Talk:T3 (roller coaster)

T2 or T²?

Is it T2 or T²? I always thought it was T². Montu Man 1011 (talk) 22:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

T2 IS personal y my way to calle the slc Samuelisnice (talk) 13:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality

I don't feel that Wikipedia, which is a factual website, should deal with opinions. For a number of very anti-T2 comments to be in a factual article is unacceptable. I mean stuff like "The ride is disliked by some coaster enthusiasts due to T² being extremely rough and painful to ride", and "T² is also commonly noted to be visually unappealing". These opinions are unnecessary. FaithHealer1 (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not done at this time. Wikipedia does not necessarily use official names, the change apparently hasn't happened yet, and none of the sources in the article indicate that the name has changed; also needs evidence that the new title has become the common name for the coaster. Please feel free to reintroduce the request when these issues can be addressed. Dekimasuよ! 01:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC) [Comments later reformatted as closing commentary by BarrelProof.] —BarrelProof (talk) 01:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

---

T2 (roller coaster) → T3 (roller coaster) – Coaster will be renamed T3 for the 2015 season. Paul Badillo (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move reversion

I honestly can't see why the move was reverted. There doesn't seem to be any discussion at all about it. That's why I thought there was no controversy. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 01:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at the conclusion of the RM discussion in the section just above, as closed by Dekimasu on 9 November. We just closed an RM discussion about that exact question two months ago that decided to keep the article at T2 (roller coaster), and the article hasn't been edited at all since then to show that the situation has changed, and the park is presumably currently closed for the winter so the coaster is still not actually operating under the new name. It's obviously not uncontroversial to move the article under those conditions (as decided in the RM discussion). I didn't actually participate in that discussion, but I respect its outcome. Before moving the article, there should be a formal WP:RM request and discussion. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there's a conclusion without any discussion whatsoever. I don't see any point in waiting until everything is just so-and-so perfect for the renaming that has already effectively occurred. This is a case of being overly anal with the guidelines, IMHO. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 01:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you're mostly right, but the thinking expressed in the closing summary is a reasonable interpretation of the relevant policy & guidelines, and people shouldn't just ignore the outcome of admin consensus declarations. The article should be improved, and there should be another discussion. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Everyone in Louisville knows this is called T3 now. Some things are just obvious and, I believe, there's some rule about ignoring the rules. This is one of those times in my judgment. Ultimately, though, this is kind of an unimportant subject and therefore I'm not going to invest any further time of mine in it. Everyone else can gnash their teeth over this while I sit back and laugh. Seriously. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 01:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps there was justification for reverting the move in order for us to actually have a discussion. That part I understand. However, another look is needed at Dekimasu's comments two months ago. First of all, it's pretty clear there's a source right there in the lead that supports the claim that the coaster's name is changing to T3. It was there before the move discussion was closed, so I'm not sure how it was missed. Subsequently, WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply here, since the eventual name change has been confirmed by at least one reliable source (and I'm sure more can be cited). In the Wikiproject covering this topic, we typically move pages to the new name before the ride reopens, especially once the ride ceases to operate under the old name. There should be no contest at this point. BarrelProof, since you reverted the move, please verify if you support or contest the move, and if you contest it, then Stevietheman or myself will initiate a new RM discussion. If you don't contest it, then we should allow it to go through as a routine move typically accepted by members of the Wikiproject. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

To me, the problem is more a matter of the fact that the ride has never (yet) operated as the T3, so it seems unlikely that the common name known by most people has changed. That source was written even before the park reopened, much less the ride. Plans sometimes don't work out quite the way that is envisioned – as fans of the Bluegrass Boardwalk should know (at least since June 2012). I'm not aware of any change of plans, but I think that out of respect for the prior RM outcome, there should be an RM before moving the article. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@BarrelProof: Thanks for the feedback. First of all, it's worth pointing out that this roller coaster last operated in 2010. It did not reopen with the park in 2014, since it is in need of repair and renovations. Based on reliable sources that have covered the topic, it is reasonable to say that it will never operate again as T2. As for WP:COMMONNAME, you'll see that the rule refers to the most prevalent common name published in reliable sources, not what is commonly known by most people. When a name change occurs, that can obviously take some time, which thankfully we're not held hostage to on Wikipedia. For name changes, the rule goes on to say: "If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change." So in that regard, I think WP:COMMONNAME would be in agreement with changing the article title now as opposed to waiting. Like I mentioned before, there are a lot of other sources out there that refer to this name change, and they will easily outnumber recently published sources that don't mention it (let me know if you can even find one that doesn't). Here is just a short list:

• Kentucky Kingdom to expand rides, hours in 2015 published September 25, 2014
• Kentucky Kingdom adding 5 attractions published September 25, 2014
• Kentucky Kingdom Plans New Rides After Attracting 600,000 Patrons published September 25, 2014
• Kentucky Kingdom announces plans for 2015 published October 1, 2014
• Kentucky Kingdom confirms 2015 plans published October 22, 2014
• IAAPA Releases Its Preview of Exciting New Rides and Attractions Expected to Open Around the World in 2015 published November 18, 2014

Please know that I'm in no hurry to change the title. The point of raising this issue here and now is to establish a consensus, one way or the other, not only for this article but for others like it. In WikiProject Amusement Parks, we are faced with this same ordeal several times a year, and so far, this has been the only resistance to a page move of this nature. Our consensus so far has been to retain the old name as long as the roller coaster is still in operation. Once it's closed for the season prior to renovation, we change the title. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional work and information. In the absence of further developments, I will not object if the move is repeated (with or without a formal RM). —BarrelProof (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Glad we had this discussion. I waited a few days to see if anyone would jump in and offer a different opinion, but since no one has, I think it would be fine to restore the move, especially since it appears the previous RM comments no longer apply. We can start a new formal RM if anyone objects down the road. I will also incorporate some of the newer references into the article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)