Talk:The Smiler

Latest status

Right, since the news has come to light that the ride is confirmed be open for the opening day of alton towers on 19 March, should we change from SBNO to Operating because technically, the only thing keeping the ride closed now is that the park is closed on a season basis and SBNO doesn't apply to that.

source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35694710 HiddenHerobrine (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

As it hasn't started up for public use since the incident, just leave SBNO until March 19th. CDRL102 (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with leaving it SBNO. The park may have every intention of opening it on 19 March, but a lot can change in just a few weeks. Let's wait until it officially runs again. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

September 2016 incident

There has been some controversy among editors on whether the incident of 1 September 2016 is notable despite citations from the local and national press and two major broadcasters. I would not normally consider a minor incident to be notable but this one was deemed newsworthy by multiple news sources. I do not have a single answer for this but it might be because of the similarity with the 2013 incidents, which are considered notable, especially the one in May that year, because a part of the ride came loose or most likely because it happened only months after it re-opened following the 2015 incident (the Independent's headline speaks for this). I have not seen any accepted criteria on what makes a ride incident notable but in the search for a guideline I found Wikipedia:Notability (events) but this seems to be about whether the event should have its own article. The incident might be better covered in Wikinews but there are currently no articles on the Smiler there and the only article mentioning Alton Towers is about the July 2006 incident on the Runaway Mine Train. Tk420 (talk) 11:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

So others are aware, this is the material Tk420 is making reference to.

Here are some thoughts from an uninvolved editor. First of all, on the surface, it appears that the event is significant enough for inclusion in the article. A good number of sources reported the incident, which occurred in the same season the ride reopened following a major catastrophe the year before (which is likely why it received so much press). With that said, it is a somewhat minor incident, so I do understand the other viewpoint. One thing's for sure; I don't think we need to cite 6 references. Two or three should be enough. So if we're going to keep it, I suggest trimming the number down. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I am involved, and I disagree. Per WP:NOTNEWS, just because something is covered in the news doesn't make it notable, unless it is something that is going to be part of the ride's history for a significant period. For all intents and purposes, it was a maintenance closure that can happen any day on any attraction anywhere on Earth. Things don't look right or something falls off? Maintenance closes the ride and checks it over. The fact they reopened it same-day indicates it was not anything of any significance; had it closed the ride for the remainder of the season, that would change things. If we took the attitude that news coverage = significance, then we'd have to cover each and every e-stop where the ride does exactly what it is supposed to do and a local TV station on a slow news day decides to cover it. --McDoobAU93 19:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Totally understand where you're coming from. Long-term significance is definitely a factor we should always consider. I don't feel strongly about it either way, but perhaps the rest of the incidents should be evaluated under the same terms, because in its present state, a couple other entries may need the ax as well. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Track elements part 2

Per the previous "Track Elements" discussion above involving myself, McDoobAU93, and Sl3nderman3006, anyone that is trying to change the track elements inversion box in the article needs to back up those changes with a source. Right now, we have a reference to RCDB, which clearly lists the different inversions. While reliable, RCDB isn't the only possible source, and if there are others that disagree, then let's have a discussion about them and list them here for all to see. Personal opinions and other forms of original research will not be accepted. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

"RCDB" is Not a reliable source... If you watch an Onride Point Of View of The Smiler you can clearly see just be looking at it that "RCDB" is VERY, VERY wrong when it comes to listing the track elements of the ride, they list 3 dive loops after the 1st drop when there is only 2, and they call a Corkscrew a "Barrel roll" and refer to the Batwing as a "sidewinder"

please bare in mind that "RCDB" was made by one student in his mum's basement in America... its not a 100% reliable source and I highly doubt that the creator has ever been to Alton Towers, never lone seeing and riding The Smiler! people have to realise that "RCDB" is extremely unreliable when it comes to track elements... with amusement parks and ride designers frequently stating otherwise to what "RCDB" says.

The problem with this is that in some cases there is no "proof" of what the track elements are.. if they haven't been posted anywhere but RCDB that doesn't mean RCDB is correct.. in most cases RCDB is incorrect, enthusiasts know what the Smiler's track elements are and we will keep changing them to read the correct information on Wikipedia, even if uninformed people continue to refer to unreliable sources like "RCDB"

also, just watch a Smiler POV.. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by DomDoesCoasters (talk • contribs) 15:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

RCDB has been referenced many times by major publications, and the data housed by that site was gathered by multiple researchers, not just one. And while we appreciate the honesty, that's not how it works around here. We don't rely on personal experiences and personal research. You should read WP:OR and WP:V when you have time. Some of our core values are explained in more detail there. If you have reliable sources that contradict RCDB, then please provide them. Exceptions have been made in the past to override RCDB, but the minimum requirement to do so is at least another reputable source. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

It might also benefit you to read WP:NOTTRUTH. This is just an essay, but it explains why verifiability takes precedence over truth. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Here's your "proof" https://coasterpedia.net/wiki/Smiler https://rollercoaster.fandom.com/wiki/Smiler

The Inversions are: "Heartline roll, Downward corkscrew, Dive loop, Dive loop, Batwing (1st half), Batwing (2nd half), Corkscrew, downward corkscrew, sea serpent roll (1st half), sea serpent roll (2nd half), Cobra roll (1st half), Cobra roll (2nd half), corkscrew, corkscrew"

please update it to show the correct information — Preceding unsigned comment added by DomDoesCoasters (talk • contribs) 00:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

These are public forums/encyclopedias that anyone can simply change information on. They are considered self-published, which are not reliable sources. Read WP:RS and specifically WP:RSSELF for help. Also on the first one you posted, someone changed it to batwing out of the blue on 10/21 as you can see here. Nothing about this change is verifiable. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2019

hi my request is can the smilers inversions be correct as I have rode it and it clearly has a batwing as seen if you look at the pov for the ride if you have done the ride you would know this aswel :) 86.171.1.204 (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

How many trains does the smiler have

The smiler runs with 5 trains AGAR-05 (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Where is the reliable source to support this claim? See your talk page about this. You've been advised many times to provide one. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Major changes to the incident section

Detachio: Let's break down the list of changes you believe need to be made and address them one by one. A small portion of what you recently added can probably go back, but I do not believe that completely rearranging things the way you did was helpful. Also, we need to keep this as concise as possible, only including details that were widely published and necessary to summarize. The length of this section before your edits was already extensive, taking up a lot of real estate and a significant percentage of the article. You expanded it, of all things, and by a large margin I might add.

Also, phrases like "Contrary to popular belief" are best avoided, even if you believe there are sources for this. The tone on Wikipedia should be encyclopedic and not written like a newspaper or tabloid article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I could cut it down then, but before my edit several key facts to do with what caused the crash were completely missing and there was some purely inaccurate information. None of my research was original, it was all referenced clearly to the HSE and court reports, quotations from the sentencing judge as published in news etc. I rearranged the section so that the first paragraph was a simple overall summary, then after that it goes into a chronological detail, I think this was the most helpful structure to relay the event. The event could even have its own page being a major incident, but that would seem overkill so I just gave it its own sub section.

In regards to "contrary to popular belief" why not change this to "unlike what was widely reported in the media" and repeated by Alton Towers' estate owner Nick Leslau etc, or "in some instances the discredited claim of human error continued to be published by media reports", plenty refs of inaccurate reporting. Detachio (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Detachio, first just a helpful tip that when you respond on talk pages, include a colon (:) to indent each reply (I did it for you this time). The "contrary to popular belief" is original research when it's not cited. We can't look at the number of sources out there and make that determination for ourselves. We rely on secondary sources to make that call. If one has, then we can cite that, but again it's preferred to steer clear of such language when possible. We don't want to give the appearance we're taking sides, either the park's side or the critics of the accident. If you're going to cite Leslau, then it needs to be clearly stated with "According to..." WP:NPOV which discusses the neutrality of content is a very important policy on Wikipedia.

Second, while the court document and/or reports are fine "primary" sources, they should be used carefully and in conjunction with "secondary" sources. We should rely on academic journals, books and periodicals to confirm strong claims. If it wasn't written about in a secondary source, then it may not qualify for inclusion on Wikipedia. For help identifying types of sources, see WP:PSTS.

Now as long as we keep all that in mind, we can look at specific proposals. I do think it would be helpful to remove inaccuracies, or at least provide competing claims next to them, in order to balance the coverage of the accident. However, we should find a way to keep the length roughly the same, as I believe the footprint it's taking up now already falls on the line between adequate and excessive. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with your points but fail to see how any of these points can be prioritised over basic factual accuracy and citing references, when this section of the article continues to spread clear misinformation about the incident (today this section was copied in the Birmingham Mail on the anniversary of the incident, repeating the debunked suggestion that the operator and engineer "may have failed to follow basic safety procedure").

Many of the issues you raise about citations and language are present (and in my opinion much worse) in the version that you reverted to, which has almost no citations when describing the incident. For example, the opening sentence "The ride has been known for a number of significant structural and technical issues since its launch" is terrible for an article — Wikipedia should not decide what something is "known for" without backing this up. This sentence was supported by no sources at all. I have reworded it objectively without changing the content, so I trust by your own points you will not revert it.

"Usually, only four trains are allowed on the ride at a time" is again factually incorrect, the number of trains can be increased (to a max 5) and decreased depending on the daily attendance. The ride regularly ran 5 trains, but the sentence suggests that an abnormal situation was created by adding more than the 'allowed' number. "Due to high winds" is cited by no source in this version and can cause confusion (the ride was being operated below the mandatory wind limit), unlike my version which clarified the "gust of wind" as per the HSE document. "Management overrode safety warnings" is another vague and unsupported statement, as roller coasters do not operate on "warnings" alone.

The most troubling sentence was still the claim that the criminal investigation "focussed on two employees" when the citation given for this sentence clearly states the opposite, that the investigation was on Merlin as a company and found no individual staff actions were to blame. The citation makes clear Merlin also retracted the "human error" claim, and the claim was rejected by the judge. This language suggesting the staff were at fault was based on early incorrect reports before the HSE investigation was concluded, and should not be repeated in the article.

Lastly, I don't understand why the HSE and court documents were removed from the article entirely, when they were backed up by the Guardian article (which was itself based on the HSE conclusions) and therefore constitues a primary source being backed up by a secondary source as per your recommendation.Detachio (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to respond. Not sure where you went for the past month, but I think you and I share the same goal here, which is to improve the accuracy and phrasing so that it properly adheres to what reliable sources are saying. I won't get in the way of your recent changes until I've had a chance to review them, which may not be until later this week. I will say though that your change to "The ride has experienced a number of structural and technical issues since its launch" is a definite improvement over the previous wording, which lacked a nearby inline citation. As long as we keep the length of coverage roughly the same and add both primary and secondary sources, I don't anticipate I'll need to get too involved here. Thanks for putting the effort in... --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Fake tourniquets significance?

Should there be mention of the 2015 incident being shown on an episode of Fake Britian? The episode in question had a segment on fake tourniquets and the segment in question brought up the incident in question as the real thing was used in first aid at the incident. Visokor (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

We have to be cautious not to allow any one aspect to consume too much of the article. The primary topic here is the roller coaster, and while the incident is a significant part of its history and deserves a certain amount of coverage, we still have to cover other important aspects too. IMO, the 2015 incident already has sufficient coverage. Trivial pop culture references probably don't belong here (WP:UNDUE). If there was an article page dedicated to the incident, then it could go there, but I don't think there's enough to justify a split at this time. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Location issue

Location is alton towers not thorpe park 86.9.246.152 (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Appears to have already been fixed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)