Talk:Six Flags

I see that there is Six Flags (1961–2024) page, wouldn't the "Former and abandoned properties" of Six Flags, just be solely on that page instead of this page that states the company was created within the past month. There should be no former parks then. Jpp858 (talk) 07:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Jpp858, most of the discussions that took place are at Talk:Six Flags (1961–2024) (and warning, some of them are quite lengthy). I haven't had much time on Wikipedia since the moves happened to contribute to both articles, but there's still a lot of work to do. This newer article should cover the current portfolio of Six Flags, which includes the list of parks merged together from Cedar Fair and the old Six Flags. We've agreed that not much needs to be said about either company's past in this article. We only need a brief 2-3 paragraph recap of each, because their complete history will be retained in their former articles. Unfortunately, that may result in some repetitive listing of the former parks between the three articles. This article should primarily be about the new company and its history moving forward. Hope that helps. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

GoneIn60, I did not even look at the page talk page with getting some insight. I agree on what you mention and look forward to discussing more on the other talk page. --Jpp858 (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Reading through the article i feel like these parts don't exactly fit, if needed they could be combined into a "former offerings" or something which has various services held by each previous company. I personally think the better option would be to remove it entirely, but down to hear other opinions CosmicVortecs (talk) 23:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm not sure there was a need to revert my edit, and not to turn this into a whole thing, but general corporate governance rules dictate the chairman as head of the board is the one individual to whom the CEO directly reports (as well as the board collectively). A cursory Google search would provide many examples. In addition, it was just fine as it was before it was unilaterally changed.--Tærkast (Discuss) 21:29, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

A cursory search yielded this: "In a standard corporate structure, the CEO (Chief Executive Officer) generally ranks above the Executive Chairman. The CEO is the top executive responsible for the day-to-day operations of the company, while the Executive Chairman typically leads the board of directors and focuses on strategic oversight and governance." If you want to change it, provide a source that indicates Bassoul is over Zimmerman. This should be discussed on the SF page, not my personal page.—JlACEer (talk) 23:33, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Two points, Google's AI surmises it as follows: "In a standard corporate structure, the CEO (Chief Executive Officer) typically reports to the board of directors and leads the company's daily operations, while the Executive Chairman (also known as Chair of the Board) typically leads the board and oversees the CEO's performance." Ergo, the CEO reports to the chairman (executive or not), who is head of the board of directors and overseas the CEO. Ergo, as executive chairman (head of the board to whom the CEO reports), they rank above. Why are you insistent on changing it and making a big deal of this? If you wish to pursue it further, just remember the three revert rule. You may wish to pursue corporate governance roles in more detail . This isn't worth wasting any further time over. --Tærkast (Discuss) 18:56, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I know how Wikipedia works, I don't need to be reminded of the three-revert rule. I'm not making a big deal of this; I also did a Google AI search and got different results as stated above. I'm not sure why you insisted on changing this, but I'm confident someone else will change it back. I'm not wasting any more of my time on this. So have it your way — for now.—JlACEer (talk) 22:19, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

• Comment – This is a minor concern overall if you take a step back and think about it. Either order is not going to make a significant difference in the long run. If you really wanted to find a systematic way to decide, you could select the order based on which individual is typically mentioned first in sources (only counting sources where both are mentioned, of course). If we look elsewhere on Wikipedia, sometimes we see the CEO mentioned first (e.g., Apple Inc., Microsoft). Other times, it's the chairman (e.g., AT&T, Charter Communications). At Template:Infobox company#Parameters, we see an example where the CEO is listed first, but further down in the Examples section, we see the opposite.
  Ultimately, the CEO does report to the chairman and the board, but the CEO runs day-to-day operations without direct oversight. The CEO will be the one most often reported and mentioned in sources during the era in which they are in that role. I don't think there's a clear cut answer of what is the right or wrong way on Wikipedia. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:25, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

It's not really worth arguing over. It was fairly stable up until 6 August. I'm also not sure of the appropriateness of moving a personal talk page message directly to the minor issue at hand, however, it being what it is, it's definitely not worth going crazy over. --Tærkast (Discuss) 17:04, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Regardless, with the number of reverts that have occurred, this is an article concern – minor or not. The discussion belongs here at this point. I've weighed in with my thoughts, and I concur that it's probably not worth fussing over. I don't have strong feelings either way, but there are ways to settle this if either party needs to take it further. Cheers. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2025 (UTC)