Talk:The Smiler/Archive 1

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1

EuroFighter or not a EuroFighter?

I'm pretty sure this ride isn't a EuroFighter. All EuroFighter models have had vertical lifts, beyond vertical drops and small trains with 2 cars. This ride lacks the tower element, has a four car long train and RCDB doesn't list it as a EuroFighter. Should I change the article to reflect this? Xtreme2000 (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I removed it. It's not even mentioned anywhere in the article.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 20:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I just thought about what RCDB said and what statements were being made.It was my mistake to undo that, so I apologize. --McDoobAU93 23:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
... so I went and read the source document used here in this article, which is a report on the amount of noise SW7 is expected to generate. On page 3-1 of the document is this: "Noise from the planned new coaster was modelled based on a similar one located at Thorpe Park. The Thorpe Park ride, “Saw” is the same type and manufacturer as the proposed ride, including a “beyond vertical” drop." "Same type and manufacturer" should be the key take-aways from this. Technically, so would "beyond vertical drop", but that would be original synthesis to assume that the only rides Gerstlauer makes with beyond-vertical drops are Euro-Fighters. I stand by my original actions. --McDoobAU93 23:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

OK so this is becoming a problem again, with people editing and re-editing between Custom and EuroFighter. I think it's clear that it's not a Eurofighter. Gerstlauer's own website defines a EuroFighter as having a 97° or greater drop, something which it's clear from construction this coaster doesn't have – ref. This ride also has completely different trains to all other Euro Fighters. What is there to define it as a EuroFighter except one line of reference in the planning documents (which have already been proven to be wrong in just about every other aspect)? I will keep amending it to 'Custom' until there is some clear conclusion. Aadams (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't really see that anything should be added until the ride is actually completed and operational. Until then, the full facts/details regarding this ride cannot be known, and so in a sense labelling it as a EuroFighter or otherwise amounts to speculation - see the last part of point 5 in WP:CBALL. TalkIslander 20:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Overly detailed

Some of the events in the "Ride Troubles" section seem too insignificant to mention - in particular the occasions it was closed - and the "Marketing" section is a long timeline of minor events. Wikipedia:WikiProject Amusement Parks/Standards#Article structure only recommends "accidents and major malfunctions", but doesn't mention which section to include these in (history?), and a section for marketing isn't recommended at all. Peter James (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree that there's way too much detail in these sections. That said, if the marketing of the coaster is covered in reliable sources, then we should include it in the ride's history. We can eliminate a lot of the individual marketing pieces and go with a few examples. Same thing for its mechanical issues related to its opening. --McDoobAU93 17:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I will give a friendly heads up that an IP user which has been tracked back to Merlin Entertainment (the owner of the park) [1] has been blocked after it was found removing sections. I would recommend not removing anything whilst that is still ticking on.
Away from that, though I agree the marking section is too long and could do with cutting down to make it easier to read, its removal all together isn't an acceptable answer. The marketing and the problems the ride has been having are all part of the ride's history and are as valid parts of the article as anything else. --Rushton2010 (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

And just to remind about wikipedia's stance on Wikprojects: "WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles", WP:PJ.


Also, the overly detailed banner seems at best.... confusing. If you follow the links it sends you through to Wikipedia's inclusion policy. To be "overly detailed" is not a breach of that policy... so why does wikipedia a banner? Having gone though the policy this article isn't in breach of anything. It could do with some copyediting and clearing up as i said before though. --Rushton2010 (talk) 17:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
WikiProjects don't make rules, but they sometimes describe existing consensus and often provide good advice. WP:NOTNEWS, which is policy, also recommends against excessive detail. Peter James (talk) 17:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


I've gone through the marketing section and started editing it. When I started going into it, I don't think its a problem of excessive detail, its just how its been compiled. People have obviously been adding it as things have occurred and it left such a long list.
Just by grouping things together its made for much more easy reading. For example the 4 list-like entries detailing exactly when each youtube video giving the ride's backstory were released, very comfortably compacts into one short paragraph.
I will take another look at that section with fresh eyes tomorrow and see if it can be improved further.

The ride problems section is less of an issue: it reads far easier than the marketing section did. Anyway, I'm thinking of changing it around a little bit to create a short introduction and then a table of the incidents. The incidents seem to be continuing, and some are more major than others. A table would be a sensible and compact way to compile that information. It means the the more "minor" incidents could be included comfortably without having a whole paragraph to themselves. And if the incidents continue, it stops the section ending up as a long rambling list.

--Rushton2010 (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


This is becoming an issue again. I hate to remove stuff that people have clearly spent time citing references for, but quoting that a rollercoaster broke down on one day in the Wiki article? Can we agree to remove all of the "ride problems" aside from the most major ones? Aadams (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I have been bold and removed all the entries sourced to random Twitter accounts. There is no way that these could be considered reliable sources. I could go and create an account myself and say that the ride breaks down daily; that doesn't mean it's true or worthy of inclusion here.
To the wider issue, the problems section could really be merged with some of the stuff in the opening section. If there is still too much information about the problems, we could go with something like the WindSeeker article. The "controversy" regarding the ride's delay could be shifted to a new reception section which would feature newspaper reviews etc. I might take a crack at this in the next week, if nobody beats me to it. Themeparkgc  Talk  06:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2015


— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.191.80 (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as you have not requested a change. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 02:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Is this article blocked to keep the idiots out or the idiots in?

At the moment the recent crash is reported in the incident table as:

A car carrying 16 passengers collided with an empty stationary car on the track traveling approximately 20 mph (32 km/h)

"an empty stationary car on the track traveling (sic) approximately 20 mph (32 km/h)" First how on earth can a stationary car be travelling 20mph? Plain English please!! Surely it should read:

A car carrying 16 passengers "that was traveling approximately 20 mph (32 km/h)" collided with an empty stationary car on the track.

But as usual on here when you have too many cooks you get the aforementioned crap.

Second in attempt to be succinct - there are too many clauses introduced into the sentence, subject, speed, location, object etc. It's like a mouth with too many teeth. A mumble of information.

Third "traveling" is the American spelling, the British word has "ll". So immediately I think it's mostly like that an American speller wrote that tripe in an article on a British subject. Keep the Websters' English lite on the other side of the Atlantic.

Furthermore there is no mention that there were four casualties, currently the wording of the incident suggests there were more seriously injured than just the four - it implies as many as all 16 passengers could have "Serious neck, chest, and leg injuries" which is not the case.

Sigh: Wikipedia written by people who shouldn't even - by a long stretch of the imagination - be ever considered "editors".81.129.123.126 (talk) 09:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
To begin, let's discuss your lack of civility when discussing your otherwise valid points regarding this incident. You're free to complain about how the article is written, but keep it to that; leave the EDITORS out of it. Comment on content, not on your fellow editors.
Second, the article was semi-protected to prevent anon IPs who, while working in good faith, may not have understood Wikipedia tenets of verifiability and sourcing. There were also a number of anon IPs who were simply vandalizing the article. In response to the increased traffic due to the news coverage of the incident, the article was semi-protected. All registered, confirmed editors (>10 edits, at least four days' tenure) can edit the article. You're welcome to create an account and thus bypass semi-protection.
Third, you are correct that the phrasing of the summary is getting convoluted. I think we need to keep this simple, especially since so few facts are known (investigation is ongoing). You've offered some options, and I have tried to incorporate those into the article. If other improvements are needed, please discuss them CIVILLY.
--McDoobAU93 13:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
@81.129.123.126: It's not worth getting worked up over. Thanks for pointing these out, however. McDoobAU93 and I took a stab at fixing them. Better now? --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I do like that phrasing better myself. I also just added a link to the Incidents at European amusement parks article, which is where this incident should be more fully covered, barring the need for an article on the incident itself (which I think may be warranted in the future). --McDoobAU93 13:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2015

The current status of the ride (referred to as "Status" on the sidebar) should not state "Operating", but rather, "Closed due to incident" or "Closed due to accident". Geomicuk (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: This field is not intended to reflect the day-to-day status of an attraction. The only changes that will warrant an update are an announcement from the park of an EXTENDED (months) or PERMANENT closure. Maintenance closures, accident investigations and off-season periods do not change the ride's status from "Operating". --McDoobAU93 19:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2015

please unprotect this

Oliver7704 (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done This is not a semi-protected edit request, and this is not the place to request unprotection. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Standing But Not Operational vs. Testing

MIKE: The Smiler has been seen testing and is deemed as Closed by the resort. I feel the attraction doesn't meet the definition given in the article on SBNO. The best course of action going forward would be to revert the status back to Unknown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.184.227 (talk) 20:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I had reverted a change back to "SBNO" but this has caused question from one editor.

I had taken "Standing But Not Operational" on its face value: that the coaster is built but not operating - something we have references to prove. The other editor was interpreting SBNO not on face value and thought it suggested the roller coaster had been abandoned.

The editor changed it back to "testing" - but we have no reference that it is still being tested: but as I said, we have no reference for this... so I have changed it to "unknown" which seems the most fair while we have no references and there is dispute.

And so I'd like some input-
I still think "Standing But Not Operational" sums up the situation fairly (so long as people dont read other things into it), and is verifiable from the sources within the article.

Rushton2010 (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

RCDB, considered a very reliable source for Wikipedia roller coaster articles, still has the ride at Under Construction, as the ride has yet to officially open. RCDB has very clear definitions for its terms, and "Under Construction" means the ride has not yet officially opened to the public; soft openings and media previews do not change the ride's status to "Operating". Similarly, SBNO is reserved for rides that have officially opened, but have been closed for extended periods; maintenance and off-season periods do not change a ride's status from "Operating" to SBNO. An excellent example of this methodology can be found at this listing for an Australian roller coaster that has been essentially complete since the 1990s. It is listed as "Under Construction" instead of SBNO because it has never opened to the public. --McDoobAU93 18:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I still think the majority are not going to be reading "Standing but not operational" as anything other than exactly what it says. I do think "Under Construction" is a fair compromise though (if not entirely accurate).
Rushton2010 (talk) 18:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Within the roller coaster community, SBNO has a singular meaning that The Smiler doesn't fit. I know we write for all readers at Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't educate them as to what the terminology means (hence an article for standing but not operating here).
FWIW, I got into a similar discussion over at another ride article. Our infobox has "Testing" as a field, but RCDB does not use "Testing" at all, as it considers any testing and training periods to be part of the construction process. That fits with other construction projects as well, where materials tests and inspections take place continually from first land clearing to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. But that is a discussion better left for another place. --McDoobAU93 18:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

If it were testing, it just comes under operating which doesn't mean it's open to the public. It's SBNO and closed means it has been dismantled. Sl3nderman3006 (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Track Elements

The Smiler does not have any Immelmann loops, it has the opposite which are Dive loops which is where the train inverts and decends. Also, stop removing the Batwing elements from the List, they are a key element on the ride and sea-serpent rolls are the same as Sidewinders and there is only 1 which is before the Cobra roll. And finally, rollovers are a name given to sidewinders on Vekoma coasters.Sl3nderman3006 (talk) 19:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Per this link at RCDB.com, the elements are correct. If you have a reliable source that states otherwise, post a link to it here for other editors to take into consideration. Until then, we'll continue using the information provided by RCDB. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, OK i saw the link but if you look at images you will see evidently that there is a Batwing element after the 2nd Dive loop, and after the corkscrew after the vertical-hill lift is a sea-serpent roll which is also very visible in pictures, videos and not to mention, i have actually been on the ride several times. Also Roll-over is a Sea-serpent roll but the name itself 'roll-over' is exclusive to Vekoma coasters, the Smiler is made by Gerstlauer. Please look at this website: [2] and not only is it a very reliable source but also it tells you about every type of track element, you will see what a roll-over looks like and you will not find that anywhere on the Smiler but below it is a sea-serpent roll and you will see it is in fact the 2 inversions before the cobra roll element. I do appreciate however that you are looking after the page as since the incident, there are lots of people posting stuff like the coaster will shut-down etc and encourage you to keep looking on it but that link even though a very reliable source is incorrect, i even looked at some other content on there and some is out-dated but using the link i just put in and a link to a POV of the ride will be much better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sl3nderman3006 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
In other words, what you're saying is that your personal observations and experience with the ride trump those of a published source deemed reliable by the Wikipedia community with regards to roller coasters? I hate to sound so curt, but that's what you are saying ... "I've seen it and that's what it is". That is precisely why WP:OR exists. I have no doubt you want to improve the encyclopedia and mean well with your edits. Unfortunately, what you're proposing, and the basis for your proposal, just aren't done. --McDoobAU93 19:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Looking at pictures and determining these things ourselves is a form of original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. I'm not necessarily disagreeing that you don't have a point, but the information we include on Wikipedia must be reliably sourced. Right now, all we really have is RCDB and Coaster Critic, which both agree that the names of the elements listed in the article are correct. Furthermore, it appears that the Sea Serpent Roll and the Roll Over are nearly identical, with a slightly bigger dip during the twist on a Sea Serpent Roll. Because the elements are very similar in nature, it makes sense that reliable sources may use the terms interchangeably. There's no real advantage in the industry to have two distinct names that describe two versions of the same element. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh OK then, i will take such things into consideration in future edits after all i am fairly new to editing. Thank you for the feedback anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sl3nderman3006 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome, and thank you for your attempts to improve the article. You may want to visit the Getting started introduction page when you have time, which helps as a guide to new editors. Also on your talk page, you will find a link to the Teahouse where you can always ask for help from experienced editors. Cheers! --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Will do:)Sl3nderman3006 (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sl3nderman3006 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

'Incidents' section improvements

This section is of poor quality, frankly. Bias an inaccuracy is evident throughout. Let's work to improve this section. Tom Green (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@TomGreen: For future reference, it's common courtesy to leave the disputed content in its previous state while a discussion is taking place. In this edit, you removed "During the investigation into the crash, officials at Merlin Entertainments acknowledged they were considering the removal of the ride as a result of the various problems since its debut". The cited reliable source clearly states that bosses are considering scrapping the ride which has had a series of problems since it opened. First of all, I disagree that this is blatant bias or speculation. Second, even if you could call it speculation, there is no policy that prevents reliably sourced speculation as long as it doesn't violate WP:DUE. I look forward to your explanation. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't initially interested in common courtesy in this case, more in resolving significant libellous factual errors. The referenced article does not attribute any quote or source of the claim, despite the headline. It is an unverified report. If you want this speculation to be included, then it should be made clear that it is speculation within the text. Tom Green (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, so you went from saying "Speculation is...unacceptable, sourced or not" to stating it's allowed under certain conditions. I suppose that's progress. I still disagree that it's mere speculation. I also disagree that in order for the claim to be included, the source must specifically attribute where it came from. Nothing in WP:RS lists that requirement. If we consider the source reliable who is reporting the claim, that is generally enough to warrant inclusion. To satisfy any concerns, you can simply open the sentence with "According to [source]..." to satisfy any concerns. I'll hold off for now and withdraw my opposition to its removal, but I would suggest in future edits that unless something is blatantly false and inaccurate, we shouldn't be in such a rush to remove it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I was corrected by you with regards to speculation being permitted, you are more familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines than I and I thank you for that. My issue is with the source itself. If you examine it closely, it's effectively a third-hand unverified report. The consideration of closure aspect of the title is in inverted commas and then the article very vaguely repeats it in a sentence but doesn't attribute anything or anyone. Tom Green (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Regards to the future of the Smiler

Just recently Nick Varney (CEO of Merlin) stated that the ride will be closed for the rest of 2015 but also said he would ride it if it got the safety 'go-ahead'. Does this imply the only thing stopping it's operation is health and safety? Merlin don't seem to be talking about removing for the reason of 'bad image' anymore, I also remember hearing about a H&S executive saying there is no reason why it cannot open in the future. Opinions people? Sl3nderman3006 (talk) 02:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Would you mind providing links to the sources you read? Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, here it is: [[3]], it's near the bottom of the article what I was talking about. Sl3nderman3006 (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, yeah I saw that one. It does mention the loss of revenue as a result of the incident, as well as saying "we're not going to do it unless it's the right thing to do" in reference to reopening the ride at some point. So it's future is still very much in doubt at this point. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Well in terms of loss of revenue, it would be silly to close the Smiler because then they're just demolishing £18M, we can only wait I suppose. Sl3nderman3006 (talk) 22:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
However I will admit, Alton Towers has been hit hard in terms of small visitor numbers, I was there last Thursday and all the queue times were set to 0 Mins. Sl3nderman3006 (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
All the problems the Smiler has had prior to this are also a factor. It may seem like a waste to demolish it, but when your reputation is on the line, £18M is a small price to pay. Hopefully they can find a way to minimize the risk by keeping it open, but no way can they afford another serious accident like that, especially on the same ride. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Well that would be embarrassing but I belive this is a one-off freak accident. Sl3nderman3006 (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, let's hope! --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Well this is quiet shocking: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3207431/Two-workers-quizzed-human-error-Alton-Towers-horror-Engineer-turned-automatic-safety-lock-operator-let-truck-slam-stalled-carriage.html. Whilst they are still investigating, they are probably just looking as to why the engineer overrode it because that is what they are treating as fact. Given that it is Human error, the Smiler's future might be brighter after all but at the same time it is quiet bad the engineer and operator couldn't follow the most basic safety protocols, Alton Towers have done so well so far to make the park safe. Sl3nderman3006 (talk) 19:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Sl3nderman3006, I made changes to your recent addition. First of all, this is going to change again, probably several more times as further information is released. We need to keep it as short as possible, and the final version long after this event has passed will likely be much shorter and better summarized. Keep in mind that while the incident and its details are important, we only need to include a brief summary. If more detail is needed, then a new article that focuses on the event itself should be considered. Historical significance will be a factor for that, so we should probably wait to see what kind of impact it has on Merlin Entertainment and the industry as a whole before going that route. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Ahh OK then. Sl3nderman3006 (talk) 20:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Ride status

I think we are starting to have a few editors creeping in that are putting in information that isn't very helpful. A bit of it seems to concern the status of the ride and they are changing it to 'Testing'. If I am correct the ride is being tested but have we listed it as 'SBNO' because the future of the ride is uncertain in terms of reopening? To be honest they may have a point in changing the status but my assumption is that we put it as SBNO because we don't know about it's future or we don't have any sources telling us about Alton Towers testing the ride.

Also be on the look out for 195.99.252.10, they have been vandalising a few roller coaster pages (including this one). Sl3nderman3006 (talk) 23:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

June 2 incident

After looking at so much information that has been published and the detail of it, I was wondering whether it was a good idea to add to the Smiler article a section dedicated purely to the incident as oppose to just adding information to the table in the incidents section.

By the way, what I mean by published information is the various news reports. I should also say, we should refrain using the Daily Mail as a source, it's quiet unreliable as tabloid newspapers go, ones like the Independant should be used, less speculation and more proven fact. Sl3nderman3006 (talk) 18:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

If more information has to be added, then yes it may be a good idea to consider giving its own level 3 subsection under Incidents. However, I would caution against adding too much information that covers the event. We need to find the right balance that won't cause the incident to overtake the article. If more up-to-date info exists, then we should consider removing older information that is no longer relevant or current. That should help keep it trimmed down to size. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Good idea, but please note my suggestion about the sources we use. Sl3nderman3006 (talk) 08:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. Being from the US, I don't know much about some of the sources overseas, but I have no objection to removing/avoiding those from the Daily Mail. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. Sl3nderman3006 (talk) 13:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Level 3 subsection for incident

OK, I have seen in one of the previous talks about if more information is added, then a level 3 subsection for the June 2 incident is a good idea. There has been more information since (e.g Huge job losses and fall in profits as a result from the crash). Also, it would be beneficial to counter the incident "taking over" the article as information on the incident is isolated to it's own section. HiddenHerobrine (talk) 20:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, if it wise to add a level 3 subsection, I would be more than happy to draft it and send it to whoever primarily manages this page for approval by which it can be then put into the actual article. HiddenHerobrine (talk) 20:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it's probably time now. We need to keep in mind that the list of incidents surrounding the ride, particularly the most recent one, is now a big part of the coverage the ride has received historically. It may seem like it's overtaking the article, but really per WP:DUE, the space it's consuming is justified. So let's not focus too heavily on cutting its length – maybe a little here and there, but that shouldn't be the main goal. If you'd like to draft a suggestion on a sandbox page, maybe all those interested in participating can edit it there until we get it to a point we can all agree on. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I will work on one and I have already spoke to one of the other contributors and I said I will send them a draft to look over so they can make any edits. I will make one in the sandbox tomorrow and other editors can have a look for themselves. HiddenHerobrine (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
GoneIn60 I have made a draft in my sandbox page, how can you and others view/edit it? HiddenHerobrine (talk) 01:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
With this link: User:HiddenHerobrine/sandbox --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I will say that at first glance, it looks like it goes into way more detail than necessary. We should probably try to keep it to one or two paragraphs (a similar overall length as what's in the article now), remove the names (they're not necessary), and go ahead and post the sources in the draft (you'll need to add a reference section in the sandbox). --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I will start that now, I have been quiet busy in weekdays with college work etc. HiddenHerobrine (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2015

Hello. In the info board on the right hand side of the page, the current status is set to 'SBNO' (Standing but not operating) - I was wondering if somewhere there, or on the page you could edit it to say it is re-opening in 2016? Thanks! Jamiep2911 (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

You've not provided a reliable source that says the ride will open in 2016. So the 'SBNO' shall remain. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 17:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@user:Jamiep2911 @user:AxG According to: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/alton-towers-smiler-crash-caused-by-human-error-and-ride-will-be-reopened-a6746711.html The ride is opening and I quote "next year" as in 2016. But I don't think we should change the status field to "reopening in 2016" as it is not a status, it's a statement. Maybe when we get close to it reopening we should consider changing it to 'Testing' but until such a time, it should be left.HiddenHerobrine (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Correct, it should remain SBNO until it reopens. Testing is really a status meant for rides that were recently under construction prior to their debut, and it's not really a good status to use unless testing is expected to take a significant amount of time (appropriately sourced of course). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with a focus on historical accuracy. Up-to-the-minute changes are not and should not be a priority. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on The Smiler (roller coaster). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:The_Smiler/Archive_1"