text:
User talk:Wiredcoach

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --TAS 17:58, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Gary Wolf
Gary Wolf is in the list of Wired writers, on the Wired (magazine) article. See for wired articles written by Gary Wolf. See also the book Wired: A Romance by Gary Wolf, ISBN 0375502904. Edward 07:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I've realised it is a different Gary Wolf. Removed the link from Wired (magazine) and the category. Thanks for spotting this. Edward 09:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate images uploaded
Thanks for uploading Image:Roof-Volleyball.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Roof.jpg. The copy called Image:Roof.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 21:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:05OpenNationalsNatlA2vsWestwood.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:05OpenNationalsNatlA2vsWestwood.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Logan Talk Contributions 08:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:SBS boxes.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:SBS boxes.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:BoysHighSchoolVolleyballAction.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:BoysHighSchoolVolleyballAction.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:14sClubVB.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:14sClubVB.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Image source problem with File:JonGayProducts.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:JonGayProducts.jpg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F4 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:35, 25 December 2023 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Minorax «¦talk¦» 01:35, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:SBS Games.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:SBS Games.jpg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the image description page states the source and copyright status of the derivative work, it only names the creator of the original work without specifying the status of their copyright over the work.

Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the original image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. --TheImaCow (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

title: User talk:Wiredcoach


text:
SuperKaramba

SuperKaramba is a tool, a so-called widget engine, that allows the creation of functionality enhancement modules (desktop widgets) on the KDE desktop. The desktop widgets are usually embedded directly into the background and do not disturb the normal view of the desktop. The use of SuperKaramba is not limited to KDE, but certain libraries from KDE are required. SuperKaramba had been included in KDE since version 3.5. SuperKaramba is similar to gDesklets for GNOME. The name derives from Portuguese and Spanish super caramba, meaning approximately "super wow" or "super cool" (caramba itself being a euphemism for carallo).

Together, Kicker, KDesktop and SuperKaramba build the graphical shell of the K Desktop Environment 3. In KDE Software Compilation 4, Kicker, KDesktop, and SuperKaramba were replaced by KDE Plasma 4. The graphical shells KDE Plasma 4 and KDE Plasma 5 being widget engines of their own, SuperKaramba is no longer necessary and e.g. "Kicker" was re-implemented as such a desktop widget.

How it works
Authors use text files to create themes that define their widget. They then have the option of adding a Python, Ruby or JavaScript script to make the widget interactive.

Possible uses

 * Interactive weather forecasts
 * Control and announcement of MP3 playing with XMMS or Amarok
 * Calendar and notes
 * Original clocks
 * System monitor for CPU, network, non-removable disks
 * Notification of new messages in mailboxes
 * News tickers and RSS aggregators
 * Animated menu bars
 * Custom toolbars
 * Search tools

History
Karamba was originally written by Hans Karlsson as a school project in March 2003. It gained a lot of popularity when it was uploaded to KDE-Look and people began writing themes for it. Karamba only functioned on text files that were written with pseudo-XML format. It became so popular so quickly that Hans had to hand over the project to others who had time to expand upon what he had begun.

By the end of April 2003, Adam Geitgey took over maintenance of the project. He added python scripting support to karamba, which is where it took on a new name, SuperKaramba. Adam kept the project alive, added new features and applied patches from other developers until around April 2005. At that point, a group of developers who wanted to move SuperKaramba even further pushed to get it included in a KDE major release.

SuperKaramba was integrated into KDE 3.5 as part of the kdeutils package, and some of the ideas that it presents have become part of KDE 4’s desktop and panel interface called Plasma, which also has support for the SuperKaramba widgets.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: SuperKaramba


text: User talk:68.46.230.142

title: User talk:68.46.230.142


text:
User talk:Beinerts

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Hugo Chávez, but we regretfully cannot accept unsourced information. For more information, take a look at our policy library. Happy editing!

Zzyzx11 | Talk 18:00, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hello, there. Please take a look at Three-revert rule, which is a rule we abide by in an attempt to prevent endless edit-warring, or at least to slow it down. I rather suspect you'll be running into it soon. Your additions to the Venezuelan articles are controversial; if you'd be willing to discuss them on the corresponding talk pages, I think you'd have a better chance of seeing them (or at least some) included in the articles. Cheers, –Hajor 18:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

By the way, to include the accent on "Chávez" you can either type or copy/paste the "á" character or write "aacute;" preceded by an ampersand -- HTML entity, in other words. –Hajor 19:06, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Beinerts


text: Portal:Astronomy/Picture/June 2005

title: Portal:Astronomy/Picture/June 2005


text:
Armand Lohikoski

Armand Uolevi Lohikoski (January 3, 1912 – March 20, 2005) was a Finnish movie director and writer. He is best known as a director of a number of Pekka ja Pätkä movies.

Career
Before his career as a film director Armand Lohikoski had a long career in the media industry. He was, among other occupations, a journalist, a division director in the Finnish Broadcasting Company (where he produced the first radio quiz in Finland), and a head of the Helsinki office of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Films. He was also the first to publish free newspapers in Finland.

Armand Lohikoski directed 18 long movies for the major Finnish movie production company Suomen Filmiteollisuus. In addition, he directed many short films and commercials. Both before and during his directing career, he took part in acting. He acted in some of his own films.

Lohikoski wrote an travel book Dollari on lujassa in 1946 of the famous Helsinki based student choir, YL Male Voice Choir, visit to United States after the World War II. He wrote his own biography Mies Puupää-filmien takaa in 1993 and an aphorisms book Sattuvasti Sanottua in 2002. He died after a short illness in Helsinki.

Director

 * Island Girl, 1953
 * Me tulemme taas, 1953
 * Pekka Puupää kesälaitumilla, 1953
 * Hei, rillumarei!, 1954
 * Minä soitan sinulle illalla, 1954
 * Pekka ja Pätkä lumimiehen jäljillä, 1954
 * Pekka ja Pätkä puistotäteinä, 1955
 * Kiinni on ja pysyy, 1955
 * Pekka ja Pätkä pahassa pulassa, 1955
 * Risti ja liekki, 1957
 * Pekka ja Pätkä ketjukolarissa, 1957
 * Pekka ja Pätkä salapoliiseina, 1957
 * Pekka ja Pätkä sammakkomiehinä, 1957
 * Kahden ladun poikki, 1958
 * Pekka ja Pätkä Suezilla, 1958
 * Pekka ja Pätkä miljonääreinä, 1958
 * Pekka ja Pätkä mestarimaalareina, 1959
 * Kohtalo tekee siirron, 1959
 * Taape tähtenä, 1962

Writer

 * Pekka ja Pätkä lumimiehen jäljillä, 1954
 * Pekka ja Pätkä ketjukolarissa, 1957
 * Pekka ja Pätkä salapoliiseina, 1957
 * Pekka ja Pätkä sammakkomiehinä, 1957
 * Pekka ja Pätkä Suezilla, 1958
 * Pekka ja Pätkä miljonääreinä, 1958
 * Pekka ja Pätkä mestarimaalareina, 1959
 * Kohtalo tekee siirron, 1959
 * Taape tähtenä, 1962

Actor

 * Ryhmy ja Romppainen, 1941, Doorman
 * Synnin puumerkkki, 1942, Factory owner
 * Tyttö astuu elämään, 1943, Colonel's assistant
 * Varjoja Kannaksella, 1943, Customs officer
 * Tähtireportterit tulevat, 1945, Robber
 * Pekka ja Pätkä pahassa pulassa, 1955, Radio voice
 * Kiinni on ja pysyy, 1955, Shopkeeper
 * Pekka ja Pätkä ketjukolarissa, 1957, Professor Karhu
 * Pekka ja Pätkä Suezilla, 1958, Suez air control

title: Armand Lohikoski


text:
Talk:Eifersucht (song)

This page was up for deletion on April 7: Votes_for_deletion/Eifersucht (song). The decision was to redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:02, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Eifersucht (song)


text:
Dicuil

Dicuilus (or the more vernacular version of the name Dícuil) was a monk and geographer, born during the second half of the 8th century. Noble and Evans identify him as a Gael and suggest that he had probably spent time in the Hebrides.

Background
The exact dates of Dicuil's birth and death are unknown. Of his life nothing is known except that he probably belonged to one of the numerous Irish monasteries of the Frankish Kingdom, and became acquainted by personal observation with islands near England and Scotland. From 814 and 816 Dicuil taught in one of the schools of Louis the Pious, where he wrote an astronomical work, and in 825 a geographical work.

Dicuil's reading was wide; he quotes from, or refers to, thirty Greek and Latin writers, including the classical Homer, Hecataeus, Herodotus, Thucydides, Virgil, Pliny and King Juba, the late classical Solinus, the patristic St Isidore and Orosius, and his contemporary the Irish poet Sedulius. In particular, he professes to utilize the alleged surveys of the Roman world executed by order of Julius Caesar, Augustus and Theodosius II.

Based on similarities of style, it has been suggested that Dicuil may be the same person as the anonymous Hiberno-Latin poet and grammarian known as Hibernicus exul.

Astronomical computus
The astronomical work is a sort of computus of five books, in prose and verse. Four books are preserved in a manuscript which belonged formerly to the monastery of Saint-Amand in northern France, and is now at Valenciennes. A second manuscript is from the abbey of Saint Martin at Tours, and contains two chapters added to the fourth book, and two more chapters constituting a fifth book

Book 1 contains material on calendars, on 19-year lunar cycles, and on versification. It also contains an account of the two methods of calculating triangular numbers: by summation of the natural numbers, or by the multiplication together of two consecutive numbers divided by two

Book 2 contains material on the distance between the Earth and the heavens, and between the seven planets; methods for counting the lunar months; the monthly age of the moon; rules for calculating Easter and Lent; intercalary days (extra days) and subtracted days; solar and lunar years; more on versification.

Book 3 contains material on cycles of the stars; 19 year lunar cycles; other large cycles of the Sun and Moon; the first day of the natural year (the spring equinox in March).

Book 4 contains material on solar intercalary days and lunar subtracted days; and on the relative speed of travel of the Moon, Sun and stars.

De mensura Orbis terrae
Better known is the De mensura Orbis terrae, a summary of geography, giving concise information about various lands. This work was based upon a Mensuratio orbis prepared by order of Emperor Theodosius II (AD 435), a manuscript copy of which was possessed by the Carolingian court. Godescalc had already made use of this copy (781-783) for the composition of his celebrated Evangelistarium. Dicuil uses Pliny the Elder, Gaius Julius Solinus, Paulus Orosius, Isidore of Seville, and other authors, and adds the results of his own investigations.

In the nine sections he treats successively of Europe, Asia, Africa, Egypt, and Ethiopia, the area of the Earth's surface, the five great rivers, certain islands, the length and breadth of the Tyrrhenian Sea, and the six (highest) mountains.

Although mainly a compilation, this work is not without value. Dicuil is our only source for detailed information of the surveys performed by order of Theodosius II; his quotations, generally exact, are of service for the textual criticism of the authors mentioned; of great interest, too, are the few reports which he got from the travellers of his time; as, for instance, from the monk Fidelis who (possibly in 762 AD) journeyed along the canal then still existing, between the River Nile and the Red Sea; and from clerics who had visited the Faroe Islands and lived possibly in Iceland for six months during the summer of 795. Among their claims are the perpetual day at midsummer in "Thule," where there was then "no darkness to hinder one from doing what one would." They also described navigating the sea north of Iceland on their first arrival, and found it ice-free for one day's sail.

Editions
The geography manuscript was known to Marcus Welser, Isaac Vossius, Claudius Salmasius, Jean Hardouin, and Johann Daniel Schöpflin; it was first printed with the title: ''Dicuili Liber de mensura orbis terrae ex duobus codd. mss. bibliothecae imperialis nunc primum in lucem editus a Car. Athan. Walckenaer'' (Paris, 1807).

 * J. J. Tierney, Dicuil: Liber de Mensura Orbis Terrae, (Dublin 1967).

title: Dicuil


text:
Talk:List of armed conflicts

Untitled
I'm not sure this page deserve to exist... what's an armed conflict? define it.... is it a battle but not total war? How come you had the 2003 invasion of Iraq as being USA vs. Iraq and France... France didn't support it but they didn't send troops to Iraq.... the Chechen conflict is actually in the Asian part of Russia... Gang wars vs USA? if you have that there would also be the war on drugs in many countries... the Saudi government vs. terrorists... and just about every country in the world vs urban gangs. gren 18:03, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:List of armed conflicts


text:
Talk:Six Flags (1961–2024)

2022 Six Flags Pass
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)
 * 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)
 * Also agreed. If, 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)

Merge with Cedar Fair
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)

 * 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)

 * Also see Talk:Cedar Fair. 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)
 * Dropped discussion notices at WT:COMPANIES and WP:TEA --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I'm not proposing any action at this time. As 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I like that idea, and great comparison! :) --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Probably the best course of action, once the merger is finalized, of course. oknazevad (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * (I also agree with the idea of a location map.) – Epicgenius (talk) 01:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Well "died" in the sense of "ceasing to exist in its current form". Other ideas from (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)

Requested move 21 June 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Option #3. This move request involved extensive discussion of three options at.

Option 1, which was the initially proposed move, was not supported by any editors. Option 3 was supported by approximately twice as many editors as Option 2, but consensus is determined not by counting votes but by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.

Assessing the discussion through that lens, there are a number of votes on both sides that need to be discounted, but beyond that this is a simple WP:PAGEDECIDE discussion, and there is a clear consensus for Option 3.

The consensus was less strong for the specific page title chosen to move Six Flags to, and editors should feel free to open a new move request on that question at any time. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

– 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)
 * Six Flags → Six Flags (1961–2024)
 * Cedar Fair → Six Flags
 * Note: WikiProject New York City, WikiProject Texas, WikiProject Oklahoma, WikiProject Texas/Dallas–Fort Worth task force, and WikiProject United States have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 04:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

 * Make dab at Six Flags. No indication that the ex-Cedar Fair should be the primary topic here.  162 etc. (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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. Wii nter  U 21:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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. Wii nter  U 03:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Well, the Six Flags name will continue to be used, so we can treat this as both the former and the successor company. Wii nter  U 22:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * "...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)

 * 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)
 * Six Flags isn't dissolved, but Cedar Fair is. I think. Cwater1 (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that the best plan of action is to create an article on the new Six Flags. This would follow how similar situations have been handled in the past. Ludicrous (talk) 15:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , appreciate the feedback, but please add your !vote to the section below, Survey #2. It sounds like you are supporting option 3. Thanks. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * whoops, I probably should've looked down. I came from Cedar Fair's article... guess I need more coffee! Ludicrous (talk) 15:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

 * 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)
 * 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)
 * The coporste structure has been announced at least from a management perspective only Gary Mick and Selim from Six Flags are remaining . Also they're only keeping Cedar Fair's offices in Charlotte and Sandusky.DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)

 * Comment – In general, I agree with GoneIn60's assessment of the situation. What probably could be considered here is to move Six Flags to Six Flags (1965–2024), with the en-dash. However, I would wait until after the merger is finalized before we do anything about the article titles. One option is to create a new page for the merged company, with the new article either at Six Flags (with a disambiguation page at Six Flags (disambiguation)) or at Six Flags (2024–present) (with a disambiguation page at Six Flags). If we don't split anything out, then we might consider moving the Cedar Fair article to Six Flags. However, we'd have to keep in mind that the former Cedar Fair was known under that name for pretty much the last four decades, so this might be confusing on WP:COMMONNAME grounds, too. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I corrected the obvious hyphen/en-dash error. — BarrelProof (talk) 02:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no need for a new page as this article is perfectly fine for it. Wii nter  U 21:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * The section above 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. Wii nter  U 15:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. 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)
 * Just how Twitter is still named Twitter despite rebranding to X. Cwater1 (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Per WP:CommonName Cwater1 (talk) 21:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Survey #2
The discussion may have trailed off a bit, but let's recap the options discussed:
 * → Update both articles as needed, treating Cedar Fair as defunct and Six Flags as the successor article.
 * → 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).
 * → Update both articles as needed, treating Cedar Fair as defunct and Six Flags as the successor article.
 * → 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).
 * → 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)

 * 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)
 * I favor option 3 if we're going with bolded !votes. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Officially the merger has been approved by the DOJ. DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 13:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

 * I'm in favor of #3. Dleav (talk) 04:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In favor of option 3. DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am in favor of #2 BigRed606 (talk) 23:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Mind explaining the rationale behind your WP:!VOTE? And just to be clear, if we choose option #2, do you prefer that we merge the history of Cedar Fair into the current Six Flags article? The new company that forms will be 51% Cedar Fair despite the fact that the "Cedar Fair" name goes away. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 02:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Makes no sense for Six Flags to have two separate pages. Why not keep Cedar Fair page as a defunct company and keep the Six Flag page as well. Also just because the merge isn’t 50/50 doesn’t mean we have to creat a whole new page, and make it brand new company, Six Flags will continue to exist, albeit, with a new HQ and merged cooperate structure. Cedar Faire on the other hand will not continue to exist. BigRed606 (talk) 20:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A great example of what I mean, the Mobil page. BigRed606 (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of #2 since I imagine most park visitors or indeed the broader market don't even know the name "Cedar Fair." There's a reason the new company will adopt the Six Flags name. Cedar Fair, for most people, will have never existed and will continue to not exist. If this was a purchase or acquisition, then maybe there's an argument for another option. But it's a merger of equals. The fact is that Six Flags as a company will go from representing 27 parks to 40 parks. 184.58.4.115 (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * "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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

 * 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)

 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * A neutral editor should close this Discussion. Aka someone who has not commented on this page. BigRed606 (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * The problem is now becoming people preemptively editing the article and ignoring the move discussionDisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 01:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

 * New to wiki so sorry if this isnt the right format but I vote for option 3 CaliforniaBen2 (talk) 01:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You’re good DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 02:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)

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

 * 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)

 * 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)
 * 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)

 * 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)

 * Comment – There have been some concerns about moving the current Six Flags article to, but that isn't set in stone. There are other options like , 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)
 * 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)
 * It doesn’t have to be phrased that wayDisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 18:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I would not be opposed to keeping both Cedar Fair and Six Flags, pages and creating a History of Six Flags page, like American Airlines page after it merged with US Airways BigRed606 (talk) 23:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

 * 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 but keeping the Cedar Fair headquarters, financial center locations and stock symbol. 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)
 * Option 3 This follows the way that similar situations with companies have been handled in the past. It's best to be consistent. Ludicrous (talk) 15:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would go with Option 3 because it would be more convenient. However, I would like to point out that the merged company is keeping the Cedar Fair ticker symbol FUN instead of the old Six Flags ticker symbol SIX. Brianprob1 (talk) 02:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 3 - The merger is a merger of equals, meaning there is no single company surviving. It uses the Six Flags name, but the Cedar Fair ticker symbol, and the management is made up of both old companies. Additionally, the Six Flags press release refers to the old company as "Former Six Flags", aka Six Flags (1961–2024). Neither company is buying one another, and the new company is a completely separate entity that uses some things from both old companies. Therefore, it makes sense to have "Former Six Flags" as its own page and Cedar Fair as its own page, making a new page for the new combined company under the Six Flags name. Plighting Engineerd (talk) 13:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I !vote for option 2 ... It seems to me that this is the least confusing way to do it. I would suggest a single history, pointing out what was added when Cedar Fair was merged into Six Flags. Fabrickator (talk) 01:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 3 This is generally how mergers of entities (with large fleshed-out articles) are treated in most other cases. As the former two have large existing articles, merging that content with the new Six Flags would place undue weight on the historical entity instead of the post-merged company. There is enough historical content in this article and Cedar Fair that they should be treated as WP:SPINOFF articles of a new parent post-merger Six Flags article. Leventio (talk) 05:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 3. This is on paper a half and half merger of the companies, and technically, Cedar Fair owns 51%, so if anything, we should be talking about how 'Six Flags (1961–2024)' becomes a historical article, and Cedar Fair is renamed to Six Flags (with a redirect from Cedar Fair), keeping the history of Cedar Fair. Six Flags didn't acquire Cedar Point from a position of strength, and therefore I think it's kind of ridiculous that the current table of park properties suggests that 'Six Flags' acquired dozens of properties from Cedar Fair in the Cedar Fair deal. It didn't. The current article structure is implying that because the name Six Flags is going to be used across the properties, that Six Flags was the victor in an acquisition. It was not. And since Cedar Fair only on paper has more shareholders, I think the best thing to do is make both articles historical, and have a new article for the new larger company. Skybunny (talk) 16:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, "acquired" is a poor choice for so many reasons. These articles have become a free-for-all while this discussion is beginning to WP:SNOWBALL. The sooner we close this out and take action, the sooner we can stop the bleeding by putting a format in place that will discourage the nonsense. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 04:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 2, a new article can be made about the merged entity once there is RS on it beyond the merger has been approved. Tarnished</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 04:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Really? The merger was announced in Nov 2023, approved on 6/26/24, and finalized on 7/1/24. The amount of RS coverage the entity has received in all phases of the merger (and continues to receive) has been fairly overwhelming. The significant coverage and quality of sources easily satisfy the notability criteria defined at WP:ORGCRIT, which is a specific SNG for companies/organizations. So there is plenty of justification for a standalone article. I have no idea where you're getting this arbitrary requirement of "beyond the merger", but regardless, it's already happening: Meyersohn, CNN. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 05:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:RS does not apply hear. The transaction has already gone through DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 18:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Have the Six Flags article be about more of the "Six Flags" name
I propose to have the Six Flags article be about more of the "Six Flags" name than the now defunct previous company itself. Cedar Fair was not renamed "Six Flags" after all. Cedar Fair and the previous Six Flags company was merged into the new Six Flags company. Cedar Fair and the previous Six Flags company was merged out of existence. https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1999001/000119312524173290/d818752d8k12b.htm Granthew (talk) 04:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

 * That’s kind of what we’re discussing DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 16:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well I don't think anyone knew Cedar Fair was merged out of existence into the new Six Flags company. Still, have one Six Flags article and have the article be more about the "Six Flags" name than the company that uses the name now . Granthew (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing the source, but I think the way you're stating it – "merged out of existence" – is a confusing way to describe it. The document basically says that upon completion of the mergers (and there are multiple described within), that all "legal existences" of the former companies cease to exist. They are replaced by a single existence of a new company called "Six Flags Entertainment Corporation". That's just a long, fancy way of saying the companies merged. The discussion above acknowledges this fact. Cedar Fair is defunct. The old Six Flags is defunct. The goal is to decide whether or not we create a new Six Flags article on Wikipedia (option 3) or continue using the existing one (option 2). Feel free to share your choice above in . -- GoneIn60 (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it would be important to note that the merger did not consist of Cedar Fair buying the old Six Flags and taking the name, as the original RM above would have treated it. In other words, option 1 of this discussion is right out because it's based on a mistaken understanding of the merger. Now, no one has supported option 1, so it is clearly a dead letter proposal anyway, but it being a factual error needs to be pointed out.
 * As for the question of creating a new article or continuing to use this article as the main Six Flags article, frankly, the actual editing of this article over the last week since the merger has pretty much already answered that question. Experienced editors are treating this as the main article for the post-merger Six Flags. We'd be better off splitting the history into a separate History of Six Flags article at this point while leaving this article as the one about the continuing entity with a brief summary of the history of multiple companies to use the name. oknazevad (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "...did not consist of Cedar Fair buying the old Six Flags.."
 * We could spend a lot of real estate that delves into why this statement has issues ("merger of equals" always appear equal on paper, but the takeover is usually revealed if and when things don't go as planned and the marriage sours), but generally from a legal perspective, you are correct. That's good enough for this discussion.
 * As for why editors are using this article, it could be because they are probably aware of this discussion, considering the RM notice at the top of the article. It would be inappropriate to create a new Six Flags article in the midst of a discussion. In the end, it doesn't really matter how we get there. Splitting off the history or creating a new article for the new company...Whatever seems like the easiest path that creates the least amount of work! --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "Experienced editors are treating this as the main article for the post-merger Six Flags."
 * If they were really experienced they wouldn't be ignoring the discussion notice at the top of the page and making edits to an article that will likely get rewritten. We have editors who have not previously contributed to any amusement park articles wanting to jump in and add their two cents. No doubt some are made in good faith expecting to be helpful, but what we've ended up with is a huge mess. We need to close the discussion and move on.— JlACEer ( talk ) 14:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. Over the last couple of days a more clear consensus in favor of option 3 has emerged (17 for 3 vs 7 for option 2). DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Refs
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Notify editors who supported option #3 to implement it, including ensuring that the various links end up going to the correct location. BilledMammal (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

 * , appreciate the closure, but there's an issue. In order to execute option 3, a second Six Flags article must be created. It seemed from the Survey #2 discussion above that most editors (if not all editors) that weighed in on the article title following my 17:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC) comment agreed on as an acceptable title to move the current Six Flags article to. This even included support from some editors who supported option 2 such as  and . Do we really require another week or so of dealing with another move request, or do you feel this consensus is sufficient enough to act upon now? --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: Looks like was quick on the trigger here and went with the "Six Flags (1961–2024)", a title that received some pushback. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That was me; an editor reverted the move, and 162 etc. moved it back. While there was non-trivial support for "History of Six Flags" I didn't see a consensus for that option; I think a separate move request on that question will be a better option to address it. BilledMammal (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Right; the close indicated that we "keep Cedar Fair as is, move Six Flags as proposed above, and create a new article for the new entity titled Six Flags." The proposed title, per the original RM, was in fact Six Flags (1961–2024).
 * 162 etc. (talk) 21:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @BilledMammal – Fair enough. I think quite a few of the Option 3 support comments mention they don't like the "Six Flags (1961–2024)" title, which led to my July 2 comment, but it's easy enough to start another move request.
 * @162 etc. – Yes, that is how I technically phrased it in Option 3, but a close read of the Option 3 support comments (as well as the discussion surrounding the "History of Six Flags" proposal) clearly indicate a distaste for "Six Flags (1961–2024)". Regardless, we will handle it in the next move request. No worries. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That was me that did that with the 1961-2024 thing. Just went what had been proposed becuase some editor kept trying to move the page back. Had to act fast to prevent constant movement of the page. If you wish to see the new Six Flags page, it is up but I have to warn everyone it's a little rough... DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It actually goes all the back to the original 2023 discussion above. The date range is fine for now. Baby steps. We'll get there. If someone is in a hurry to rename the page, they are welcome to start the WP:RM. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 22:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Flash Pass
Why is this a heading? If I weren't in Mobile I'd merge it with the original article. I don't think it needs to be it's own section. It verges into CSPAM. <span style= "font-family: Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#00C000"> Dillard421♂♂ (talk to me)  23:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

 * You'd merge it where? Not sure I'm seeing the issue. Can you be more specific? The Cedar Fair article has a dedicated section as well for Fast Lane. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 01:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, does this even need to be merged with another section? I don't think it's spam to mention that Six Flags has a line-skip pass at its parks; this is well-documented in reliable sources. It also isn't an aspect of history, a marketing effort, or a current or former property, so I'm not seeing where this should be merged. Finally, and most importantly, Flash Pass (which has dozens of links) redirects to this section. I see absolutely no benefit in removing this heading and moving this somewhere else. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Predecessors to Cedar Fair and Six Flags
I'm only offering this in order to identify some aspects of Cedar Fair/Six Flags which I think are particularly pertinent to someone interested in the overall history of these corporate entities and their amusement park/theme park holdings.

 * Cedar Fair was formed by the combination of Cedar Point Amusement Park (which originally opened in 1870!) and Valleyfair (which opened in 1976). This happened in 1978.
 * Several of the theme parks which Kings Entertainment Company (originally a division of Taft Broadcasting) had been operating were sold to Paramount and rebranded as Paramount Parks. The Paramount Parks properties were subsequently acquired by Cedar Fair.
 * One of the Kings properties not sold to Paramount was Hanna-Barbera Land in Spring, Texas. This park was sold to other private investors and was operated as a water park. After multiple transfers and more than a decade later, it was acquired by Six Flags. (This is per Hanna-Barbera Land and Hanna-Barbera in amusement parks.)  It currently operates as Six Flags Hurricane Harbor SplashTown

I'm not attempting to offer full citations here, but it should all be verifiable. --Fabrickator (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

 * Thanks, that could prove helpful. Just a small note that although Valleyfair was acquired in 1978, Cedar Fair wasn't formed until 1983. Also, many of the Cedar Fair park articles were well maintained, such as Kings Island, so if any tidbits of information are needed about KECO, Taft, or Paramount, that might be a good article to scope out. Cedar Point is pretty good as well, although that wasn't quite as far along. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * On the Valley Fair park history page, you can expand the "background of Valleyfair section, it states "In 1978, Cedar Point in Sandusky, Ohio acquired Valleyfair, under the management of Cedar Fair Limited Partnership." FWIW, I think the significant point is that as of 1978, Cedar Point and Valleyfair were under common management, though their branding strategy maintained distinct names. I suggest that the actual legal name is of lesser interest.

 * BTW, the Ohio corporate names search will provide the history of the numerous legal entities going back to 1882. Fabrickator (talk) 03:11, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well sure. You could say verbatim that "Cedar Point and Valleyfair were under common management beginning in 1978", but you cannot say that "Cedar Fair formed in 1978". Those are two very different claims. Cedar Fair is the limited partnership that formed in Delaware in 1983, which is well documented in numerous reliable sources including this one from the SEC (and the one I linked above). Park websites can sometimes contain errors. That one on Valleyfair was probably an oversight. Hope that helps. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 04:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Even with respect to names of Wikipedia articles, we try to distinguish between the case of renaming an article and the case of creating a new article which describes something that's "similar but different". Except when you have to name a defendant in a lawsuit, a name change is fairly characterized as a distinction without a difference.  Fabrickator (talk) 06:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Six Flags (1961–2024)