Talk:History of the roller coaster

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Amusement Parks: Roller Coasters Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Amusement Parks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Amusement parks on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Amusement ParksWikipedia:WikiProject Amusement ParksTemplate:WikiProject Amusement Parksamusement park articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Roller Coasters task force (assessed as Top-importance).

The creation of this article stems from a

• 1978 - First coaster to feature two interlocking loops: Loch Ness Monster, Busch Gardens Europe, Williamsburg, Virginia, USA. A very rarely used element that is no more important than any other element.
• 1980 - First coaster with a batwing inversion: Orient Express, Worlds of Fun, Kansas City, Mo., USA. An element that wasn't widely enough used to justify its inclusion here. No more important than any other element.
• 1994 - First inverted coaster with a "cobra-roll" element: Raptor, Cedar Point. Many coasters before this one had a cobra roll element. There's not much notable about the first inverted coaster to do so.
• 1996 - First coaster to feature an inclined inversion: Mantis, Cedar Point. A rarely used element, and one that doesn't seem any more important than other elements.
• 1997 - First coaster to utilize Linear Synchronous Motor (LSM) electromagnetic propulsion system: Superman The Escape, Six Flags Magic Mountain. Separate entries for LIM and LSM? I cut this one and made the LIM entry refer to linear motors instead.
• 2004 - First coaster with a 97° drop: Typhoon, Bobbejaanland, Belgium. We don't need a separate entry every time a drop goes one degree further than the previous coaster. An entry for first coaster with a beyond 90 degree drop is sufficient, and we have that, Vildsvinet, which according to RCDB is 97°, so the entry I deleted wasn't even accurate.
• 2004 - First Hydralic launched coaster to feature inversions: Storm Runner, Hersheypark. First launched coaster to feature inversions" might be interesting, but a separate entry for hydraulic is parsing it a little to finely if you ask me.
• 2005 - First coaster to feature a "bent cuban eight": G-Force, Drayton Manor Theme Park (Drayton Manor, United Kingdom). I searched on RCDB and there is only one coaster with this element. Nor did I see any discussion on why this element might be significant. It's also not included in the
  Roller coaster elements
  article.
• 2007 - First floorless dive coaster: Griffon, Busch Gardens Europe. Floorless is notable. Dive coaster is notable. The two together is not notable. --Skylights76 (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly, this article needs expanding in order to differentiate it from the history section of the roller coaster article. Also, if you can figure out how to turn the "timeline" into a real, graphical timeline, that would be great. --Skylights76 (talk) 13:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this timeline looks pretty good now without being in graphical format. Plus I looked at some timeline templates and they don't look as good as I thought. --Skylights76 (talk) 23:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please help expand the narrative History section. One easy way would be to incorporate important items from the timeline into the narrative text. But that's just one idea, please expand it how you see fit. --Skylights76 (talk) 09:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday I looked at this article and decided that the timeline section looked very dull. Also, its lack of images made it clash visually with the prose sections, which had images. Obvious solution to both problems: add images.

The next day, these images had been moved to a gallery, the reason being, "page became cluttered with images; placed in gallery to restore readability." I disagree with this edit on several points. First, it defeats the purpose of why I originally added the images. Second, the page was not cluttered with images, but rather the images were arranged in thumbnails in a right-aligned column, and it looked rather nice. Third, these images did not harm readability. The text flow of the timeline was exactly the same before the images were added as after. The only difference was that readers could now look to the right and see pictures associated with some of the more significant timeline entries. Fourth, the gallery reduces usefulness. Instead of images being located adjacent from their associated timeline entries, they are now grouped together where people probably won't even look at them.

Having explained my reasoning, I will revert the article to my original edit.

-- Skylights76 (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you were attempting to do (place appropriate images that cooresponded to specific coasters near those coaster's entries on the timeline). Frankly, the images don't belong on this page as the casual reader would not be able to tell that was the intent for what was done; the images are more appropriate for the individual coaster pages they belong to. The question will come up as to why are all those images there, why those specific ones and not others? Why not images for all of the listed coasters? Moving them into a gallery is appropriate. SpikeJones (talk) 01:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is obvious to the casual reader that the pictures correspond to entries in the timeline. If they don't realize this, there is no harm done. Also, I doubt anyone will question why specific pictures were used and not others. I haven't seen similar questions about Hypercoaster, Wooden roller coaster, or Inverted roller coaster, all of which use images of a few coasters from a larger list to illustrate the article. If someone does question this, the answer is that the pictures were selected based on variety, availability, and spacing (enough entries were skipped so that that the next picture would be adjacent to its entry and not butt up against the previous picture). I think galleries should be used sparingly on Wikipedia, and I don't think this is a case where a gallery adds any value. But I invite others to weigh in in this. -- Skylights76 (talk) 02:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]