Talk:Lightning Rod (roller coaster)

Alleged height

So far, none of the reputable sources I've come across have listed its height. Notably, it's absent from RCDB.com and other recent articles in the press such as this one from the LA Times. Therefore, I've removed the 206-ft claim from the article for now. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

After checking the park's website, it does state 206 feet. However, it notes that the lift hill is only 80 feet above the "crest of the hill". Therefore, its height will only be 80 feet, though its drop will be much greater. I'll wait to add the 80-foot claim until after its confirmed by other sources, especially RCDB. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Ride maintenance

Per consensus, maintenance closures do not change a ride's status from Operating. SBNO is reserved for significant and extended closures, and getting parts replaced isn't either of those. Anything else risks an issue with WP:TRAVELGUIDE, as it's not within Wikipedia's purview to keep track of operational status of attractions. That said, this closure should be included in the article prose as it is notable for an attraction that is having a rather tough time getting off the ground, much like The Smiler did. --McDoobAU93 14:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

However, @GoneIn60: mentioned that if an attraction is closed indefinitely (which this is, unless there's a source I don't know about), it should be set to SBNO.Wackyike (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. I changed it to SBNO, mainly because the park hasn't set an expectation as to how long it will be down. Could be days, could be weeks, could be more (which I doubt). If the consensus is to change it back to Operating, I'm fine with that as well. I don't have a preference either way. SBNO was better than "Closed until further notice" which was inserted by another editor. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

It would appear that it's now, at least in this particular case, a moot point, but others are saying this story may not be totally accurate. I removed the content I added, but the over-arching point remains - it's still a maintenance period. --McDoobAU93 19:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Recent changes to ride status

@97.81.154.199: As noted in edit summary comments, this change you are attempting to make requires a citation to support the claim. Personal experience is a form of original research which is not permitted on Wikipedia. If you need help with adding citations, I recommend reading WP:REFB and/or the more advanced WP:CITE. Alternatively, you can post the source(s) here, and an experienced editor can assist you with placing the source in the article assuming it's deemed reliable. You should also read WP:V to learn why proper sourcing is desired. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lightning Rod (roller coaster). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150809221602/http://www.knoxnews.com/business/developing-something-lightning-fast-is-coming-to-dollywood to http://www.knoxnews.com/business/developing-something-lightning-fast-is-coming-to-dollywood

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Hybrid classification

RCDB is a secondary source, and according to them, this is a steel coaster. Coasters are classified by their track, not by the support structure. The "hybrid" classification is controversial and the hybrid article has been challenged as legitimate at Talk:Hybrid roller coaster#Contested deletion, although a consensus has yet to be reached in that discussion. Lucapellegri09, please discuss here instead of constantly reverting to your preferred version. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 16:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for setting this up. I’m pretty new to Wikipedia so I didn’t know about the policy, my apologies.

To get thins straightened out I want to know what you definition of a hybrid coaster is, not what source such as RCDB, but your opinion. For me it’s if it has a wood structure and steel track, or the other way around. Lucapellegri09 (talk) 14:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Side note; I’m currently in Italy and there is a big time change so if I don’t respond quickly it’s probably cause of that. Lucapellegri09 (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Lucapellegri09: Thanks for taking the time to respond, and welcome to Wikipedia! There are some news sources out there that occasionally refer to these newer coasters as hybrids, a term used to describe a mixture of wood supports and steel track, or vice versa. However, the term hybrid doesn't have a lot of scholarly support to my knowledge, meaning we don't see the term published by experts in books or academic papers discussing roller coaster technology. To most experts, there are two types of roller coasters: wood and steel. The type is determined by the makeup of the track, and you can see this reflected in the annual Golden Ticket Awards (GTA) which ranks roller coasters worldwide. The GTA list is divided into the same two categories: wood and steel.

The term hybrid that is found in some news sources is more of a media term that describes a class of roller coasters. But in our Wikipedia articles, we are focusing on the type in both the infobox and the lead. If we want to mention the classification hybrid, that is probably fine to do, but it shouldn't replace wood or steel in areas where we are focusing on the type. Also, "hybrid" is not a new concept. We've had mine train roller coasters dating back to the 1960s, such as Cedar Creek Mine Ride. But surprisingly, hybrid is only now becoming a buzzword in media sources.

Hopefully, that makes sense. As for what to do in this article, take a look at the last paragraph in the § History section. The fact that it has been called a hybrid is already mentioned. We recognize what some sources are saying, but I don't think it needs to be covered in the lead section of the article. The lead serves as an introduction to an article that covers its most significant aspects. While its debatable as to whether hybrid is a significant aspect, I would lean towards just keeping it in the body.

As a side note, please indent your responses with a colon (:) before each paragraph, and add an additional colon for each new response like I've done above. Thank you! --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Great, thanks for setting this up. Lucapellegri09 (talk) 16:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)