Talk:Wicker Man (roller coaster)

Height

Daily Mirror states the ride will be 656 feet high. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.148.106 (talk) 12:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

References

atrocious

Not too bothered about the spelling, but the whole section seems a bit undue weight and quite pointy. It seems like someone has singled out a single word in an hour long this bit purely to find a negative comment. --Salix alba (talk): 15:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

John Wardley described it as this, not me, he made an emphatic point about it in the Q&A talk and the quote was cited correctly. I have found a more positive quote from John to add to the paragraph if this was felt to give neutral balance. But hiding a valiated quote from John about his involvement would be serving a bias.Woombamillio (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Intro

It's not necessary to put details about exact differing opening dates or the weather on that particular weekend in the introduction. All attractions experience delays over their lifetime and don't reflect on the attraction on the whole. Also the postponed opening and weather won't be significant in a few weeks, so isn't relevant to include in the first few sentences. In a film or album article you wouldn't read in the introduction minute detail such as the various release dates (to the day) or whether the initial release was delayed. All this information is appropriately covered in the rest the article. The introduction should introduce the basic information about the attraction itself.

Also the claim about the first wooden coaster to use fire is probably objectively not a "milestone" and has been debunked in this article before (other wooden coasters have feature fire effects). Woombamillio (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

"All attractions experience delays over their lifetime and don't reflect on the attraction on the whole"

An opening delay, or any other kind of delay, that occurs at some point in the roller coaster's lifetime isn't significant, except when it occurs during the ride's grand opening. Lightning Rod (roller coaster) at Dollywood is another example that was well-covered in reliable sources and has this information prominently on display in the introduction.

"Also the postponed opening and weather won't be significant in a few weeks..."

I disagree. The weather delay will remain significant for some time. Also, anyone looking back on that date will notice it's on a Tuesday; that's not typical and deserves context.

"All this information is appropriately covered in the rest the article. The introduction should introduce the basic information about the attraction itself"

Per WP:LEAD:

The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.

In addition to basic information about the ride, the lead should summarize the most important aspects of the article, including any prominent events that have occurred as well as other significant facts. It should be able to stand on its own as a complete and concise overview. A general rule of thumb is that at least one aspect from each section in the article should be mentioned here.

Furthermore, moving the entire statement about "Secret Weapon 8" to the History section makes the body of the article highly redundant. I advise that you reread the article. This is already well-covered in the Marketing section, particularly the first paragraph. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

By the way, your analogy to articles in the music genre doesn't really hold up. In just a few minutes, I found two articles in which other editors felt that the delay in the album's release was important enough to mention in the lead: Chinese Democracy and The Don Killuminati: The 7 Day Theory. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The two albums you have used as examples are in a totally different context, one was delayed due to a murder and another due to creative differences. Wickerman was delayed due to the weather. Why does this need to be known as one of the first pieces of information about the whole attraction? Your version of the intro reads simply like pedantry to the average wikipedia visitor, the details you are insisting on are of passing relevance.

In 10 years time, will anybody care or benefit from knowing the day of the week that Wickerman opened, the weather conditions on its proposed opening day or it's project title, enough to warrant this trivia being in the first few sentences? Leave it as you wish, a Wikipedia page not worth an argument and I was only trying to make the page read more concisely and objective to the attractionWoombamillio (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, this wasn't actually introduced in my version. A lot of random drive-by editors were putting two or three sentences in there about the delay. I simply condensed it into four words: "Following a weather delay..." Visitors can read the rest of the article to find out more. The lead is in no way finalized, as it will undoubtedly continue to be modified over time. All we can do is steer its focus to cover the most important details as best as possible. Four words about the delay, by the way, isn't exactly what I'd call overkill.

As for marketing material being in the lead, keep in mind that roughly half the article is currently dedicated to the marketing aspect. It deserves to be represented in the lead to some extent. One sentence out of four doesn't seem like it's asking too much.

And finally, I think you're moving the goal posts in that music analogy. First, you were saying that delays are never covered in the lead, but now you're saying it's a different type of delay. Obviously an album, which isn't even a tangible object these days, is never going to be delayed because of weather. We should probably just drop the analogy to film and music altogether. They're not exactly apple-to-apple comparisons, and it's clear that the when aspect is given greater emphasis in the amusement park industry. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

_____

It seems clear to me that you have a compulsion to be correct and you overthink things to validate your version, when in fact the differences are just minutiae in the article and not all that different to my edits.

My edits were made to make the article better to read – beginning with a simple, general introduction to what the ride is, then mentioning the details behind its opening later on, should readers wish to continue learning more. Instead, you pedantically want the article to mention specific trivia in the intro, which reflect little on what the ride actually is.

Of course the film and music analogy is valid, because any album/movie being delayed by a death (in the example you used) would be highly significant to that piece, whereas a coaster delayed by poor weather is fairly standard and trivial. Also, every single movie project today has a working title, but the vast majority of movie articles, quite rightly, don't list this as one of the first things you learn in the article. The Secret Weapon working title bears very little significance to the finished ride, other than tradition.

I forgot you had reverted all my edits before, because I don't live on Wikipedia, I simply came across the article and thought hmm, that doesn't read very well. I didn't even remove any information this time, just positioned it better. But since you refuse to see it any other way, there is absolutely no point arguing with you. Sorry, but in my experience, you have been very closed minded, rude and pedantic, rather than have the qualities of a good article writer that you think you do. Woombamillio (talk) 10:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Don't take any of this personally. I'm simply going by the recommended structure at MOS:LAYOUT, and I think you're missing the point earlier about what should and shouldn't be included in the introduction per WP:LEAD. If a good portion of the article covers the marketing aspect, then that aspect should in turn be represented in the lead section. Unfortunately in short articles, this makes the information seem somewhat repetitive, because you just read it in the lead and then several paragraphs later, you're reading about it again. The trick is to keep the summary brief in the introduction, and then provide the nitty gritty details further down in the body. Don't lose sight of the fact that the lead section should be able to "stand on its own as a concise overview"; it's not merely an introduction that only introduces minor details about the topic. It should entice readers to want to read more, but Wikipedia doesn't treat the lead section like the back cover of a book. It needs to cover all significant aspects, not just some.

As for the weather delay, I thought we had moved past that, but apparently not. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one I'm afraid. I still believe that in the amusement park industry, factors that delay grand openings of parks and attractions are a significant part of that subject's history. Other industries may treat delays of this nature differently, and that's to be expected. If you'd like to challenge that in a more widely-viewed setting, I suggest starting a new discussion at the main WikiProject's talk page. Since this is a minor area of concern, as you put it, then we really don't need to be all that contentious about it. I've edited a lot of articles on Wikipedia and have a thorough understanding about how the structure works. That part takes time, so I completely understand if it's not making sense at first. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Design

I noticed editors have a tendency to list certain people like John Wardley as the designers for some UK park rides, especially ones at Alton Towers. It's incorrect for a number of reasons. First, these are consultants that spend a lot of time trying to figure out what kind of theme they want the next coaster to feature. The decision is likely influenced by the area of the park the new ride is going to be placed in. The manufacturer is selected, and these consultants work closely with the manufacturer to come up with the right concept that will fit the terrain/space, as well as the type of elements the consultant wants to see (on behalf of the park). They may help steer the design in a particular direction to some extent, but they are NOT actually designing the ride. Look at John's personal webpage at this link, for example. He write this:

... I must stress that I do not actually DESIGN rides myself. I come up with basic ideas for the concept, and it is then over to others (architects, civil engineers, structural & mechanical engineers, etc. etc.) to actually create a ride ...

John Wardley, Bradley Wynne, and Merlin Magic Making are all consultants during the ride's creation overseeing basic concept design and making sure the manufacturer's roller coaster design fits in with the park's expectations (as close as possible to their original concept). These basic concept designs don't actually have all the necessary engineering specifications required to actually build a roller coaster. That part comes later, and it is properly credited by RCDB.com (see this link which lists the designer). Hope that helps. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I think you have conflated the issue with something else. It's correct that ride fans have common misconceptions about the design and build procurement process and list individual people as "Designing" the rides, but that's not why I reverted this.

In a basic D&B, a client (eg the park) will hire a contractor to design & deliver a project to their brief. The contractor will then hire whichever manufacturers, engineers, concept designers, landscapers, architects, etc to work for them.

However, Merlin operate differently, in which their own development arm is the overseeing contractor for most attraction projects, delivering to the client (the parks, which are run under different company divisions). This was the case of Wickerman. GCI were the coaster manufacturer, which is appropriately listed in the 'manufacturer' tab. However the themed attraction on the whole, which is broadly what the article is about, was designed by MMM. This included overseeing the concept, provisional coaster layout (in conjunction with coaster consultants), landscaping, theme design, marketing, etc.

Therefore it is more than appropriate that MMM are credited as Designer. If you started to list all their contractors they hired for the project you would have a very long list.

Similarly, Bradley Wynne was not "the designer", since his job is really the interface between MMM, the park and contractors, acting as the Design Manager (or at least, in press articles he is).

The RCDB source is clearly wrong, or at least needs more cross reference. Quick research will show you there is no such company as "Skyline Design LLC" at all. There is a "Skyline Attractions LLC" who have delivered wooden coasters in the past, but they appear to have no connection to Wicker Man at all, on their own PR articles, social media, in industry articles or anywhere. However there are plenty of sources for MMM related to WickerMan. Also, you say individual 'designers' shouldnt be listed here, but then you credit "Jeff Pike" as designer, who is simply the president of Skyline Attractions and not himself an acting coaster engineer/designer, he is the chairman of a company.

It may be that Skyline Attractions had involvement in Wickerman, but there is clearly not enough reliable reference to list them here.Woombamillio (talk) 10:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I can understand why you believe MMM should be listed as the designer, because of its heavy involvement with many elements surrounding the ride (concept, theme, marketing, etc.). However, that field in the infobox is not for those elements. It is for the main design of the coaster itself (layout, specifications, etc.) which many reliable sources out there report as GCI:

• Alton Towers Unveils Wicker Man Roller Coaster – "The park has been working on the project for more than four years, with Great Coasters International, Inc. leading development..."
• Alton Towers Reveals Concept For Wicker Man Wooden Coaster – "The American manufacturer Great Coasters International is responsible for the ride’s design."
• Alton Towers reveals new Wicker Man rollercoaster made of WOOD - but is it safe? – "A world-class team of experts continue to work on the new attraction, led by Great Coasters International, the world’s leading creators of wooden rollercoasters."
• Alton Towers reveals its SW8 project – "Designed by Great Coasters International, the £16 million Wicker Man is the long-discussed "SW8" project..."
• Alton Towers unveils Wicker Man – "The project, previously known as 'SW8' was developed by Great Coasters International, the world's leading creators of wooden roller coasters."

There are a lot more sources that reiterate the park's press release, which states that GCI led development. Once we come to a fundamental understanding that GCI is not only the manufacturer but also behind its engineering design, it will be easier to understand Skyline's involvement. At this link, you'll see the various coasters that Skyline Design has been the lead designer on. Also at this link, you can see that Skyline Design is a subsidiary of Skyline Attractions, the company that is contracted by GCI to design a good portion of its coasters. At GCI's homepage, you can see how Jeff Pike's is mentioned as the head of engineering: "Though the company has gone through some changes - primarily with Boodley retiring from his engineering responsibilities and Jeff Pike taking the helm". And finally, at this link, you can see that Jeff Pike is the president of Skyline Attractions.

Again, I can understand why you feel the way you do, but that parameter in the infobox needs to refer to the lead engineer (when there is one) or the company that did most if not all of the design work. This is how other coaster articles on Wikipedia define the position. MMM did not engineer this ride, despite their heavy involvement in the ride's planning. RCDB.com is a secondary source that doesn't rely solely on information from a primary source, and they are often cited by other reliable sources in the industry. When we have disagreements on information cited by news articles, which are often incorrect or incomplete, the WikiProject falls back on RCDB to represent an independent voice that measures statistics and reports information in an unbiased manner. If we cannot agree on Skyline Design, then at the very least we should leave the field blank and only list the manufacturer. Stating MMM is misleading based on how that field is used in other articles. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, it's interesting to note that in the source you provided for MMM, it states, "Great Coasters International created the ride...". The use of created is an indication as well that they designed their own ride. If they were simply the manufacturer that constructed the ride, well, you'd say "built", "manufactured", or "constructed". --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Your information is correct, but you misunderstand how construction projects are procured and contracted. Everything you have stated is based on the concept that 'Designer' here relates to purely the roller coaster designer working for the manufacturer.

Design (a broad term) is separate from engineering and manufacturing in a construction project, not a sub-field of manufacturer. So while Skyline may have been involved in the final engineering specification, they'd have had little say at a broader stage. They are not the principal designer by any means, even though they undertook the fine-detail engineering or design solutions.

Every project is different in its procurement and contracting, and there may be multiple parties who could be considered "designers" in a project consortium. This is unnecessary detail for a Wikipedia infobox. Therefore, let's go with the more general terms and 'roles'.

The client is Alton Towers. Merlin works in such a way that the principal contractor for their parks' developments is their own Merlin Magic Making company, or a development consortium led by MMM. They then plan and manage the project, and work with the different parties in the consortium, such as the ride manufacturer (GCI), marketing, architects and their own project designers.

Though MMM hires freelance designers for specific design parts (and may use many different ones, impossible to list), they have principal 'lead creatives' who lead the development of the themed attraction (the attraction from start to finish that guests will experience). These roles are the broadest positions within the consortium who could be considered 'designer'. Design can also be considered the technical design elements of the ride, again this is undertaken at a principal level by Merlin Magic Making, including collaboration with their contracted architects.

Therefore, it seems most sensible to list 'Designer' as Merlin Magic Making. In effect, it is MMM who 'produces' the whole attraction in the consortium or with their subcontractors. In a more conventional construction project, there would be a principal contractor in MMM's place, as hired by the client.

It is incredibly pedantic and down to interpretation to instead list Jeff Pike, Skyline or any other subcontractor or individual person as 'designer', or to use the phraseology of news articles (who most likely use 'built', 'created' and 'designed' interchangeably since they are not talking in technical construction detail) as basis on who to credit in this info box. It is supposed to be a brief overview.Woombamillio (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

This particular infobox parameter stipulates "designer" as the engineer who did the actual coaster layout and engineering drawings, not the person or group who came up with the concept and the themeing. This was decided by a consortium of amusement park/theme park wiki editors several years ago. If you think that parameter needs to be changed you may discuss it at Template:Infobox roller coaster. In the meantime the rest of your argument is not applicable.—JlACEer (talk) 18:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems it has been decreed by Wikipedia enthusiasts to align with a certain formula instead of a general summary. Why an engineering subcontractor hired by the manufacturer to undertake specifications is being listed as the attraction's overall 'designer' seems counter intuitive and not true to construction industry in this context, but there is little point arguing. Needless to say, for most people visiting this page, "Wicker Man" refers to the overall attraction and project, not the coaster hardware alone despite this being the major element. It would have been MMM who procured, contracted and 'designed' at a principal level the overall attraction (including concept layouts for the coaster, coaster train designs, etc) yet they're not even listed in the info box. Woombamillio (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

It only seems to be a problem for fans of Alton Towers. We don't see these types of arguments with any of the other hundreds of coaster pages.—JlACEer (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

"It seems it has been decreed by Wikipedia enthusiasts to align with a certain formula instead of a general summary."

In actuality, the data in that field is based on reliable sources. After all, that's what Wikipedia content should be a reflection of. I provided 7 examples that all directly contradict the claim that MMM was the primary or lead designer. Also, even if MMM was the primary entity behind original design concepts, there's no evidence I've seen that quantifies how much (if any) of the original concepts made their way into the final design. It can be argued that MMM continued to play a key role in the design of the ride's theme from start to finish, but there's no way that can trump the actual track layout design. Without even reading this discussion, visitors to the page would expect "designer" to represent the person or company responsible for the coaster's layout; not some theme that guests experience while waiting in line or riding. The "theme", while important, is a secondary characteristic.

By the way, offering a reply 9 months later doesn't justify this edit. Without clear consensus for MMM at this point, such move can be seen as disruptive. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Another dispute in the lead section

Woombamillio: Since you seem to be avoiding the talk page, I'll do you the honors of starting a new discussion in respect to standard Wikipedia etiquette outlined at WP:BRD. When reverted for a change you make, you're encouraged to discuss directly with that editor either on their talk page or on the article's talk page. Attempting to reinstate your preferred version using edit summaries as the only form of communication is a path that often leads toward edit warring.

I have left your removal of the "first at Alton Towers" comment in place, but the rest has been restored. The grammar of the previous version was sufficient, and the change you made is written too closely like the Fox News source. If you still have issues with this, let's hash it out here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Ride Experience/ Promotion

In line with the other articles on coasters at Alton Towers and the Merlin parks, the description has been changed to Ride Experience. Since it was agreed that marketing is mostly synonymous with promotion (although marketing is a broader term that also covers market research for what to build and theme, etc) it therefore makes best sense to call the section focussing solely on the ride's advertising as Promotion.

The ride description should be succinct, clear and stick to a basic summary of the ride. The previous draft overused different clauses in a narrative way and had interpretive phrases like "emphasising the ride's theme of fire" etc. Reverting these changes with the reasoning that the 'grammar was better before' when the current grammar is correct and fine seems to be excuse to revert according to a previous author's personal preference? Would welcome any grammatical corrections needed to the current draft rather than reverting to the wordy, narrative version.Detachio (talk) 13:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I have compromised with the section naming of "Promotion", although you will find this is typically called "Marketing" for US based amusement ride articles. Not a big deal, so I left it. I also agree with the change to "Ride experience" since this is in line with the WikiProject guidelines at WP:WikiProject Amusement Parks. Where we still differ is the wording used in the "Ride experience" section. Your attempts were slight improvements in some respects, but terms like "fiery" and phrases like "bursts into flames" should be avoided per WP:NOTPROMOTION and WP:PUFFERY. If you have an issue with the changes I just made, let's discuss further. I'm open to further suggestions. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The previous version was more succint and had less word count so I agree with your intention but have reverted back for that reason. I'd agree that a ride description section shouldnt be exaggerated or promotional in nature, I've improved it now and included some of the other details you put in. By the way, there are real flames on the structure which your version doesn't mention (only mentions the screens and smoke as 'simulating' flames) so this is probably what the previous version was referring to as the bursting flames. Have changed it to 'flare' (a technical term) instead of burst, to ensure there's no promo-speak.

In general the section was fine either way, the only aim is to keep it simple and effective. Eg. phrases like "orange lighting elements", it sounds like a convoluted way of saying the obvious —ie "fire effects"— and a bit pseudo-technical (lighting elements isn't a lighting industry term). But no problem and thank you.Woombamillio (talk) 10:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Are you directly responding to me or Detachio? Use a colon (:) in front of your replies to indent them, which helps make this clear. I'm really indifferent on the exact wording as long as we aren't using 1-sentence paragraphs or in violation of WP:NOTPROMOTION, which appears to be the case now. I should point out, however, that some roller coaster articles that have been promoted to good and featured articles typically have more descriptive summaries in the their ride descriptions for the layout, including items like lift hill height, drop angles/lengths, and directional turns (i.e. 180-degree turn, overbank turn at 120 degrees, etc.). Something to take into consideration but definitely not worth fussing over. I don't really consider the layout description a crucial part of the article. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

History section

I don't understand why my edit was changed by GoneIn60 but when I edited it further, you reverted all my edits to your last version with a vague explanation that it was "not an improvement". Reverting everything was arbitrary. Some of your additions are inaccurate (see below). If you disagreed on certain points please explain specifically.

Here's my explanation for why your own edits aren't an improvement. "The creative design behind the audio and visual effects for the attraction was led by..." is overly wordy for what should be a simple factual sentence. Then you list numerous subcontractors under creative design lead. This can be more succintly and accurately written "The creative design was directed by MMM. The attraction AV was designed by Holovis and pyrotechnics built by Backstage Technologies."

Alton Towers did not lead the creative design, the sources all show MMM did this, so your change is incorrect. Also, manufacturing flame effects is not "creative design", so this is also incorrect. I then moved the creative design points to after the roller coaster points for better order, because the article is mainly about the coaster.

I agreed with your previous point that Wardley's comments should be better characterised for balance, so I added another key quote from John. But in contrast to what you said before, you removed the quote in the revert. A direct quote from the person in question is better than your own interpretation of what they said.

I also made other minor edits to make a few sentences read better, which were arbitrarily reverted in your revert.

Finally, Skyline Attractions LLC's website call themselves Skyline Attractions, not Skyline Design. Surely the official website is more accurate to find the name of a company than secondary website sources? Skyline Design just may be an old name.

Overall, it suggests your motivation was to keep your wording instead of others'. Edits are supposed to be constructive. Detachio (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Detachio, let's assume good faith. I'll explain my revert. First there are at least two sources that list Skyline Design. The first and most prominent one is this article from Amusement Today on page 16 in the "fast facts" box. Then of course there's RCDB. Both are highly reputable sources in the industry. Skyline Attractions is the parent company of Skyline Design, as seen at this link, and a lot of this was already discussed in the "Design" section above on this page. I will be promptly changing that back. If you have a source that lists Skyline Attractions only, bring it to the table and we can discuss it further.

As for the "creative design" portion, Merlin Magic Making (MMM) is an in-house division of Merlin Entertainment. The Amusement Today article states:

"Alton Towers has worked extensively with Great Coasters and other partners like Merlin Magic Making (MMM), Holovis, and Backstage Technologies to create an immersive experience."

It's clear from the source that the creative aspects surrounding the coaster's special effects was led by the park in conjunction with these entities. Your attempt to simplify can actually be misleading, because the roller coaster's layout was not necessarily covered by this statement. So we need to specify "audio and visual effects" or something along those lines. I'll be restoring this as well, and again if this needs further discussion, let's sort it out here first instead of going back and forth in the article. I will do my best to retain some of your contributions. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Here are the changes I made (diff). One thing I forgot to mention. You attempted to break down the responsibilities of Holovis and Backstage Technologies, citing the AT article, but Backstage's work isn't specifically described. Also, it says Holovis worked with MMM on the preshow; it wasn't just Holovis. Instead of going into depth here, I kept it simple, but I'm open to suggestions if you want to expand that further. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)