Food for thought for whenever we cross that bridge. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From the looks of it, Cedar Fair has the controlling stake in the new company, despite their describing the transaction as a "merger of equals". It's not that Cedar Fair is buying the current Six Flags; it's that what is now Cedar Fair will control the combined company which is also named Six Flags.
I would still keep Six Flags and Cedar Fair as separate articles, creating a new page for the combined company. We could move the Six Flags page to something like Six Flags (1956–2024) if necessary, similar to what was done for Viacom (2005–2019). – Epicgenius (talk) 01:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like that idea, and great comparison! :) --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Probably the best course of action, once the merger is finalized, of course. oknazevad (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(I also agree with the idea of a location map.) – Epicgenius (talk) 01:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Six Flags (1956–2024) makes it sound like the old Six Flags died — but then that may be appropriate.—JlACEer (talk) 14:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well "died" in the sense of "ceasing to exist in its current form". Other ideas from Ceyockey (mentioned at WT:COMPANIES) include: Six Flags (before 2024) and Six Flags (pre-2024). I think any of these could work. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 June 2024[edit]

– Cedar Fair will be the surviving entity come July 2nd. A merged article would be arguably too long. DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Absolutely not right now. The companies are still independent of each other and it's WP:TOOSOON. If the merger does go through, we should probably keep the Six Flags as is because the merging company will keep the current name. WiinterU 21:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me make this incredibly clear to everyone. We do not need to merge or create any new articles. We just need to update Cedar Fair as defunct and merged, and keep this article as is. WiinterU 03:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As has been explained in the "Discussion" section, keeping the Six Flags article as-is and changing Cedar Fair to "defunct and merged" would not be appropriate here, since Six Flags isn't acquiring Cedar Fair. Therefore, a new article may be needed; that, however, is outside the purview of the RM.
No one is discussing merging the actual articles, since everyone has agreed that this would be infeasible. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Six Flags name will continue to be used, so we can treat this as both the former and the successor company. WiinterU 22:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Literally no one that anything happens before the merger. I literally started this discussion this early because the discussions can take days or weeks to come to a consensus. Please see WP:WikiBullying and quit trying to dictate to others what is and isn’t going to happen. DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WiinterU may have voiced some strong opinions, but they are just opinions. WikiBullying isn't really applicable here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"...so we can treat this as both the former and the successor company"
That doesn't work, and the reason why it doesn't has been explained in the discussion below. If you disagree, that's fine, disagree and move on, but further discussion really needs to be contained in the section below. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Cedar Fair move. Make a new article on the new Six Flags, with the old Six Flags and Cedar Fair articles remaining as history articles on their prior corporate histories. Since the two companies merged (according to what is written in the articles) instead of Six Flags being an acquisition/buyout. A new corporate article can be created, since both existing articles are long. -- 64.229.90.32 (talk) 06:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Six Flags isn't dissolved, but Cedar Fair is. I think. Cwater1 (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

  • Comment – The most recent sources at both articles refer to the merger announcement back in late 2023. While there are some brief details about trading as "Six Flags" under Cedar Fair's ticker FUN symbol, it doesn't specify any real restructuring details and certainly doesn't specify a final date for the merger. I think a discussion to move is premature until the articles are fleshed out with more information. But on the surface, it does seem that the proposal is along the lines of what would need to happen assuming this is how the company is going to be restructured. Let's get that in the articles first with proper citations. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The details of the merger, which was announced to close on July 1, were announced a couple of days ago. Here is just the first result of a search. That said, I say wait. We need to update the articles first, and that should be done after the merger is finalized. oknazevad (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The coporste structure has been announced at least from a management perspective only Gary Mick and Selim from Six Flags are remaining[1]. Also they're only keeping Cedar Fair's offices in Charlotte and Sandusky.DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good to know, and thanks for the additional source, but the point remains. The merger needs to happen first, followed closely behind by the articles being updated. Then we should revisit moving the articles. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 20:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think some may disagree about the need for a new page. I suggested it in the discussion directly above this one, and there seemed to be lukewarm support for the idea.
    In any case, while I do agree with waiting until the merger is finalized, it seems like the current Cedar Fair will be renamed Six Flags, retaining all its administrative structure. It's not that the current Six Flags will acquire all of Cedar Fair's properties and continue to operate as normal. Rather, it's the other way around; the current Six Flags will cease to exist, and Cedar Fair will take over Six Flags' properties. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) The section above (§ Merge with Cedar Fair) sheds more light on the situation. Cedar Fair is the merging company that gets the controlling stake, and because of both companies' extensive histories, one option on the table should be to preserve the original articles in some way. Past mergers mentioned as examples include Sirius XM and Viacom (now Paramount Global), where new articles were created and the previous articles were retained or moved. It just so happened that the new companies formed back then had new names, but should the name of the new company in this situation change our approach? I don't think it should when it involves a merger of this size, especially one that has been described as a "merger of equals".
    Of course, that's a decision to make when the time is right. I do agree that now is NOT that time. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The one thing to keep in mind about whether to just continue the combined company at the Six Flags title without having a separate article for the pre-merger company is that there's precedent for that. This very article. Remember, the current Six Flags company is actually the original Premier Parks, which acquired the original Six Flags from Time Warner in 1998 and took the Six Flags name. We actually do not have a separate article for the pre-1998 Six Flags or the pre-1998 Premier Parks. (The current Premier Parks, LLC is a separate company founded by former original Premier Parks executives in 2011. That company does have a separate article.) So that is a fact we might take, as it would give a complete picture of the history of the name. oknazevad (talk) 22:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I think that's where we have to consider the fine line between an acquisition and a merger. Combining into one is different than acquiring another company's assets, where the acquired company essentially ceases to exist. In the example you give, the histories of both were small enough that combining the two articles made sense, but technically, one could have been left behind as the formerly acquired. Another example of this is Paramount Parks when it was acquired by Cedar Fair. These weren't merged, and the history of Cedar Fair contains nothing about Paramount Parks' history. To do the same in the Six Flags article would be highly misleading, because Cedar Fair becomes the controlling entity; only the name ceases to exist. In the new combined company article, Cedar Fair's history will hold just as much significance, if not more.
    Just seems like we need to treat large mergers differently. The updated Six Flags article would need to have a short summary of each company's history (the original Six Flags and the previous Cedar Fair) with section hatnotes that link back to their former history sections containing more details. Either that, or we're looking at merging the two articles together, which may become a WP:TOOBIG concern. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. I think we should avoid merging the articles about the companies themselves, as they have distinct histories and backgrounds from prior to 2024. Instead, one of the articles (either the Cedar Fair article, or a new article about the newly merged Six Flags) should be selected as the article about the "successor" company.
    That being said, we do have a few sentences about Paramount Parks' merger in the current Cedar Fair article. Perhaps we can do the same thing about the Six Flags merger in the current Cedar Fair article, and in the current Six Flags article, we just mention that it was merged into Cedar Fair (which itself will be renamed Six Flags). – Epicgenius (talk) 01:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Paramount parks thing wasnt actually a merger, it was acquisition. This also technically isnt a merger because they structured the transaction like a stock acquisition. This is because certain Ohio state and federal laws dont require them to hold a vote as long as Cedar Fairs unit holders own 51% of the company. I used unit holders becuase Cedar Fair is a limited partership with units not shares.DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 01:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We're starting to venture down this rabbit hole a bit too deep, but some clarity is needed regarding mergers and acquisitions. Paramount Parks was acquired, since all of its assets were absorbed by Cedar Fair in a stock acquisition, but this deal between Six Flags and Cedar Fair is not an acquisition. In legal terms, it is a merger, and it has been described as such by secondary sources. The difference in a merger is that both companies consolidate their resources with the shared goal of forming a new, more competitive business entity. Both sides dilute some of their power, and you typically see at least a few executives from both companies maintain an ongoing presence in the new company. These friendly mergers are commonly referred to in legal terms as "mergers of equals". Another key difference in mergers is that new stocks are issued as the old stocks from both companies are surrendered, which is exactly what's happening here.
    And finally, Ohio laws have nothing to do with it. Cedar Fair and Six Flags were both incorporated in Delaware, so that state is in control of the terms. Under Delaware law, only the board of directors in both companies have to vote to approve the deal; the shareholders of the company losing the controlling interest also have to vote, which in this case only relates to Six Flags shareholders. Barring a last minute intervention by the Department of Justice (or a last minute pull out by Cedar Fair), the deal will go through.
    The new entity really needs its own article for these reasons; there's a shared history, but there's a new beginning. I'm probably going to keep going back to the Sirius XM article as a prime example, which lays this out perfectly with a "Pre-merger" section. Probably my final comments until the actual move discussion takes place (my apologies for borderline bludgeoning ;-P). -- GoneIn60 (talk) 05:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I need you to know this. Just because the companies merge, does not mean the pages have to merge. If the entity takes on the Six Flags name, we will keep this page and treat it as a successor and update Cedar Fair as defunct and merge. We are not moving, merging, or changing names. WiinterU 15:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you seem to be taking this so personally , User:WiinterU? Whatever is decided as the course of action by multiple editors is what we will we do, that’s why these discussions take place.It doesn’t matter whether one particular editor likes the idea, so long as the majority of editors do. DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm wondering if it's more along the lines of sports teams moving, expanding, or even renaming. Looking at examples like Baltimore Colts, Washington Redskins, Baltimore Ravens#Return of American football in Baltimore. In the last case, it was the Cleveland Browns team that moved to Baltimore, even though the jerseys stayed in Ohio. 184.58.4.115 (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just how Twitter is still named Twitter despite rebranding to X. Cwater1 (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CommonName Cwater1 (talk) 21:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey #2[edit]

The discussion may have trailed off a bit, but let's recap the options discussed:

1. Take action similar to the requested move above.

2. Keep Cedar Fair and Six Flags as is.

→ Update both articles as needed, treating Cedar Fair as defunct and Six Flags as the successor article.

3. Keep Cedar Fair as is, move Six Flags as proposed above, and create a new article for the new entity titled Six Flags.

→ The new article will have a History or Pre-Merger section that briefly covers both companies with section hatnotes that link back to the old articles (example: Sirius XM).

I am in favor of #3 for the reasons explained above. The main issue with choosing #1 or #2 is that the new entity is no longer the history of Six Flags or the history of Cedar Fair. It is now the history of both companies. If you choose one of the existing articles as the successor, then you are faced with merging the history sections of both to make it right, along with the extensive tables that cover former properties, possibly creating a WP:TOOBIG concern. It's doable, just something to take into consideration. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it might be better to create a third article about the merged companies. Otherwise, like you said, we would have to choose one of the two existing articles to serve as the successor company's page (options 1 and 2 above), or literally merge the two articles (which not only creates TOOBIG concerns but is also very unwieldy). – Epicgenius (talk) 20:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I favor option 3 if we're going with bolded !votes. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean towards option three as well. That said, I wouldn't mind a split of the existing Six Flags article to account for the current company being a merger of the original Six Flags company and the original Premier Parks. Whether that means splitting off an article about the original Premier Parks and having the current Six Flags article be about the history of companies under that name both before and after the Premier Parks merger, or splitting off the original Six Flags from before the Premier Parks merger since, much like this planned merger, the legal acquiring company in that merger took the Six Flags name from the acquired original company. (Though that is complicated by the 2011 bankruptcy reorganization, as technically the post-2011 company is a different legal entity, as is common with Chapter 11 bankruptcies.) oknazevad (talk) 02:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Following this merger and how that unfolds on Wikipedia, I wouldn't mind teaming up and revisiting that idea afterward in a new thread. Depending on the feasibility and other factors, it may or may not make sense to do, but it's definitely worth exploring further. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 05:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Officially the merger has been approved by the DOJ. DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 13:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not really a merger of equals. Cedar Fair will own 51% of the new company and it will be their corporate structure. DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's your point? Six Flags has more than twice as many parks. Cedar Fair has more than twice as many employees. Should we compare revenue for 2023? Maybe unpaid debts? Maybe yearly ad spend.
No, you want to zero in on the 51% figure with no reason given as to why. But, okay, let's take a look. The 51% figure is probably the closest to equal number in the entire deal.
Three months from now, nobody is going to know or care about 51% of some ownership shares that happened to exist at one time in 2024. Literally nobody will even remember without looking at today's news articles if you look years down the road.
Stick with what people in general know. People are searching for "Six Flags" and are expecting a page about the amusement park that they can visit. Far, far fewer people are searching for "Cedar Fair" in comparison.
I'm familiar with the history of Six Flags and I know that its history is actually three, four, or more companies stacked on top of each other. You might be as well. Most people are not. But everybody knows the name "Six Flags" from my grandfather to my preschool niece. Muddying the waters for people now and into the future to know if they're looking at the right Six Flags article just because some accountants and lawyers made a slightly-off-fifty-percent decision is extremely shortsighted. DontWantUsernameToday (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that the new Six Flags organization is majority Cedar Fair and will be run as such.Also whatever we do has to account for the history of companies and that article would be simply too long (WP:TOOLONG)thats why Option 3 was proposed. Theres also precedent on Wikipedia for doing this see Sirius XM and the multiple Viacom and CBS articles. DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 00:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the article won’t be too long if you keep the Cedar Fair page, and just add to the infobox and page that the company is defunct. Like the Mobil page. BigRed606 (talk) 20:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the right approach and it's also the approach already taken in this exact article. Ryanmarch7 (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the page that literally links its company history on separate page((Mobil))? Also we’re not talking about merging the pages. We’re talking about moving this page, keeping the Cedar Fair page separate, and creating a new Six Flags page to cover the history of the company going forward as Wikipedia has done done with the multiple CBS/Paramount mergers and the Sirius XM Merger DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 02:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does not make sense to have multiple pages just because of a change of CEO. The facts are that next year, there will be a company named Six Flags that runs the parks and there will not be a company named Cedar Fair running anything. Any attempt to misrepresent that by moving, merging, renaming or any other edit choice would be misleading.
The best path forward is to update the Cedar Fair article from "is" to "was" and indicate that it merged with Six Flags. Then add a section to the Six Flags article "2024 to Present" talking about the merger and a line about how many parks they run as of that time. Ryanmarch7 (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only misrepresentation would be to pretend that the new company is the same old "Six Flags" that existed before. This goes beyond a new CEO, and you'd know that if you read the discussion above. Regardless of our approach (new article vs reusing existing article), the new company's history must include coverage of Cedar Fair; nuking it is not on the table.
I'm also confused by this odd collaboration about the Mobil article somehow being in favor of this flawed argument; it easily backfires once you look at the big picture. At ExxonMobil, the history section links to History of ExxonMobil, which is an article that covers the history of both Exxon and Mobil prior to their merger. That's EXACTLY what we are saying should be done here. The new company article should cover the history of both Cedar Fair and Six Flags. Even you all are giving the example this time, and it still supports the argument we're making. Where's the problem? Time to WP:DROPTHESTICK? --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anyone arguing in favor of getting rid of the Cedar Fair page. The Cedar Fair article would remain intact to document the history of that company before the merger. You're totally misreading them.
What they're arguing is that since the Six Flags page as it stands now already combines the history of multiple previous incarnations of Six Flags (both the original and after the acquisition by Premier Parks, which took the name after buying the original company, as well as the corporate reorganization following the 2009–11 bankruptcy) then having that same article continue on as the sole Six Flags article (which includes the history of the merger and notes which parks came under the Six Flags banner as part of the Cedar Fair merger) is beneficial to the reader, as they wouldn't need to navigate through a separate article to get the total history. Even though the merger does give slightly more balance to the Cedar Fair stockholders, the post-merger company will be still Six Flags in name and legal incorporation. I can see their argument, and do not think that going that route would be a disservice to the reader or the encyclopedia. oknazevad (talk) 13:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't see anyone arguing in favor of getting rid of the Cedar Fair page"
This is correct. No one is making that argument, and that's not what I'm arguing against either. The issue has to do with importing Cedar Fair's history into the existing Six Flags article (beyond a brief mention of the merger) should we go with option 2. Others are saying that's not needed, but I'm saying it will be. Per NPOV and specifically WP:WEIGHT, Cedar Fair's history becomes just as significant as Six Flags' history, so whatever article we end up using for the new company will require balanced historical coverage of both CF and SF pre-merger. Having lopsided coverage in favor of the old Six Flags causes a violation of NPOV within the Six Flags article. This imbalance has nothing to do with the Cedar Fair article remaining intact. Obviously, we would still link to that article for a complete history, but some summary would still be warranted in the main Six Flags article per WP:DUE.
This debate isn't really a part of option 2, nor should it be the main focus of this discussion; we can attack that later in a separate discussion. The only reason I bring it up now is so that editors are aware that option 2 has the potential of making the article significantly longer if some CF history gets imported. If people have a problem with that – maybe because they'd prefer to keep SF history completely separate – then don't vote for option 2. It's that simple. Option 2 will likely complicate things by forcing additional coverage of CF history, and cause an already bloated article to become more bloated over time. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think your NPOV concerns are unneeded, to be frank. I don't see how including all Six Flags history in one article of the current company with that name while leaving Cedar Fair history in the article of that name violates NPOV, unless one takes the corporate machinations too literally.
The fact is the execs that are the architects of the merger already see the combined company as the continuation of Six Flags, that's why they're retaining the Six Flags name and abandoning the Cedar Fair name entirely, not using a combined name of some variety. The fact that the (hired) executives are mostly from the Cedar Fair side is not defining, nor really is the 51/49 shareholder split (more than 1% of a company's shares change hands daily).
Also, I'm going to note that on Wikipedia we already have a practice of treating the result of a merger where the combined company continues to use the name of only one predecessor as one continuous company, even if the legal structure saw the company whose name was abandoned purchase the one whose name was retained. Such is the case with American Airlines, the name of which was retained even though it's merger with US Airways saw the US Air holding company's management take over the American Airlines holding company. We list US Airways Group as being defunct as of the final steps of the merger, even though the current American Airlines Group is legally the same corporation. (And for that matter, it was the second time that said management had engaged in such a merger, as they had gained control of US Airways through a merger where America West Airlines bought and adopted the name of US Airways.)
As such, I am no longer certain that we really need to create a new article, and instead can just let this article be the article for all incarnations of Six Flags. oknazevad (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison. In neither case was it considered a "merger of equals". US Airways was swallowed up both times, and despite the second time involving a financially-struggling American Airlines, it still took 78% of the shares during the merge. So the fact that American Airlines kept its branding came as no surprise. There is a similarity with US Airways' management becoming the controlling corporate structure post-merger, but that's where the similarities end I'm afraid.
On Wikipedia, we have multiple examples to look at, and there have been multiple examples given in this discussion. There's no policy or guideline that says we have to do things in a particular way. If it makes sense to incorporate brief summaries of the former pre-merger entities in one place, then we should. If it isn't feasible to summarize their extensive histories in one article, or it doesn't make sense for other reasons, then we shouldn't. What works for one merger may not work for other mergers. I just happen to be in the camp that believes what worked for the Sirius XM article could work here as well. I like the cleaner look, and as the history of the new Six Flags expands, it may be nice to have an article dedicated to the history of Six Flags, much like History of ExxonMobil or History of American Airlines. Not everything needs to be contained in one article. Others are free to agree or disagree. We'll see where that takes us. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good thing we have secondary sources to provide that analysis (see here). Cedar Fair dominates the MidWest, while Six Flags is stronger in the South.
It's a moot point anyway if you're only trying to decide between options 2 and 3. Both lead to the same result in different ways. Going with option 2 means we'll be importing some portion of Cedar Fair's history into the existing Six Flags article. Option 3 favors a leaner Six Flags article with less bloat (which is a good thing). That's essentially the main difference in case it wasn't clear. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 00:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to import any Cedar Fair article into the Six Flags article. Add a section here "2024 To Present" that mentions the merger with a link to the Cedar Fair article. Add a line about how many parks are managed at that time, and you're done. For bonus points, add Cedar Fair to the info box at the top of the article. That's all that is needed. It does not make sense to over complicate this. Ryanmarch7 (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed above, but since you only have about 110 edits (with very few edits in the past few years I might add), you might not be aware of WP:NPOV. The policy supports giving fair representation of all significant aspects for a given topic within the subject's article on Wikipedia. The new "Six Flags" now includes Cedar Fair's history in its profile, making it a significant aspect that deserves WP:DUE coverage in the article. Whether you like option 2 or option 3 won't change whether Cedar Fair's history gets the coverage it deserves. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 3 per my comment in the move request. This is a merger of two companies, it is easier and better to keep their corporate histories in their original articles, as they are long articles, the entities are GNG notable, and keeping them there would clarify the matter. WP:NOTPAPER, wikipedia isn't written on paper, so there is no restriction on having only one article with the name "Six Flags", nor lacking space for having separate articles on the three entities. Instead a new article on the new Six Flags should be written with WP:SUMMARYSTYLE abbreviated corporate histories of the two pre-merger companies, leading back to their full corporate articles that we have now. -- 64.229.90.32 (talk) 06:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I support Option 2 - I just wanted to chime in, the Six Flags page has been in need desperate help for a while. All of the purchases in the past between the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, Bally Entertainment, Premier Parks, etc, have led to the page being very muddled. The Cedar Fair page does not need to redirect to the Six Flags page. The Six Flags page I don't think should have a time parameter added to it's name, as Six Flags will still be the name of the company. I think it would make more sense instead of creating multiple pages for Six Flags throughout time, a page similar to Timeline of the Walt Disney Company needs to be created. Chrisisreed (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for weighing in, Chrisisreed. So would you say that eventually, you could see perhaps a "History of Six Flags" article or something similar that covers the earlier time period of the company, and then a separate article that covers more of the post-merger time period? Just curious if that's what you were describing in your response. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That would probably be best? I spent a few weeks making a page for Great Southwest Corporation to better highlight the foundation that led to the creation of the Six Flags company. Ideally I see the Six Flags page continuing from here on (post-merger) and it would probably help to have a page extensively detailing the history History of Six Flags. The company history has been vast, and complicated to follow, and I feel as though the wikipedia page has become muddled as a direct result. For instance Premier Parks who it has been accepted bought the Six Flags brand and took on its name and history, but in actuality Premier Parks still exists yet that isn't reflected on the wikipedia page anywhere. The last thing Six Flags needs is a dozen subpages with different timestamps, what it has just needs to be cleaned up, fleshed out, and expanded on for clarity. Chrisisreed (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. Very helpful. I could see either option, 2 or 3, eventually leading to the scenario you've described. At some point it would just be cleaner for the main Six Flags article to focus on the more recent history that led up to the merger (and of course post-merger), along with listing the current properties and other company details. But you're right, splitting isn't really the primary concern right now. It should be to clean up the article and plug in the missing gaps of information. I'm with you on that regardless of the outcome here. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 13:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a point of order, but the current Premier Parks, LLC is an entirely separate company founded in 2011 that just reused the name. We have a separate article for that company. It's not a continuation of the company that merged with Six Flags in 1998. oknazevad (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sidebar discussion about closing procedure

All right everybody put what option in bold that you are voting in favor of 1, 2 or 3. Voting closes Monday, July 1st 6 pm est. Voting will remain open until July 19th. Should give us enough time. My vote is in favor of option 3DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voting will remain open until an uninvolved admin or other closer comes along and closes it. As someone involved you don't get the say when the discussion closes. Please strike that completely. oknazevad (talk) 03:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said before this is straw. Im not not in anyway that saying I’m going to close the discussion. I merely suggesting it be left open until then that way it meets WP:Closure requests and WP:Requested moves/Closing instructions, which by the way allows me or anyone else involved to solicit a request for closure from a neutral entity. DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 03:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not likely to happen unless they're changing their stance or have more to discuss. Also, this discussion has become a mess. Might be time to put it to rest and start fresh after the merger is finalized and both articles have been updated. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m still going to wait for votes to be cast. Right now it’s 5-4 in official votes cast of option 3. So I’m just going by whatever that number is. Simple majority. If those who voiced but didn’t officially say which option they preferred outright then decide to vote great. If not they missed their chance.
No need to let this conversation run on longer than it has to.DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 13:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just keep in mind that per !VOTE it's the strength of the argument and not necessarily the number of votes that determines consensus. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 13:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know the 4 votes are from people who haven’t necessarily said they’re going to vote against option 3.DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 13:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although I personally support Option 3, I think we should keep in mind that this is a WP:!VOTE, not a "vote" per se, as GoneIn60 says. As it is, a 5-4 !vote means that there is no clear consensus as of yet.
At best, there is a weak consensus in favor of Option 3, since there is no status quo to speak of. There is also no rush to create a new page. Worse comes to worst, we can temporarily include the info in the Six Flags page, then host a separate discussion on whether to split the page (option 3), or keep the page as is (option 2). – Epicgenius (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m going to leave the conversation open til 11:59 est tonight to get more people an opportunity to vote.as it seems to be trending towards option 3.See my above commentDisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A neutral editor should close this Discussion. Aka someone who has not commented on this page. BigRed606 (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not trending towards #3. No consensus has ben reached, further this is not WP:Vote. I high urged a neutral party to close the discussion and make a determination based on the strengths on the arguments. BigRed606 (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the person who started this discussion, you most certainly should not be the one to close it in any fashion. You are clearly WP:INVOLVED. oknazevad (talk) 22:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all never said I was going to close the discussion.I may have implied that unintentionally. I’m talking about this WP:Straw I started. DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 23:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I would leave this open for a week or two. A lot of editors have commented here in the last few days, and there does not seem to be a clear consensus, even within this straw poll. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is now becoming people preemptively editing the article and ignoring the move discussionDisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 01:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You’re good DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 02:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it would be best to wait and see fully in the coming weeks. That being said, I still support Option 2. Chrisisreed (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm heavily in favor of Option 3 given that as of today this is a completely separate and new entity with a different leadership, logo, and as of tomorrow stock ticker. Our new article structure can be a brief history of each, financial events and reasons leading up to merger, merger itself, and a list of parks. History will grow from there. Bigtime Boy (talk) 20:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In favor of Option 3 since "Six Flags Entertainment Corporation" is a brand new entity that does not share leadership, a logo, HQ or stock ticker with the former Six Flags entity. 007a83 (Talk|Contribs) 02:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recap support Option 2, reasons mentioned above ^^ BigRed606 (talk) 22:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Option 2 per my comments above regarding the precedents regarding American Airlines/US Airways/America West Airlines and other similar cases. oknazevad (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2. The proposer has not explained whether his proposed "(1965–2024)" is for disambiguation, or because it's part of the (now defunct) business's name. But no disambiguation is needed; and the business was never known by that long-winded name. If disambiguation is thought to be needed, "Six Flags (former theme park operator)" would be better. Maproom (talk) 07:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Support of Option 3 - I came into this thread expecting to support Option 2 based on the precedent set by the handling of the United Airlines article post-merger with Continental Airlines. That situation was handled more-so like Option 2. However, after seeing a different precedent with Sirius XM, I am voicing my support for Option 3 based on the fact that it is a merger of equals (with one being able to make a strong argument that it favors Cedar Fair). I believe this provides a cleaner guide for users of Wikipedia that would like a better understanding on the history of the companies. I would prefer something other than Six Flags (1965–2024) as a title because Six Flags, as it most recently existed, is not technically legacy Six Flags. Overall, I do think this is a messy situation, but Option 3 provides the cleanest context for users.--Astros4477 (talk) 13:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 I take examples of United/Continental Airlines article, they didn't move the article title as "United Airlines (1926-2010)" or Continental as "United Airlines (2010-present). The same is goes for Cedar-Six Flags merger, 2e still think that Six Flags is a successor of both companies despite adopting Cedar Fair branding. 103.144.14.0 (talk) 10:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm in favor of Option 3, the situation is similar to what happened with Wells Fargo in 98. 72.128.66.229 (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support option 3. The former Six Flags corporate entity is certainly further removed than Cedar Fair is from the new corporation. The corporate governance, stock ticker, and headquarters all remain as Cedar Fair's previous. The Six Flags name was presumably chosen for the new entity simply due to its brand equity and nothing more. Mdibble (talk) 14:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – There have been some concerns about moving the current Six Flags article to Six Flags (1961–2024), but that isn't set in stone. There are other options like History of Six Flags, similar to what has been done at History of ExxonMobil or History of American Airlines. Clearly there is precedent for separating this out, and in this situation, we don't necessarily need to cram everything pre- and post-merger into one article.
    This "merger of equals" is the perfect opportunity to split off and focus on the new entity in a new article, helping to make it crystal clear to readers that this isn't the same old Six Flags corp absorbing some smaller entity and continuing on with "business as usual". This new company represents a consolidation of two major corporations with two different cultures that will now be helmed under new leadership. Taking an approach similar to Sirius XM, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, and even AB InBev will help organize the history section and allow the new article to focus more on the events that follow post-merger.
    Option 2 can work, but option 3 provides the cleanest path forward IMHO. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support the third option, if it isn't phrased Six Flags (1961–2024) as I feel that gives the overall impression the company has ceased operations. If instead History of Six Flags was created to completely delve into the company history, and the main Six Flags page just had a "{main|History of Six Flags}" at the top of the history subsection. Then the page could focus more on the current position of the company and moving forward. Chrisisreed (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn’t have to be phrased that wayDisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 18:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, that's essentially what I envisioned. In the history section, we would have as many section hatnotes as needed, pointing to the historical Six Flags article (whatever it ends up being named), the defunct Cedar Fair article, and any other relevant article that should be linked there. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just another thought, since what's happening right now, is similar to the Premier Parks route. With a company taking over Six Flags, ceasing operation under the original name, and continuing under the Six Flags name. If we're keeping the Cedar Fair page (which I complete agree with) shouldn't Premier Parks' original iteration still have it's own page, rather than slamming it's history into the Six Flags page? The Six Flags page shouldn't really bother with Premier Park's history prior to them buying the Six Flags chain. Should the Premier Parks page be resurrected to something more than a disambiguation page? It would help with the organization of Six Flags' history, and would keep a precedent continuous throughout each merger. Chrisisreed (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I completely agree with that. There would still need to be a disambiguation page because of the current Premier Parks, LLC, but splitting the original Premier Parks' history into its own article is needed if this article is to serve as the main article of Six Flags. oknazevad (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm also wondering that since we talking about making a history page if we should also include the history of the Paramount Parks/Kings Entertainment Company considering their pre-07 history is a part of Cedar Fair's and they bought them in 06. DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, because they already have an article that can be pointed to. We can mention that Cedar Fair bought them, and that's why modern Sox Flags owns those parks, but the history article should not try to have all the disparate company histories in one article. It's poor article organization because it makes the article difficult to read. oknazevad (talk) 03:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm with oknazevad. If there is a scope concern or enough detailed coverage justifying the split, then yes we should consider a separate article that covers the original Premier Parks. Then in the History of Six Flags article, we could have a short summary of that time period with a hatnote that links to the Premier Parks article. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 02:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Only thing is have to say is that if we do make a separate History of Six Flags article akin to the History of American Airlines article (which is not a bad solution and a good compromise from the date disambiguation issue), then let's just make sure that the history section of theis article does not consist solely of a hatnote link to the history article! That's not proper article formatting. See WP:SUMMARY. A section pointing to a child article with a particular subtopic still needs to have a summary paragraph or two under the header, not just an empty header and a link. One of my Wikipedia pet peeves is when people cut and paste entire sections into separate articles without leaving behind a summary. oknazevad (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Totally 100% agree. As I mentioned in option 3, we would have brief coverage pre-merger, and what that looks like is completely up for further discussion, but I imagine it will be similar to what the listed examples have done. Each hatnote used would require a short summary. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 01:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For anyone who is interested I created a Draft: History of Six Flags DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast using the current history section just as a building block. The title of the page is not final (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't need the history of Cedar Fair to be so long in that history article, because the Cedar Fair article still exists and there is zero reason to merge or delete it. "Merger of equals" or not, the history article, if we deem a separate one needed, should be the history of the series of companies to use the Six Flags name, not the total history of all predecessors of the current company, as they have their own articles (except the original Premier Parks, which should be spilt out). oknazevad (talk) 03:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I think perhaps there is some misinterpretation of what was discussed. The history article that focuses on the vast pre-merger history of Six Flags will not contain anything about Cedar Fair, other than a few lines about the merger near the end.
    Over in the newer Six Flags company article, there will be a history section with at least two subsections – one for Six Flags (pre-merger) and one for Cedar Fair. Debatable what they will contain, but each subsection would have a hatnote linking to the former company article followed by a brief summary of that company's history. Brief is key, giving each former company balanced coverage and allowing the new article to spend most of its focus on the new company and post-merger events. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 04:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said before it’s just a draft. Everyone is welcome to edit it. I’m just asking everyone to explain what they did when they doDisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 09:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 3 — As mentioned above, very little of the previous Six Flags remains. This is essentially Cedar Fair's management assuming the Six Flags name and stock symbol and keeping the Cedar Fair headquarters and financial center locations. I would prefer to see the previous page use the name History of Six Flags particularly since GoneIn60 has shown examples of similar mergers using "History of..." wiki pages. This seems to be the best option.—JlACEer (talk) 18:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refs[edit]

References

  1. ^ https://investors.sixflags.com/news-and-events/press-releases/2024/06-18-2024-120509559
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Six_Flags&oldid=1232357465"