Talk:Twisted Timbers
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Twisted Timbers article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (I intend to expand the article to include information about Hurler and and will be working to expand the article).--
talk) 19:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
]
Steel Hybrid
@(talk) 23:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)]
- cite the term in the sentence it appears in, then making the change at other articles would likely be accepted. However, I would still discuss on the talk page if anyone reverts you. Handle it on a case-by-case basis. We shouldn't be going back through all roller coaster articles that have wood track on steel structures (or vice versa) and changing their descriptions to "hybrid" without a proper reference to go alongside the change. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)]
- I mean firstly, when you say "not enough editors have noticed it to remove it", you just noticed it and you haven't changed it, so that is pretty biased and for your second point, just because an article describes a roller coaster as something does not mean it should be put in the article. Should larson loop articles have the word "roller coaster" in them? (talk) 01:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)]
- I'm fine if you want to remove it, as I have no strong preference in this article. The term "hybrid" is becoming more prominent now in press releases and newspaper articles, and while geeks in the industry may still prefer to avoid the term, Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. As reliable sources evolve, so should corresponding Wikipedia articles that cite them. There is a reasonable argument against removing the term. Perhaps the opening line isn't appropriate, but it should likely be mentioned somewhere in the article.As for your Larson loop comparison... Are there a significant amount of reliable sources referring to them as coasters (and not in just marketing material)? Keep in mind that each article on Wikipedia stands alone, and what might be accepted through ]
- I mean firstly, when you say "not enough editors have noticed it to remove it", you just noticed it and you haven't changed it, so that is pretty biased and for your second point, just because an article describes a roller coaster as something does not mean it should be put in the article. Should larson loop articles have the word "roller coaster" in them?