Talk:Bolliger & Mabillard

Canada's Wonderland 2019

This addition is starting to cause problems, especially since it's all driven by speculation on a lot of people's parts. RCDB (and most of the coaster community) are relying on images from a drone flight near the park, with no evidence supporting that (1) this track is indeed of the Dive Coaster format or (2) this is even intended for this park—coaster parts have been put in storage before. All we know for certain is that CW is working on a project for a future installation, nothing more. Nevertheless, we have editors warring over this addition. As such, I've removed it pending more data.

RCDB is indeed considered a reliable source for coaster edits, but it's not perfect. Per WP:DEADLINE, there is no rush to add this. It's not our job to be first on the street with rumors and speculation. When Cedar Fair and/or Canada's Wonderland itself announces this, or when evidence becomes more clear-cut, or when another reliable source (such as a local newspaper) appears, then it can be added back.

--McDoobAU93 19:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Magnetic Brakes

Despite what this source claims, Nitro was not the first B&M to incorporate magnetic brakes. When it opened in 2001 it only had friction brakes. Early YouTube POV videos show the train coming the brake run and there are no magnetic brakes. They were installed a couple of years after the coaster opened. The earliest Nitro video I could find showing a set of magnetic trims before the main friction brakes is from 2006. The first B&M was likely Silver Star, which opened in 2002 — but those may have been added later also. In 2004, Silver Bullet (Knott's Berry Farm) opened with magnetic brakes, and since then it has become commonplace. Which coaster was actually first is probably not that important, and it is unlikely we will find a reliable source to confirm. Fan blogs are not reliable sources and information obtained from fan websites should be scrutinized before it is added to an article.—JlACEer (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

"Pre drop" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Pre drop and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 4#Pre drop until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

List of coasters: major change

The list is getting out of hand, numbering more than 120 coasters, which consumes a lot of real estate. Considering this isn't a list article, the focus really needs to be on the prose and not on the chart. Instead of an exhaustive list, I've gone ahead and changed it to a "notable" list. Anyone reading the article can visit RCDB using the footnote citation or external link to view all B&M coasters if they really want to see them all. Also if anyone sees one that's missing from the list, or they disagree with one that's listed, feel free to make further changes (and/or discuss here). Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Good evening, unfortunately while the topic is still fresh I must voice heavy disagreement. While notability is indeed relative based on size and locations of parks, every attraction is a significant project in the tens of millions of dollars, with many locations around the world. A company like B&M does not create the sheer volume of smaller coasters that others do, and thus all deserve to be listed. This also creates a standard that can vary by opinion, must be debated per entry, and results in unnecessary curation for a list that's intended to be public information. The purpose of Wikipedia is to enable readers to learn, and in this article's case access some of their lesser known but equally deserving projects around the world. Wikipedia is seen as a more accessible research hub than RCDB, and choosing to actively limit information based on personal perception only hurts the article. Streamlining and limiting information. If I were to make further changes it would be a complete reversal of this. Thanks for your consideration. Bigtime Boy (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it should be clearer that the definition of "notable" is "has an article on Wikipedia" and not that the coaster is significant in any way. As an example, Harpy (Xishuangbanna Theme Park) doesn't have any sources and isn't a particularly special coaster. Garuda3 (talk) 09:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Bigtime Boy, if you'd like to create a dedicated list article that lists them all, feel free, but general articles are held to different standards. Per MOS:LIST, we are told that articles should "consist primarily of prose" and to use lists sparingly. The amount of readable prose should heavily outweigh non-readable prose. An article covering the entire topic of B&M needs to remain focused on all significant aspects of the company including its founding, formation, important people, investments/finances, expansion, and other elements throughout its history. A list article, on the other hand, can focus in on the various installations specifically and not be as concerned about the other aspects.

Garuda3, there are a couple options. First, if Bigtime Boy ends up creating a full list at a separate list article, then maybe we rename the list at this article to something like "Example installations" or whatever, list a few, and then link to the complete list in a section hatnote. If it were me, however, I would abandon the idea of creating a lengthy list that will just become outdated over time (RCDB.com already serves this purpose well), and instead I would keep this as a "notable" list. We could define "notable" as coasters that either set some kind of record (at the time of opening) and/or consistently rank in Amusement Today's annual Golden Ticket Awards. That should shorten the list significantly. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Also pinging McDoobAU93 and JlACEer for their thoughts, since they have weighed in before at this talk page. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Normally I would be in favor of the creation of separate list as was done for the Arrow Dynamics an Intamin pages. However, as GoneIn60 has noted these lists do eventually become unwieldy. It's also a good point that such a list is easily obtainable at RCDB.com. I quick glance at the references on the List of Intamin rides shows that virtually every coaster listing is referenced by its RCDB listing. It does beg the question — what's the point of maintaining a duplicate list? If we do go the notable route, we would have to establish clear criteria for what makes a coaster notable. I don't think having it's own Wiki page is enough, as we often see some editors create short, poorly referenced pages just for the sake of having a page.—JlACEer (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps a list of products with the first installation of each kind would make more sense. Most of the products have their own articles and these presumably have lists of installations on there. Garuda3 (talk) 10:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I do like the idea of a small chart that lists each product type or model, and optionally the first installation of each. However, it is important to keep in mind that record-breaking coasters, especially those that still hold records, get a lot of coverage in reliable sources. It's nearly impossible to write about B&M without giving these installations their WP:DUE coverage. I think two charts – one for models and one for record-setters – would still be needed in addition to mentioning them in prose. The main concern is that we aren't trying to list 50+ coasters in this article; 15-30 is reasonable. Intamin builds a lot more than just coasters, but perhaps something similar to the way notable rides are handled there. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I think you're on the right track, but we need to determine what makes a particular coaster "notable" for this. For example, I would include the first installation of a given model, or an install that broke or holds a particular record (such as Fury 325 being the tallest chain-lift coaster in the world). That would pare it down to maybe 20 coasters, roughly. A "List of Bolliger & Mabillard roller coasters" article would certainly be appropriate and linked in this article's subhead. --McDoobAU93 17:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks McDoobAU93. That's essentially what I was getting at and where I'm at with this. Thanks for weighing in. We should break this up into two lists: one for "firsts" of each model, and one for notable record holders. And when it comes to record holders, if something is marketed as the tallest or fastest in the state or southeast, that doesn't qualify. It would need to be ranked worldwide and receive considerable "ranked" coverage outside of local sources. Like you said, that should get this down to a much smaller total between the two lists. GoneIn60 (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

June 2024 update

I've pared down the list on my sandbox page here so we can cull this down to attractions that truly are notable. Please feel free to comment on the talk page there with rides you think should be added (with a reason why it's notable) or ones that should be removed. --McDoobAU93 19:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a great start so far! I haven't fully digested it yet, but I plan to take a closer look here in the next few days. If I don't follow up anytime soon, don't wait on me. I don't think we need a perfect start to get it into the article. Like anything else, we can continue to modify and improve as we go. The pressing issue is the bloat that's in the article now, and we will always have the original list in the article history. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)