Talk:List of former and renamed Canada's Wonderland attractions

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

Amusement Parks: Cedar Fair Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Amusement Parks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Amusement parks on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Amusement ParksWikipedia:WikiProject Amusement ParksTemplate:WikiProject Amusement Parksamusement park articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Cedar Fair Entertainment Company task force (assessed as Low-importance). Canada: Ontario Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario. Lists Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Might we consider 100% table width? Until we have pictures to run down the side, I don't see much of an advantage to a narrower table (80%, currently). Perhaps less words per line for readability, but otherwise... Just a thought, I'm not terribly concerned or anything. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there was any reason why it was set where it is. Just another thought, maybe the first 3 tables should have them columns sized the same too. That way you get a bit of standardisation going down the page. Themeparkgc  Talk  23:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate this list exists, it helped me pinpoint when I was visiting the park as a child. It would be nice to have some sources on the events, but otherwise great resource. Thank you! Alan.ca (talk) 02:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of former and renamed Canada's Wonderland attractions. 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/20150911124754/http://www.canada.worldweb.com/TravelArticles/Top10//8-147146.html to http://www.canada.worldweb.com/TravelArticles/Top10//8-147146.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 12:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With one exception, the entries in the article are entirely unsourced and fail WP:V and the contents in "Description/Fate" appears to be original research.  // Timothy :: talk  04:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]