Talk:Demon (roller coaster)

Untitled

What was the point of making it the "American" roller coaster? Yes it is in America but was it necessary to add it?--67.162.42.148 17:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a coaster in Copenhagen called "The Demon". Timetrial3141592 01:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Proper Name?

Growing up, we always called it the Demon. However, is the title The Demon or the Demon? The official Six Flags site calls it Demon, as well as the sign. Should we rename the article accordingly? Turlo Lomon 23:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed last sentence

I removed the last phrase of the article for the following reasons:

1. It was grammatically incorrect (it said, "Even with wear, is still very popular.")

2. It was redundant - The first phrase in this section indicates that both Demons are still popular. There is no need to say it again.

title

(Six Flags Great America) needs to be removed from the title since the article is also referring to Demon at Great America in California.

Protection

Can we please have this article protected from IPs? Someone keeps vandalizing the article claiming to be the "record holder" for most rides on it, which is really un-true because I'm sure over the ride's 30 year history, someone has been on it more. I also worked as a ride-op in 2007 and found out that ride ops do not keep track of who rides rides the most.--jonrev (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Since he refuses to stop, I have added a RfC.--jonrev (talk) 06:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC - Ride Record Holder?

An anonymous IP address (probably the David Sell mentioned in the edits made) constantly has been adding the comment:

"When lines are short, Gurnee operators keep track of consecutive rides. According to several, the
record was set by David Sell from Lake Zurich, IL. on Labor Day, 2007." 

This is most likely untrue as I worked as a ride operator at several rides at Great America in 2007 and we never kept track of how many times an individual has ridden a ride (trust me, we had alot more important things to worry about). I have told him this and asked him to stop twice but he refuses. The information is un-necessary and for all we know, could be false considering the ride has a 30+ year history. I have asked this article be protected from IP addresses and nothing has been done yet.--jonrev (talk) 06:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Demonlogo.JPG

Image:Demonlogo.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Why I restored my addition/changes to the lead

While it's fine work to improve the grammar/wording I used, the claim that context additions I made cannot must be immediately removed from the article because they are uncensored goes against Wikipedia policy. Uncontested additions/changes do not need to be immediately removed simply becuase they are not sourced. The additions in the lead reflect content in the main article which does have some sources. If one feels the sources are significant then fix that. If non-controversial/uncontested non-sourced/cited material is left in the article for an extended period of time then you can remove them, but otherwise you should give people time to provide sources. The fact is that SFGA and CGA where both Marriot parks in 1976, that they installed the two Demon coasters s Turn of the Century, both with the same but different layouts from the current layout, and that they modified and re-themed the two coasters as the Demon, is not in dispute and is what is stated in the main body of the article. Is there something about what I wrote you dispute factually or is it just the lack of a cite that is the issue? If the latter, then you should also have removed the same content from the main body of the article which has been in the article for much longer with sufficient cites. In the future, you can place citation needed tags on content additions needed citations, if it's uncontested. If it seriously disputed/controversial then you can simply remove it or take it the talk page to discuss. --2600:1700:56A0:4680:1CF0:C8C1:B470:715B (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will leave it for now (with slight modifications). In addition, I'll provide a dated notice contesting what appears to be original research throughout the article. If it's not resolved within a reasonable amount of time (a week or so), I'll begin to remove it. I will also attempt to locate sources myself. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Update

Actually, I just noticed that the article has had a notice in place since 2012 warning about the lack of reliable sources throughout the article. I'm going to give it exactly a week before I remove unsourced information. Anything I can't find a source for will go, so I encourage you to assist in any way you can if you're interested in preserving this information. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)