Talk:Bolliger & Mabillard/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Math problem

I don't know what the proper correction for this would be, but I have a hard time understanding the math behind it:

Since their first coaster, Iron Wolf, a Stand-Up coaster at Six Flags Great America, they have designed 64 more rides bringing their final tally to 59. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.152.241.202 (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Move to "Bolliger & Mabillard"?

Unless there's some Wikipedia convention that "and" should always used instead of "&", the title of this page should be "Bolliger & Mabillard" since that's what their site says. Yes, I know that Bolliger & Mabillard redirects here, and that's the very reason I can't move it myself! Dusso Janladde 23:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I've taken care of it. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 19:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Operational Coasters

The numbers were off by one. When that was written, the author just checked to see how many B&M coasters were listed (likely on RCDB), however, they've actually sold 1 less than what is listed on RCDB, as Gambit was sold and moved to the U.S. They've sold 65 coasters world wide (including the flyer at Happy Vally), not 66. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.71.238.253 (talk) 17:50, 23 June 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 14:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Speculative rides

There's been a lot of discussion lately about adding a new ride that is apparently being constructed at Dollywood to this roster as being (a) from B&M and (b) being one of their new Wing Rider designs. While the roller coaster community is prone to take pictures and compare against similar projects and, in all honesty, be correct about it, that's still not enough for an encyclopedia. That kind of investigation is considered original research, because you're drawing your own conclusions for how the pieces of the puzzle fit together.

In my opinion, the only acceptable proof for adding a roller coaster to this list should come from one or more of the following:

A press release from the park where the ride is to be installed, or from B&M itself
A local news report mentioning the ride
A listing on RCDB, considered a reliable source for roller coaster articles here

Similarly, the following should not be considered proof:

Website forum posts (unless the poster is connected either to the park or to B&M and said connection is verifiable)
Facebook/Twitter posts (see exception above)
Most photographic evidence (i.e., track parts on the park grounds); yes, a picture is worth a thousand words, but you would be speculating on what is in the picture (i.e., the "it looks like B&M track" statement) or that it's even meant for the park in the first place (go to RCDB and look up coasters "in storage").

Again, these are my thoughts, but they're based on Wikipedia guidelines and principles. Opinions/discussion are welcome.

--McDoob AU 93 16:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Giovanola?!

I have NEVER heard that Bolliger & Mabillard worked for them. I've googled it and can find no other reference to it, while I found plenty of references to them working for Intamin before forming their own company. Now, I want to assume good faith here, but just look at 69.161.152.109's edit history. Some of it is constructive, but a lot of it isn't.

So, until I can find a reliable source saying that B&M worked for Giovanola rather than Intamin, or until 69.161.152.109 identifies himself and explains how he knows all this, I'll be reverting back to Idont Havaname's revision. I'll also be reverting Intamin AG to the pre-69.161.152.109 revision, as he made many of the same changes there. Dusso Janladde 02:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I've only heard of B&M working for Intamin, not Giovanola. (Coasterman1234 14:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC))

- The only think I have heard from B&M's Involment with Giovanola was that they once fabricated the track for them. As far as I know it was never under Giovanola. I don't have time tonight to dig up refernces about this. The best place to look for refernces is on google. Sawblade05 07:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  - I have never heard of B&M having any involvement with Giovanola or vise versa. I've only heard of B&M having worked with Intamin before becoming their own company. Thus why some older Intamin coasters use a B&M track style. I'm going to change the Giovanola tags to Intamin tags. On RCDB some of the coasters are listed as being subcontracted by Giovanola [1] [2]. Montu Man 1011 06:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have a citeable source, but when Giovanola was constructing Titan at Six Flags Over Texas, a representative from the company met with a group of enthusiasts and confirmed that Walter Bolliger and Claude Mabillard worked for his company prior to branching out on their own. Also when Walter Bolliger spoke at Cedar Point's 2010 CoasterMania, he confirmed that both men got their start as metallurgists supplying steel to Intamin for their various projects. The company that supplied the steel was Giovanola and Walter confirmed that is where he met Claude Mabillard. That speech is online at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQV18vNQBsw, and he refers to Giovanola Freres at about the 4 minute mark. (It may be difficult to understand because of the accent but he definitely says Giovanola more than once). Bolliger also confirmed that they left to branch out on their own due to a management change at Giovanola. JlACEer (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Types of roller coasters made by B&M

Maybe there should be a section on what types of roller coasters B&m makes (named as it's title on the official website is), what they are like, examples of one, etc. Theguywhohatestwitter (talk) 00:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The lead sentence in the "features" section discusses B&M's seven models, whose names I believe do match those provided on the website (feel free to correct as needed). Alongside the table of B&M rides are representative pictures of each of the seven models, and the list indicates which coasters are what models. Anything beyond that (i.e., "what they are like") would be more opinion than anything and wouldn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Maybe you could post your thoughts here about how this information should be presented ... it certainly could be presented better, I think, although what's here isn't too bad. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 00:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

By what it's like, I mean like design, not like if you like it or not. Theguywhohatestwitter (talk) 11:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you can include an example passage here ... say, for an inverted roller coaster. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 13:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Beware of terminology invented by enthusiasts and Cedar Point marketing people such as mega coaster and giga coaster. If this page is to be about the manufacturer B&M, then only the terms they use to describe their types of coasters should be used in this article. B&M does not differentiate between mega, hyper and giga. Any non-looping, large coaster that features large drops and high speed is referred to as a Hyper Coaster (two words) according to the B&M product catalog (which is also available online), even if it is less that 200 feet or over 300 feet.

Also please note that the correct term is Dive Coaster, not Diving Machine. I'm not sure where "Diving Machine" came from, but press releases as far back as 2007 for Busch Gardens' Sheikra use the term Dive Coaster, as does the B&M website. JlACEer (talk) 17:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you raise a valid point, especially in such a genre so prone to hyperbole as roller coasters. I agree that we should streamline the listing for the hyper- and larger-coasters to just "hyper coaster", since that is indeed what B&M calls it. --McDoob AU 93 17:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Just in regards with Diving Machine. At one point the B&M website did list it as a Diving Machine but now it is obviously a Dive Coaster. Themeparkgc Talk 23:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I've now moved Diving Machine to Dive Coaster and requested the related category be renamed accordingly. Themeparkgc Talk 23:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I looked through some old literature and sure enough, an early B&M product flyer did call it a Diving Machine. There was no date on the flyer, but the pictures used are of Oblivion.JlACEer (talk) 15:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Leviathan

Please do not, I repeat, do not, change the model name of Leviathan to Hyper or Giga. There is nothing official about what model that coaster is and until Canada's Wonderland or B&M say something, the model name should be left as N/A.--Dom497 (talk) 23:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions pre-GAN

I am aware Dom497 wishes to nominate this article to become a Good Article. I just thought I'd make a few suggestions quickly here:

why are some ride names italicised in the article and others are not?

Fixed--Dom497 (talk) 14:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

99% of the second paragraph in the history section is either unreferenced or referenced by 2 YouTube videos. I'd say some alternative/additional sources would be necessary

These youtube references are of Walter Bolliger talking about the history of the company. The info in the history section reflects exactly what he mentioned in the videos.--Dom497 (talk) 14:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Without watching the video myself (yet), I don't see how it can provide sources for stuff that happened in 2011 and 2012 when it was filmed in 2010. Themeparkgc Talk 22:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

when listing the models they make should these be capitalised as they are the exact names and not just descriptive terms?

Fixed--Dom497 (talk) 14:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

there is one citation needed tag which should be resolved

I've been looking for a reference for this but in the end, I think I'm going to end up deleted the "kicker" info.--Dom497 (talk) 14:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

the introductory sentence of the Brakes section mentions squeeze wheels but these are not described in the section

Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 14:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

the sources for the RCT section are photos on Flickr that cannot be publicly accessed

Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 14:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Even though you have made the photos public, if I was reviewing the article I wouldn't consider these reliable sources, rather original research. Themeparkgc Talk 22:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

surely some newspaper sources could have been included

Themeparkgc Talk 05:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bolliger & Mabillard/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: John F. Lewis (talk · contribs) 21:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Thanks for taking the time to review the article and for passing it. Themeparkgc Talk 23:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Your welcome. John F. Lewis (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks as well!!!--Dom497 (talk) 00:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Dive Pretzel Coaster

Would it be against policy to include a paragraph about B&M's possibly involvment with Dive Pretzel Coaster? Concept photos show that the model was to use B&M track and Dive Coaster trains but I'm not really sure if that would count as OR as there was never really any confirmation that they were involved, only Vekoma and Chance Morgan.--Dom497 (talk) 01:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Read over this article. I have found no mention of Bolliger & Mabillard in any of the sources used. The link provided for the B&M reference is a photo gallery, and there is nothing in there that specifically mentions B&M. It's definitely OR, and I'm on the verge of PRODding the article since so much of it is so flimsy. --McDoob AU 93 02:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Well then, though the picture is pointing at B&M left right and center, I have removed all references to B&M in the article (except the train similarity).--Dom497 (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

In case I missed it, where is it pointing at B&M "left right and center"? Also, any mention of B&M that doesn't come from reliable sources is still original research, because it's your interpretation the trains resemble them. It's possible to find others who say the trains resemble those of another manufacturer. --McDoob AU 93 02:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Look at the track (yes, I know its OR, and it won't go back in the article, I'm just saying the photo shows B&M)....--Dom497 (talk) 02:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I did ... in the image provided, it seems closer to Premier's current track design as used on Superman Ultimate Flight at Six Flags Discovery Kingdom, or even Maurer Sohne's track design as used on Hollywood Rip Ride Rockit at Universal Studios Florida. Looking like does not equal on Wikipedia unless a reliable source says so. --McDoob AU 93 03:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Here we go again ...

Now that B&M has unveiled its latest 300-foot-plus roller coaster, we're going to get into this again just as we have with Leviathan. The enthusiast community has every right to refer to Fury 325 as a gigacoaster; I call it that myself. However, Wikipedia is not an enthusiast site. We edit based on facts and reliable sources, not marketing hype. Here's the pure and simple fact: Bolliger & Mabillard does not market a model coaster called a "Giga Coaster". If you'd like proof, go to the official site linked in the infobox and see for yourself. They market Hyper Coaster models that have been built in excess of 300 feet tall, such as Leviathan and the upcoming Fury 325. In the enthusiast community, that does make them giga-coasters, but this is the model, not the descriptor. --McDoob AU93 18:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but having the park refer to is as a giga certainly hasn't helped our cause. And they are calling it the world's tallest! Which begs the question: If Intamin built a 299.5-foot hyper would they call it the world's tallest hyper coaster? I'm also curious where the division is for a junior coaster and who has the world's tallest junior coaster?—JlACEer (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Park can call it whatever it wants, and we still wouldn't have to use it. The key description we have to make to keep this correct is what the model is. If we even take this further, it comes to what type of coaster it is. Regardless of its height (hyper or giga), when you boil it down, it's still just a standard sit-down roller coaster ... just a very tall one. RCDB refers to any hypercoaster as a sit-down roller coaster, or just a standard steel coaster. Hyper- and giga- are marketing terms that have been co-opted by the community, which would potentially fail as original thought or peacock wording. For another example, consider the following:

Take Mind Eraser at Six Flags New England. Its model is Vekoma SLC Standard, but we call it an inverted coaster. Why? Because its basic type is just that, inverted, even though B&M coined the term originally. RCDB does the same thing, referring to Mind Eraser as an inverted-type roller coaster that is a copy of Vekoma's SLC standard model. Whereas Batman The Ride at most Six Flags parks (except Mexico) is both an inverted-type and Inverted model, since B&M markets this type of ride as an "Inverted Coaster".

The only two roller coasters, to my knowledge, that can actually call themselves giga-coasters are Millennium Force and Intimidator 305, because their manufacturer (Intamin AG) markets a Giga Coaster model. It actually differentiates between the two, something B&M does NOT do; Bizarro at SF New England is an Intamin Mega Coaster, while Millennium Force is an Intamin Giga Coaster, even though, for all intents and purposes, the basic rides are the same (not counting layout or height, of course).

TL;DR - Intamin markets Giga Coasters, B&M does not. --McDoob AU93 23:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

It's even worse that there are news articles saying the "Model" is a "Giga Coaster".....but bottom line is Fury 325 is a Hyper Coaster on B&M terms.--Dom497 (talk) 03:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Bolliger & Mabillard. 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) 17:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bolliger & Mabillard. 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) 03:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)