Talk:Valleyfair

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Minnesota Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Cedar Fair Entertainment Company task force (assessed as Top-importance).

A link to the Valleyfair website?

I'm reverting the following text about the Wild Thing accident: . The trains brake did not work, thus the train did not stop as it came into the loading dock. It ran into the train in front of it, and the shock disconnected the back cars. It derailed and tipped over into a fence adjacent to the roller coaster.

Google News shows nothing to support this, however it showed many articles that the investigation could take weeks before a specific cause can be found. Furthermore, roller coaster cars don't have brakes -- the track does, so to say "the trains (sic) brake didn't work" cannot be true. If for some reason I'm incorrect here, please provide a cite. --

I'm removing this image. The image comments say that "author has released all rights" but in absense of evidence to this, and the presence of the strong statments at coastergallery I think this needs to be cleared up. --

Unfortunately there are a lot of people making money off Wikipedia, which is the reason for the Wikipedia Project Spam. Tourist subjects seem to be spam magnets, and the project will be cleaning out the spam nests in the coming days. See:

WP:WPSPAM

.

Editors are encouraged to add valid material to Wikipedia rather than link to sites with advertising. There are only a few exceptions to this. A page about a corporation (or a theme park), for example, would get a pass, to ONE link, on that page only, to its official site, even though it has ads. Mainline news media (not pulp mags) would generally get a pass on relevant articles, even if there are ads. Otherwise, if you have a site that is so good that it should be an exception (and there are some), it's more likely to stay if you don't add it yourself. I suggest you get a review by a couple administrators and have one of them add it. If it passes that point I won't remove it, but I can't guarantee another spam fighter won't. Pollinator 16:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, re-adding a link after it's been removed by an administrator is looked upon quite unfavorably, even considered vandalism by some. In this case

Rehcsif seems to be a newbie around here, so he got a free pass on that one. Taking it to talk is definitely a better idea. Pollinator 16:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I am an admin as well, and I agree, revert warring is far inferior to bringing it to talk. I looked at the site in question (if I'm correct in which one) and I think one fan site is a good link for an article such as this to have. Not lots, but one which is widely adjudged to be good, in addition to the corporate site. Often, for amusement parks, linking to IMDB is the best choice, as that site is very good, it's the reference many of us use when writing about parks and rides, and has links to other fan sites as well. Why not link to that one instead of this one? ++Lar: t/c 17:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pollinator, you seem to have a reading comprehension problem (sorry to be snarky, but it's hard not to when you consistantly ignore what I'm saying). This is NOT my site. I did NOT add it originally. I hadn't even visited it until I saw that you had removed it, so I checked it out to see why it was so objectionable. I have nothing to gain or lose by its presense or absense. I just feel like you're being awfully limiting by saying that the fact that the site has a couple unobtrusive Adsense banners on the main page, that it must go. Often these 'unofficial' sites have more real info about the park than the 'official' corporate sites do. I think it should stay.

To the anonymous admin who didn't sign their comments: I'm not revert-warring. I reverted once. I then brought it to talk. I also assume you meant RCDB instead of IMDB. RCDB is a good resouce for finding stats on roller coasters, NOT on parks in general. --

Rehcsif 17:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Oops, one tilde too many when I signed...!!! fixed, but date remains correct. Sorry for confusion on that. A few clarifications. First: I'm not saying you revert warred, merely that it's not a good thing. Second: Yes, I meant RCDB not IMDB.. braincheck!. Third: we DO have a policy that we don't let external links accumulate without end. But I differ with Pollinator in that I think a few links, well chosen, are OK, I wouldn't get rid of all of them! The one you added seems good (although if we had to keep just one, is it the one? I don't know). If it was just one link that wasn't official that could be kept, RCDB would be the one I'd pick, despite (as you correctly point out) it being slanted towards coasters rather than parks, because it can gateway you elsewhere better than many other fan sites and because it's comprehensive and factual. I would not restrict to just one though. Fifth: please don't be snarky if you can avoid it. Finally: I think I have some standing in this article, I just last week or so added the majority of the pictures it now has (It was a GREAT day to take pictures at the park that day!!!) and I'm a fan of Cedar Fair. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 19:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification -- glad to see you're another contributor to this article. I totally agree that there shouldn't be an accumulation of links. But we had two -- one to the official site and one to this unofficial site -- and the latter was removed. And just to keep clarifying, I did not add the link! This keeps getting stated but it is not the case. I merely reverted the page when Pollinator removed it. If you check the history, you'll see I didn't add it, and it's been here for some time. I merely had the page on my watchlist, since like you, I've been a contributor. I saw the link pulled, and I was

Rehcsif 21:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

It's been a few days and no one else commented so this may be it for comments.... Let's go back to having the link would be my thinking... (sorry for implying you added it initially, Rehcsif, rather than just reverting a removal) and if it's removed again, let's discuss further and if necessary, seek additional input by asking for it, perhaps on

Village Pump, or if we can find an appropriate WikiProject, ask there?? I have reinserted the link. ++Lar: t/c 01:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks Lar. If you check out Pollinator's talk page, you'll see that there's no shortage of controversy over his interpretation of what is linkspam -- I hope this gets sorted out and a compromise can be reached. I do appreciate the spirit of his efforts, but feel strongly that a good site is a good site, whether or not it has a few non-intrusive ads on it. --

Rehcsif 02:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I missed when this was added or I would have commented then. This article is not perfect, but it's not bad. I am not sure I see why a cleanup tag was added, and I support it's removal since no justification was given. ++Lar: t/c 15:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see this article was recently moved. Can anyone source the name change? VF's website still includes the exclamation. If this is uncited, I belive it should be moved back until it can be backed up. --Rehcsif 00:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more request (It's been over a month). If nobody can cite this, I'll move the page back. --Rehcsif 03:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, when did you check their website? I just checked the valleyfair website and it looks to me like they no longer use the exclamation point. The only place I still see it is in the html title at the top that says "Welcome to Valeyfair!" in which case I think it is just punctuation. Kirkmona (talk) 01:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On March 23 and April 27 of 2007. It's obviously been updated since then... --Rehcsif (talk) 11:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think

Hearing no objections, merge is complete. I think it works much better this way. --Rehcsif (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Of course there won't be any objections in a period of 3 days. It doesn't matter if it isn't a separate fee and has absolutely nothing to do with the challenge park, so those reasons make no sense, but I can understand where you're coming from. 53180 (talk) 22:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)53180.[reply]

OK, I will not re-revert your changes until we can establish a consensus here. What makes you think Whitewater needs its own article? As clearly demonstrated by my changes, it fit very concisely (without losing any info) in the Valleyfair article. It's simply another section of the park. I don't see why it needs an article just because it happens to be a waterpark. As far as I know, all the other waterpark articles are for separate-ticket parks. Can someone else please weigh in on this? --Rehcsif (talk) 05:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't anyone else have any opinions on this? I've even tried to solicit 3rd opinions at Wikiproject theme park to no avail... --Rehcsif (talk) 01:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll weigh in. It makes sense to merge the two. The Valleyfair Midway does not have a page, there isn't a page for "just those attractions past the tunnel." The water rides are part of the park and part of admission. Valleyfair is not big enough to warrant a separate page for each section of the park. If we did that there would be a page for the rollercoasters, a page for the games, a page for the carnival flats, etc. Besides those points, the whitewater park page is tiny and not complete enough to be a separate article. It is more like a stub. I vote merge. It will make both stronger.Kirkmona (talk) 02:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I too think the article is kind of stupid, I vote merge.

Some employees at Valleyfair! can be total assholes. During a 6-11-08 trip. I was on the ride, Antique Cars, and a bump into the car in front of me because I can't stop the car in time, and the guy yells at me as if I did it on purpose. And the girl that day was kind of a bitch. (69.180.150.64 (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

This is not appropriate on a talk page either. A talk page is not a discussion about the subject. Talk pages are for discussion on improving the article about the subject. Coaster1983 (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, we are talking about the subject (Valleyfair), specifically about its employees, to see if I should add that little bit.--Cedarvale1965-08 (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That little bit should not be added in its current form. It fails Wikipedia's

Neutral Point of View

policies. That said, criticism of park is fine as long as it meets all of Wikipedia's policies.

Can someone claim the above comment. I'd like ot discuss how I could change my opinion to meet all of Wikipedia's requirements. Cedarvale1965-08 (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the Valle Fair not list their entry rates, tickets prices or wrist band prices??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.73.102 (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]