Jump to content

Talk:Knott's Berry Farm/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Posted by User:Feedle on 28 September 2003

I consider this page to be partially incomplete -- I have a bunch more information to add, but it's getting late and I'm getting tired. Specifically, the fact that Knott's is actually now two seperate companies may require that some disamb-ing is probably in order here.

Yes, I was once a "Knottzi". -- Feedle 08:36, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Channel 4 (UK) Channel Ident

The ride Jaguar has been used in an ident for the UK TV station Channel 4. The ident in question can be seen here: http://www.tvforum.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=26685&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=12.

Not sure if anyone wants to include this on the page, or how to reference it really. Dosxuk (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

corkscrew

The corkscrew at knott's was, to my knowledge, the first ever looping steel coaster. Could someone who knows a bit about it put at least some reference to that fact in, if not a complete article about the corkscrew. I would but my knowledge of the ride is minimal. wimbledon andy 14:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

As the name itself states, it was a "corkscrew" rollercoaster, and not a "looping" rollercoaster. It was the first steel rollercoaster that went inverted, but it did it with a corkscrew, not a looping movement. The first "looper" would be "Revolution" at Magic Mountain in 1976. Mushrom 15:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Knott's Berry Farm logo.png

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Calico Mine Train attraction is a Roller Coaster!

I see that Sixflags2008 added to the count of current "roller coasters" and listed the "Calico Mine Ride" as the missing current Roller Coaster. I don't think you can count that ride as a roller coaster since it is a powered train ride using many actual mine car trains... it is not a Roller Coaster. I believe that to be considered a "roller coaster" it is not to be a self powered train but a gravity and inertia driven train assisted by drives on the track to take it up some hills (such as the initial one) I'm not sure if this is something that should be discussed and clarified or just removed.

also... if you incrimented the count of coasters... should also the count of attractions be incrimented (unless the mine ride is already counted in the 40 attractions). OChistory (talk) 08:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The American Coaster Enthusiasts settled this discussion years ago...
Technically it is a power assisted gravity coaster. Yes, ACE classifies it as a rollercoaster.
At Disneyland, the Casey Jr. Circus Train is also a power assisted gravity coaster, and is classified as a roller coaster as well. OChistory, your belief is incorrect, do not remove Calico Mine Train (not Calico Mine Ride) from the coasters box. Disneywizard (talk) 00:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 13:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The Present

Much of this section appears to be either non-npov or original research. Putting it out there for discussion, but if there are no major objections, a rewrite of the section could be useful. Zharmad (talk) 19:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

See 'Pardon our gold dust' below. Disneywizard (talk) 00:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

A very small box?

"At some point in the late 50’s or early 60’s, the push button was replaced by a mechanical contraption encased in a 2”x2” glass-fronted wooden box. Inside the box one would see a small winged devil turning a crank, every few turns causing the volcano to hiss and steam." Could someone confirm it is/was a 2”x2” glass-fronted wooden box? 2'x2' would seem more likely. MurfleMan (talk) 04:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph corrected, picture reference added. Yes it was two feet wide, two feet deep and four feet high. Disneywizard (talk) 00:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Pardon our Gold Dust

as we Knottxi a new page.

The theme of a development timeline has gotten out of hand - with new park changes attached to element of the history section and the present cluttered with history.

The page may look like a caterpillar mess this weekend, with legs sticking out all over and tiny black ends, but will emerge as a shiny new, comprehensible, article! Disneywizard (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me History permits describing the relocation and/or name change, but Present Day should have little history. It's O.K. to have identical titles in both main sections.

I'm done for now. I ran out of steam between Knott's Berry Farm#Enclosure and Knott's Berry Farm#New Owners, a section which needs work and expansion. 

Paragraph layout cleaned up, subject highligted in bold and moved to start of paragraph.
History expanded, arranged chronologicaly and referenced with photos.
Spelling corrected.

Present Day still needs more work, but much History has been moved out. Disneywizard (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Independance Hall

Is Knott's replica of Independance Hall built at 100% scale? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill Cousert (talk • contribs) 15:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


Hey, I believe it is, I looked it up on the site and here is the quoted text

"Independence Hall

Walter Knott's dream to to build the park's replica of Independence Hall came alive on July 4, 1966, complete with a 2,075-pound Liberty Bell, weighing only five pounds less than the original. The building is so exact, one can even see fingerprints in the bricks, just like in the original in Philadelphia. Independence Hall is located adjacent to the main park area."

So yes, it is a replica, but it was built at 3/4 scale.

Yours truly -Azzamination220

The tour has always stated that it is a brick for brick duplicate. Disneywizard (talk) 00:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Also it has been stated as a full scale replica for many, many years on the place-mats in the chicken Dinner Restaurant.Disneywizard (talk) 03:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Chapel by the Lake ???

Could someone add the Chapel by the Lake that was at the east end of the lagoon and now has been moved across the street to hide between the shops and the main parking lot? Used to be used for weddings and special services. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.106.104.239 (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't need fixing. Your first two confusions are Knott's Lagoon and Reflection Lake. Reflection Lake is now footing for Silver Bullet, Knott's Lagoon is now the main parking lot - as mentioned in the article.
Confusion between Church of Reflections which has been relocated and The Little Chapel by the Lake which has been bulldozed.
The article does mention that Church of Reflections continues to offer services between the parking lot and Picnic Grounds.
The Little Chapel by the Lake was an adobe structure just east, behind the Church of Reflections. It offered a free inspirational 15 minute show but now has been broken up and hauled away. The article contains a line drawing of Little Chapel by the Lake in the history section.Disneywizard (talk) 23:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Too Much

There seems to be too much information in some of the sections on the article, most of which seem to be partially-disguised personal experiences. Full paragraphs of these appear on almost every section, and many words and names are bolded in a way not evident on other pages. Some of these paragraphs seem to be tacked on to the ends of some sections and do not seem relevant. I really do like the little "a few steps this way"'s and the "can recall a time when"'s, but this is not the place for them.

This article may need to be cleaned up a bit. Hauntedclipp (talk) 06:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Bold indicates individual attraction titles, in lieu of separate Wiki articles, and some attractions are mentioned in both the History section and contemporary Present Day section, which isn't a problem.
I agree about the "A few steps beyond" describing in few words the location of the Boot Hill cemetery in the narrow slot between the bank and the mill, but how would you improve that? When I started clean-up, this article was far more personal with "Mom and Pop would play checkers by the cracker barrel, while the kids bought penny candy. They would always save a few for the monkey..." so it's much more encyclopedic than it was two years ago. However cold and dry you want to make the description, it is always better to describe the elements in terms of guest experience.
However, I don't agree with the "tacked on"-ness - only the inability to back out of the outline structure. I feel the article is written well relative to the timeline of development of the the park, and sections flow into one another well, ending by leading into the next paragraph. Those paragraphs summarize the top level sections above and lead into the next, such as "By 1967 the property, with access from all directions, became very attractive to locals and visitors from near and far - as well as to squatters and vandals." introducing the necessity of the fence. Is there a way to back that out of Independence Hall and associate it with History, while leaving it in place before Enclosure?
But as far as "Too Much", it's a big place, with many modifications over several lifetimes, and there are still an large number of significant elements missing, mostly in the Present Day section. I suggest one might locate documentation and link references to improve the article. Disneywizard (talk) 03:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Are the "hidden restrooms" closed / demolished?

(Those who know what I'm writing about will know what I'm writing about.) I noticed that they no longer appear on the official park map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.128.192 (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

208.127.128.192 description fail. If you are trying to convey the restrooms behind Berry Place at the California Marketplace, then yes, they still exist and are in use. This talk page should be used to discuss the article, not to discuss the attributes of the theme park. Disneywizard (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Kingdom of the Dinosaurs SBNO?

Has Kingdom of the Dinosaurs been disassembled, or is it standing but not operating? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.55.67.200 (talk) 06:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The structure built for "Knott's Berry Tales" still exists. The entrance ramp has been converted to the entrance of the upcharge attraction "Lazer Zone". At the end of the life of Kingdom of the Dinosaurs the track was converted from a continuous operating chain of cars to a chain with three groups of "trains" which would stop at key points for recorded playback of two trains while the third was at the loading station. Significant features have been sold to other parks/attractions and the space is still used to house a "Halloween Haunt" maze. The exit ramp discharges into the arcade, but there is an expanding security gate drawn and locked across the doorway. This talk page should be used to discuss the article, not to discuss the attributes of the theme park.Disneywizard (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Too much information

Im currently in the middle of cleaning up the present day amusement park action but I feel this article just has too much information. Does anybody think the article would benefit more if we put everything before like the 1970s and beyond section into a Seperate article named "History of Knott's Berry Farm"? I feel it is too cluttered and some of the information doesn't relate to the amusement park at all. --Astros4477 (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe the whole History section could be spun off to History of Knott's Berry Farm with a summary left in its place per WP:SUMMARY. Themeparkgc  Talk  23:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Too Coaster Oriented - Much of the guest experience depends on the legacy of Knott's history and development. The spin-off of history makes the article disjointed. References within the article to itself have not been linked, and the split makes them nonsensical. Why must we buckle under to the youth oriented advertising focus? Knott's is more than thrill rides.Disneywizard (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
The information still exists, we just separated it into a different article so it's not as crowded. --Astros4477 (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I feel the article is a step better, but the history article needs to be summarised better in the history section of this article. At the moment, the first sentence of the history section refers to "the Knott's" without introducing them. Themeparkgc  Talk  23:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Split = Epic Fail Disneywizard (talk) 16:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Smaller splits would be better.

Perhaps a better solution is to split smaller sections off and summarize them, as has been done with Knott's Berry Farm's Wild West Stunt show, Ghost Town and Calico Railway, all of the Roller Coasters, and the article I'm preparing for Knott's Bird Cage Theatre.Disneywizard (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The title of the history article fails as well. It should have been Knott's Berry Farm History because it will appear in searches starting with Knott's. No one is starting a search for Knott's with History of... Disneywizard (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The correct response includes one of these
*'''Support''' - <insert reason for supporting merger here> ~~~~

*'''Oppose''' - <insert reason for opposing merger here> ~~~~
  • Support - The botch job separation and article split has caused much confusion by removing the contemporary features and attractions from the main article. At issue is quality over quantity. The history contains much of what is Knott's today, homogenized into text relating to the past. For example: Post Office is mentioned briefly along with General Store and Express Office, but a useful bit of contemporary information is attached at the end - Current Postage can be purchased from 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Why must researchers attempting to learn more about Mystery Lodge suffer because it was built before the Cedar Fair acquisition? I say, reunite the articles until a sufficiently logical summary is created. Quantity is a trivial issue as soon a quality suffers. Disneywizard (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
As of right now, your the only one that objects to this. If your so unhappy with the summary, then you can create a "sufficiently logical summary". I'm not trying to be mean but this was discussed before and it was split for a good reason.--Astros4477 (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
First off, Astros4477, this is a proposal to make the article better. Kindly refrain from personal attacks. Second. I gave the split a chance. If you were the one to split it, then it's your responsibility to see the split properly through. It's been five months now that the article has been trashed. I spent two years lovingly organizing it chronologically. I believe it worked as a cohesive whole and splitting off smaller branch articles were an appropriate solution to diminish it's content, as I did with the Calico, San Bernardino County, California section. Your operation was a success, the body survived the head amputation. Disneywizard (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not necessarily opposed or supportive towards the merge, I just haven't seen a good reason as to why this should be merged. The way it is right now is the way it should be because the article was long enough before it. The problem is the summary which can be fixed, it seems like you'd be the best to do that because your more familiar with the subject. I've only been to Knott's once so I don't really know its history as much as you.--Astros4477 (talk) 17:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

After notice to relative category and WikiProjects editors of ten days, the ballots cast and results tallied:

  • 1 For
  • 0 Against

Motion carried. Proceed with merger. Disneywizard (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Task list:

  • Combine references.
  • Cut and Paste "History of" to original article. -done/incomplete
    • Massage article to blend combined article.
  • Cut and Paste talk pages to original article.
    • Massage data to blend talk pages.
  • Leave redirect and delete "History of" - complete
You need to change everything back, a consensus was never reached. I'll change everything back if you don't.--Astros4477 (talk) 21:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Disneywizard, please see WP:NOTVOTE and WP:CONSENSUS. Personally I oppose the merger as I feel two articles were really needed. According to WP:SIZERULE, an article which is greater than 100kb (such as the merged article) "almost certainly should be divided". It was logical to perform the split and I still support it. Themeparkgc  Talk  23:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry for being late to this discussion, but I also oppose the merger because the article size has grown way too large. It would be better to retain the content by keeping the history as a separate article. 72Dino (talk) 03:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Oppose merge mainly due to its unwieldy size if merged. IMO both articles are terrible but the History article is far worse. A lot of the content of both articles is unencyclopedic tour guide information; if the history content could be trimmed so that only encyclopedic content remains, and a merged article would still fit within the size guidelines, I might support a merge. In my last interaction with Disneywizard ([1]) I advised him/her that guide info/cruft is precisely not what Wikipedia is for. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Goodness; this question has been marked by clearly excessive and unWikian haste, acrimony and misapplication of WP:POLL. As for the substance, I figure Wikipedia:Summary style is highly relevant. A conservative reading Wikipedia:Article size is also appropriate for an article about a tourist attraction that might often be read by tourists carrying a small portable screen. So yes, I Oppose a merger. If material is badly distributed among articles, that's what ought to be fixed. I've applied this approach to similar problems in History of the United States Constitution and History of the Long Island Rail Road, which I think ameliorated bad situations there. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Do not feed the trolls
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I think this is confused with something else.

Resolved

I have been to Knott's Berry Farm. It is in Sacramento, not LA. And it is a berry farm. Not an amusement park...Presidentbalut (talk) 04:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

You're certainly right about one thing; Knott's Berry Farm is not in LA.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
The Knott's Berry Farm article about the amusement park doesn't claim LA, it claims Buena Park. So as the previous comment implies, what's your point? --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't feed the trolls - SummerPhD (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Knott's Berry Farm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Size?

A recent edit had this in the edit comment:

"The previously stated size of 160 acres is incorrect and inconsistent with other theme parks listings. 160 acres includes not just Knott's Berry Farm, but its water park Soak City as well as all the parking lots. As a comparison, on the Disneyland page, that park is listed as 85 acres, and this area corresponds to the actual area of the park, not including parking and its neighboring park."

Which sounds reasonable.

Certainly parking lots should not be included, but should we list the size of Knott's Berry Farm and Soak City combined? And should we (do we?) list the area of Disneyland / Disney California Adventure combined? I could go either way, but am leaning toward listing the size of just Knott's Berry Farm with "(not including Soak City)" in parenthesis.

Related question: both parks have areas that are closed to the public (offices, maintenance areas, etc.) Should those be included in the size? IIRC, Disney World in Florida has those under the park, and I would assume not counted as part of the size. We should be consistent in how we list the size of theme parks. I am leaning towards counting only the area open to the public. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:06, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

There is no "Knott's Nature Center" in the park.

There was an aviary and a building called "Ranger Station / Nature Center". Both are gone, and there is certainly no structure called a "Nature Center" in KBF at present. Perhaps the building was converted into the "Pony Express Outpost" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.128.192 (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

False claim - "Ranger Station / Nature Center" at the west end of Museum Lane, north of Jeffries Barn. I hosts a "mini zoo" collection of insects, as well as displays regarding appreciation and conservation of nature. This talk page should be used to discuss the article, not to discuss the attributes of the theme park.Disneywizard (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Simply, a lie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.37.246 (talk) 03:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
There used to be a nature area with wooden, folk art type mechanical constructions that children could play on called "Jungle Island". Jungle Island was nature trails and large bamboo groves. Jungle Island was on the extreme periphery of Knott's Berry Farm, and was an extension of a larger turf park on the outer boundary of the park, in which there was a duck pond, and it even had an organ grinder with a monkey. This was in the late 1960s. I wonder if it exists anymore?giggle 15:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
It does not. They paved it over and expanded the parking lot. Lots more info at History of Knott's Berry Farm --Guy Macon (talk) 21:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Haunted Shack

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was merge to History of Knott's Berry Farm. BiologicalMe (talk) 12:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Knotts Berry Farm article has descriptions of other rides and attractions. This is not notable on its own merits. Rogermx (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Merge into History of Knott's Berry Farm instead. The only citation at Haunted Shack is dead, and all internet archive snapshots of it are copies of a dead page. see [2] --Guy Macon (talk) 21:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
This might be the source--clearly shy of RS standards. BiologicalMe (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Merge to History of Knott's Berry Farm. There appear to be adequate sources to establish notability. It has been on my watch list because I might have gotten around to a fix up, someday. This discussion might be the impetus for me to get around to some cleanup, but I doubt I would reach adequate length for a stand alone article, and the history article is a natural fit. Unless I have an amazing fit of productivity, my support of a merge stands regardless of my changes to the article. BiologicalMe (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Status during Covid-19

Guy Macon, I understand that the interaction between the editors in the edit history could have been more civil, but this infobox parameter is meant to represent whether an attraction or an amusement park is still operational. It may be closed due to the current worldwide pandemic situation, but that doesn't mean its long-term outlook has changed. If we changed that here, we'd have to change that at dozens (if not hundreds) of amusement park articles. And what about all the companies, stores, and other entertainment destinations that are temporarily shutdown. Do we need to hit all those infoboxes too across thousands of articles? I think it's more prudent to refrain from tracking short-term closures (as WikiProject Amusement Parks has historically done with this field), and not turn Wikipedia into a travel guide of sorts. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't be tracking this in the infobox. This might lead down to a slippery slope, e.g. someone tracking whether a seasonal park has closed for the week, or even someone tracking daily opening and closing times. It would be better to leave this parameter for long-term closures, i.e. more than one operating season. epicgenius (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Reverting with an explanation of the reason, as you have done, is fine. Reverting without explanation is not. This[3] was particularly inappropriate.
OK, now I am dealing with editors who have good-faith reasons to exclude the information, so you have my permission to revert my reverts without it counting as a RR if edit warring becomes an issue. Now we can discuss the content. I don't edit in this area much so please forgive me and correct me if I get it wrong.
Is there a place where a consensus was reached regarding infoboxes and temporary closures of amusement parks? Was it at WikiProject Amusement Parks? Talk infobox? Was there an RfC? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
I am copying a comment made by User:GoneIn60 on another page so we can discuss this in one location.
"This parameter reflects whether a park or attraction still exists and is operational in that sense, not whether it's closed for typical maintenance and other short-term reasons. You've got to think that if the "closure" status is justified, then that extends to thousands of company, store, and other entertainment destination articles. I don't believe that is a legit purpose for this field per WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NOTNEWS, and also per the advice that various WikiProjects have given over the years."
I find the "extends to thousands of company, store, and other entertainment destination articles" argument to be particularly compelling. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
The most relevant discussion is probably the one here, in which it was decided to limit the status field to options that represent long-term significance: WT:WikiProject Amusement Parks/Archive 3#Status fields in attraction articles --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Somehow I missed this discussion in 2016, but since I agree with the outcome, my input would not have made a difference. Guy Macon, this should answer your initial question: Yes, there is a place where a consensus was reached.—JlACEer (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Agree. I believe that we are done here. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
On reflection. I am going to post an RfC. We now have editors deliberately introducing factual errors such as this edit[4] changing "closed" to "operating" despite the fact that it says right at the top of https://www.sixflags.com/stlouis] "Six Flags Over St. Louis is CLOSED until mid-May.". --Guy Macon (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Pre-RfC: introducing factual errors regarding coronavirus closures. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Auction

There was an auction in 2017. In some cases the images and descriptions from that auction are the only evidence left of some of the park's history. [ https://comics.ha.com/c/ecatalog.zx?saleNo=7151 ] --Guy Macon (talk) 01:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Needs cleanup and expansion

Why bother with the Caroline Rolland-Diamond quote? It seems it's only to politicize an amusement park page, and doesn't really add anything substantive to the page. Was she the one who added it? The Sky Jump closing is noteworthy because it was the first suicide there. Also, why nothing about the earlier days of Knott's with the mule rides and panning for gold? This page needs cleaning up -- more details & removal of politically-motivated "content." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.105.149 (talk) 23:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Knott%27s_Berry_Farm/Archive_1&oldid=1179724109"