Talk:Ontario Place/Archive 1

NPOV

The Forum under Former attractions and venues. --99.237.169.113 (talk) 05:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Helicopter Ride

I just went to ontario place, and theres a helicopter ride, expensive, but still a ride. Nate1028 (talk) 03:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV

World renowned park? Hmmm... Where did that come from? 70.27.40.222

I edited that out, too POV for sure--Mikerussell 04:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments coded in the EDIT

Comments coded in the EDIT with brackets that don't show in the article

(though not in appearance or design) I found the following two paragraphs confusing and overly POV. If other editors are more familiar with Ontario Place and can incorporate some of the material from these, please do.
The expanded intent of the barrier islands was extremely successful, but this success was no accident. It was purposefully designed to have many sheltered, peaceful spaces with multiple uses, to coinicide surprisingly near to many exciting bustling places, but using landscaping to cleverly shelter one from the other, making the various zones close enough to allow a visitor to easily walk between them: and it worked wonderfully.
The canals were ideal cool, shady and sheltered places to canoe, there was a rocky beach facing the open lake on the western side, a small pond to cool one's feet in the middle of the commercial section, a central concert area (The Forum) which was purposefully in the centre of the complex, which one would walk through on the way to other points, often to be entertained by a musical act while on one's way, chosing to stay and enjoy the concert or not.

Whoever wrote them was leaving this in and it would just confuse newcomers so I took out and plop it here, personally, I am just the messanger/janitor. --Mikerussell 03:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy Surrounding Park

There is a great deal of controversy surrounding the continued operation of the park, at least there was a few years ago. It would be nice if someone who is knowledgeable on the subject could write about this.

Also about the changes that have taken place in the park over the last 10 years abbandoning its adult audience converting most of the park to a childrens exhibit.

Fair use rationale for Image:OPLogo.JPG

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

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC) Big big big —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.178.11 (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Froster Soak City merge proposal

IMO Froster Soak City isn't notable enough to warrant its own article. The content on this article is identical to what is already here. If there is enough consensus, I will perform the merge. Atrian (talk) 03:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a logical move. A.Roz (talk) 06:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree.......PK T(alk) 13:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - It fits the stub definition in my opinion and should be merged. GoneIn60 (talk) 05:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I also support this. --Astros4477 (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Yes with the debate about merging this article with Ontario Place I can't agree more --BrandonALF (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ontario Place (theme park). 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120331002800/http://www.680news.com/news/local/article/325684--parts-of-ontario-place-to-be-closed-for-overhaul to http://www.680news.com/news/local/article/325684--parts-of-ontario-place-to-be-closed-for-overhaul

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) 22:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

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 to merge the two pages as many more people agreed to merge the two then to keep them separate ★BrandonALF★ ^talk ^edits 18:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to merge Ontario Place (theme park) into Ontario Place. It covers the exact same place and the 2 articles already have a large amount of duplicate info. The theme park info is now merely historic, so it can be covered in the history section of this article. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

I agree the theme park should go under the history section of Ontario Place, as only the new Ontario Place wikipedia article can be ever updated as the theme park is only a part of it's history. Also, they share the same grounds and are both about the exact same place just at different time periods. BrandonALF (talk) 02:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the two articles should be combined as one, especially in light of the fact that much of what is in the amusement park article is also in the other one. And since the amusement park is now defunct, it should be listed as part of the area's history. If the two articles were about different geographical locations, keeping them separate would make much more sense, but in a historical context it would make more sense to merge the articles together. Sometimes the end is only the beginning... (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, the two articles represent different time periods in the area's history. It would make more sense for any theme park-exclusive content to be under a heading, if nothing else. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 03:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - same physical location, same name. It wasn't originally a theme park in the 1970s. Park-themepark-nothing-park. All the same. Feldercarb (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep separate

The location, name, and some structures are the same. But their visions and roles are different.

The old park was originally created as a mix of an entertainment district with distinctive pubs, a museum, etc, and a kids play area. By the 1990s, it was a kids theme park partly dependant on the CNE and air show for attendance. You could come on a random Tuesday in the summer from Hamilton or Oshawa, and have stuff to do besides walking and sitting.

The new park is literally a park, that happens to have festivals in it. It bears more resemblance to a cross between High Park and Yonge-Dundas Square. The old charged admission, the other is somewhere Liberty Village residents can walk their dog. It's unlikely tourists will have reason to come here on a Tuesday.

I truly think they are distinct enough entities to make valid two articles. -- Zanimum (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The theme park has closed. The location continues. But do edit out the duplication. Alaney2k (talk) 02:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.