Talk:Millennium Force/Archive 1

Archive 1

The ride section

I have typed up a walkthough of MF in accordance with the WikiProject Roller Coasters and am almost completely sure that I got all the elements and the camera. However, if anybody notices anything missing, please let me know. Also, any constructive criticism on how to improve the section would be appreciated as well.

It might be worth noting that the lift used to accelerate as it neared the top of the hill, almost creating the sensation that it was "throwing" you over the hill. Starting this year though, the train slows at the top, which makes for a new experience in the front seat. I liked the acceleration because it made the long lift hill less tedious, but hanging over the top at 80 degrees was pretty wild. --Birdhombre 03:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, I will keep it in mind. I will try to get a front seat ride on MF the next time I go to CP. It probably will not be till early August though. --Coaster1983 18:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Top steel coaster citations

Cedar Point's claim of Millennium Force being the #1 steel coaster on the planet stems from the ratings of Amusement Today magazine. So far I've been able to track down three references: 2003 (2nd place), 2004 (1st place), and 2005 (1st place). They don't seem to have anything older on their web site.

Ah but wait, there's more: this Cedar Point news release from July, 2006 indicates Millie was #1 this year as well. There's also this news release from 2005, which says, Millennium Force, Cedar Point’s 310-foot-tall “giga-coaster,” was rated the “Best Steel Roller Coaster in the World” in the “Golden Ticket Awards,” which are presented to the “best of the best” in the amusement industry as voted in an international survey conducted by Amusement Today newspaper. Since opening in 2000, it has been given the title of No. 1 four times since 2001 and has never been ranked lower than No. 2 in the poll.

I don't think it was ranked at all the year it opened, since the awards are announced in July but the park opens in May. Based on Cedar Point's awards page, Millie was #1 in 2002, 2004, 2005, and 2006, and #2 in 2003. This page says (along with various other pages, if you do a google) it was also ranked #1 in 2001 -- makes sense since, in 2005, CP said it had ranked first four times -- bringing our total to five.

I think I'll go ahead and add them to the article, since someone took the time to add the {{Fact}} tag. --Birdhombre 05:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Duration

Although the park's information says 2:45 for ride length, anyone with a stopwatch can tell you that the ride is more like 1:20. Infact, the control panel has a readout of each trip's time with an average around 65 to 70 seconds. A time faster than 58 seconds results in an overspeed trouble light and a time slower than 89 seconds means the train isn't coming back at all (rollback). It depends on the temprature of the day, so this is a really hard stat to pin down. Cchard 18:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

A note I recieved brings up an interesting point. Do we want what is published? Or what is right? And what if there are several different versions of the published information. The website says one thing, but having WORKED at some of these rides and read (and even edited) the manuals I know that quite a few of these stats are way off. I understand the need for citation, but it hurts me to see stats that are wrong by double or even more. Cchard 18:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you should edit your page because millenuim was voted #1 this year.

Hey again, I'm with you. I'd rather have the realistic statistics on these pages, unfortunately Wikipedia has the policy of no original research (see WP:NOR), so unless we find the real stats published somewhere, we shouldn't use them. -- Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 23:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

According to a Youtube video of the official POV of Millenium Force, the ride is 1:46 minutes (106 seconds). It never rolled back, stalled, or valleyed. It was moving perfectly smoothly, so that statement could not be true, unless you are talking about the time from the beginning of the drop to the final brake run (1:20 minutes, or 80 seconds).

Stadium Seating

Just a heads up, I added the notion of the stadium seating arrangement in the coaster's trains in the Train secion. Hyde244 21:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Size Limit

I added this to the talk page for Top Thrill Dragster, and it's also relevant here even though this article doesn't mention the size limit. A woman submitted a complaint to Ripoff Report (http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/ripoff97243.htm ) stating that her son, who is 6'9" and 270 pounds, was denied admission to both Top Thrill Dragster and Millennium Force because of his size. She only states that he was "too large" and does not specify whether his height or weight was the problem, although the use of the word "large" suggests that his girth was the issue. 69.121.226.35 03:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Opening Date

I actually heard that it opened sometime in December 1999. Now I'm confused. --Coastergeekperson04 03:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Completely untrue; Cedar Point is open from May-October; the ride opened on opening day 2000 (May 13). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.226.167 (talk) 02:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Size limit

I'm sure that the size limit is incorrect, as it is listed as 4'0", but I can't find an edit revision that has the correct size limit and I don't know it. 216.166.196.79 (talk) 04:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Millennium Force/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

From the looks of it, I'm going to fail this article. There's nothing on the concept or any information during it's being built. The fact that the ride layout and statistics are unreferenced as well hurts. Best to just expand, ref, make sure everything's good, and re-nom. Wizardman 05:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Millenium Island

I am planning on changing any reference to Millenium Island along the ride to Adventure Island because that's the "official" name of the island with the opening of Dimosaurs Alive. Does anybody object? Astros4477 (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Good article?

I have looked at the GA Review above and made several fixes and cleanup to the article. The review mentions to include information about construction but I have not been able to find information on that. I think it it ready for Good article review since I made the fixes from the previous nomination. --Astros4477 (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Millennium Force/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dom497 (talk · contribs) 18:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Quality of article is good.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Article complies with MoS.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   I will do a review for this section once the issues mentioned in the comment section are resolved. Good.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   See comments section below. Good.

   C. No original research:

   See comments section below. Original research removed.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Article covers all major aspects of the topic.

   B. Focused:

   Article stays focused throughout.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   No bias found.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Article is stable enough.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   All images are licensed properly.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Images have suitable captions.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   The main issue in this article is the lack of references or the fact that the references don't support some statements that there are supposed to. I will put this article on hold for 7 days in order for improvements to be made. If you have any questions, please feel free to leave me a message on my talk page.--Dom497 (talk) 20:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I will address each issue, most of those if not all will be easy to fix.--Astros4477 (talk) 20:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I have addressed all your comments.--Astros4477 (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I have passed the article!--Dom497 (talk) 22:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• There is no reference anywhere in the article supporting this statement in the lead section of the article: "Millennium Force's tagline is "The future is riding on it.""

Fixed.--Astros4477 (talk) 22:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Reference #6 is not working. I "played" with the URL and it looks like if you remove the "http://", the link will then work. Change that.

That's interesting, it's the opposite with me. It works on my iPad but when I removed the "http://", it doesn't work. I'll just try to find another source for that.--Astros4477 (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I found another red in the article that supports that.--Astros4477 (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• The statement, "Millennium was repainted for the first time in the 2011 and 2012 season.[6] New LED lights were also installed for the 2012 season.[7]", could be changed to something like this: "For the first time in Millennium Force's history, the entire layout of the roller coaster was repainted during the 2011 and 2012 season. New LED lights were also installed around the coaster for the 2012 season."

Fixed.--Astros4477 (talk) 20:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding the Layout section of the article, the reference that is linked to the paragraph (#9) does not mention any numbers of the speed, height, etc. Find a reference that supports this and add it to the paragraph.

Fixed.--Astros4477 (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding the Trains section of the article, reference #10 does not support this statement: "Millennium Force has three trains colored: red, blue, and yellow." These sentences also have no references: "Each seat has an individual hydraulic T-shaped lap bar and seat belt across the rider's lap. The seat belt must be fastened before securing the lapbar."

I added refs for the train colors and the hydraulic lap bars and seat belts. However, I left, The seat belt must be fastened before securing the lapbar. I feel like that is common sense as you can't fasten your seat belt if there is a lap bar over it. If you think it should be deleted then I guess it can be, I just couldn't find a source for that besides for experiencing it myself.--Astros4477 (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but the seat belt part is considered original research.--Dom497 (talk) 00:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I figured you would say that. It's no problem, I'll just delete it.--Astros4477 (talk) 01:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding the Station section of the article, reference #11 does not support this statement, "The station is split up into two platforms, one for unloading and one for loading. Two trains are loading and unloading while the third train is running the course.".

Fixed.--Astros4477 (talk) 20:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding the Operation section of the article, reference #11 does not support this statement, "There is no minimum age requirement, but passengers must meet the miniumum height requirement of 48 inches and a maximum of 78 inches to ride." This reference supports the statement previously mentioned.

Fixed.--Astros4477 (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• I could not find anything within reference #11 that supported this statement: "Passengers are advised that they must not ride Millennium if they have "a history of recent surgery, heart trouble/high blood pressure, neck trouble, back trouble, or any other condition that may be aggravated by riding, or who are pregnant."

The ref doesn't specifically say this about Millennium but it says it about all the rides, which obviously included Millennium.--Astros4477 (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding the Park records (May 2000/May 2012) section of the article, could you please explain to be what the numbers in brackets mean? Example: Most rides at an amusement park (68/74)

68 is the number of rides in May 2000. 74 is the number of rides in May 2012.--Astros4477 (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense! Thanks!--Dom497 (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• A few more references in the Inspiration section need to be added to help verify some of the statements.

--Dom497 (talk) 20:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, I forgot to mention one more thing: "It is different from Millennium Force and Intimidator though because it features different trains, track, mechanics, restraints and uses a chain lift, not a cable lift." has no reference. It shouldn't be hard to find one though.--Dom497 (talk) 11:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I actually couldn't find a reference for that. I'm looking for one of those "Millennium Force vs. Leviathan" articles that websites use to compare coasters but I haven't been able to find one.--Astros4477 (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

All you really have to do is use this website, this website, and find websites that show the trains of MF, and lift hill (the POV would do just fine (for the lift hill part) which is already in the article).--Dom497 (talk) 20:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Done.--Astros4477 (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Copy edit questions

I'm taking a crack at it now. I have a couple questions, which I may add to as I go:

• Should ride names be italicized or not? Looks like most aren't but Bizarro in the lead is.
• What is the difference between a chain lift and cable lift? Can chain lift be wikilinked, or can they both be explained in the lead? Not sure if they're explained later.
• The part about the name being trademarked, followed by the phrase "which raised more speculation about the new ride", should probably be expanded. Just saying there was speculation doesn't really tell us anything useful. Particular details would be better.
• The last sentence includes this: "officials reported that it would not have inversions, which confirmed that the ride would be manufactured by Intamin". Why did that confirm the manufacturer? There is no previous mention of Intamin in the paragraph.
• Can you explain what a "Giga Coaster" is in the text?
• In the layout section, this sentence is confusing: "While the train is being loaded with passengers, the catch car for the cable lift descends the lift and latches onto the middle car of the train." I'm having a hard time visualizing this. What is a catch car? What and where is this lift, and how does it latch onto the middle car? Is it from above or underneath, or something else?
• In the lighting section: "Twenty COLORado Range and ten COLORado Ridge wash lights were installed at the base of the lift hill structure." That needs explanation. I have no idea what those lights are, and I'm guessing most people who aren't experts on either lights, amusement parks, or rollercoasters will know either.
• In most of the article, Giga Coaster is capitalized, but in the influence section, it's lowercase and in quotation marks. I don't know which way is preferred, but they should all be the same.

With an eye towards FAC, I'd say your biggest issue going forward is making sure you explain specialized terminology. Take a slow read through the entire article and look out for places where you're taking information for granted. The average reader is not going to understand what terms mean in the places I mentioned above and elsewhere. I've seen this brought up as an issue numerous times in FACs for video game articles. Good luck! —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the copy edit, it is much appreciated! This is the first roller coaster FAC ever so this helps to get a real outside view on it.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 20:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Stengel's favorite

The article is wrong when it says that Millenium Force is Stengel's favorite among the roller coasters he designed. The PDF that is supposed to support this statement only says that it's one of his 10 favorite projects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.255.215.178 (talk) 03:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Out and back?

I do not know of any reliable sources that can verify that this is and out and back roller coaster, so I said this is a twister roller coaster, which I believe is constructive.Wackyike (talk) 02:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source that says its a twister? Either way, the definition of a twister is if the track goes over/under it's self multiple times. MF only does this twice (at the exact same points). An out and back coaster is a coaster that typically has very few "points of intersection" with the track and go out and back to the station.--Dom497 (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

What is the source that you got those definitions from? I thought an out and back coaster is one where the coaster goes out to a specific point and comes back, and MF doesn't really do that.Wackyike (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Not worth going back and forth undoing each other's edits so I've removed the parameter all together until we figure this out. @Themeparkgc and Astros4477: any opinions?--Dom497 (talk) 14:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Millennium Force is an out and back roller coaster. It goes out to the island, turns around, and comes back. It is defiantly not a twister roller coaster as Dom stated, it only intersects twice.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 17:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Couldn't it also be a terrain coaster then? It takes advantage of adventure island. And yes, it does go to the island, but it turns around twice in the island, so what about a double out and back then? An out and back coaster is when a coaster goes out, turns around, and then heads back to the station. But, MF turns around again on the island.Wackyike (talk) 23:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

A terrain coaster is when it changes elevation throughout the ride. I believe it's all flat land. It doesn't really matter how many times it turns around. Take Diamondback for example, it turns around twice but it's still just an out and back roller coaster. I hope this helps.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 01:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Astros here. Themeparkgc  Talk  05:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Then why isn't it a double out and back then? Also, terrain coasters can be on flat land, like Vortex at Canada's Wonderland(the mountain is artificial) and The Beast as well. I still believe it could also be a terrain coaster.Wackyike (talk) 20:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Millennium Force is defined as an "out and back" coaster by this source and on the wikipedia "out and back" page. http://thepointol.com/millennium-force/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_and_back_roller_coasterFirstDrop87 (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a reliable resource, nor is the other one.Wackyike (talk) 14:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

@Wackyike:"Wikipedia isn't a reliable resource" - Please don't say that because that is incorrect. A lot of articles are actually very well supported by references (such as this one). Anyway, this source (which has been "approved" to be reliable by the Wikipedia community) states that it is an out and back: [1].--Dom497 (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

That resource has differences between RCDb.com that there shouldn't be so I don't know whether it should be included(it's also enthusiast driven). I did not see any references on that out and back page on Wikipedia.Wackyike (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

You do realize in a way (depending how you look at it), RCDB is also enthusiast driven yet still extremely reliable. Either way, I give up as I see no end to this.--Dom497 (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

If the "track" field will be filled a consensus is needed. According to Terrain roller coaster, the coasters use the natural landscape of the land and are designed closer to the ground. The article mentions the coaster would be significantly more expensive than if built on flat land. Under this definition Millennium Force does not fit, regardless of going over water or onto an island, as neither of them affected the design of the coaster.FirstDrop87 (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Son of beast is considered terrain, and it wasn't close to the ground.Wackyike (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

That's because Son of Beast incorporates the surrounding land into the design of the ride. If you built Son of Beast elsewhere, it would cause significant change to the ride design. Millennium Force is not influenced any surrounding land elements and can be built on any piece of flat land with no changes.FirstDrop87 (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Two things. First off, Son of Beast appears to be built on flat land. There are photos showing the land it was on, and they appear to be flat. Second, just because a roller coaster isn't always close to the ground doesn't mean it's not a terrain roller coaster, like Vortex(the mountain is artificial), and The Beast.Wackyike (talk) 22:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

@Wackyike: SOB is considered terrain because the land under it isn't flat according to this source [2]. But that's the only ref I could find saying its terrain. Regarding Vortex, you do realize the mountain has nothing to do with it being a terrain right? Also, the beast is almost on the ground for most of the ride.--Dom497 (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

If that's the case with Vortex, I see no reason why MF isn't terrain. If only the river influences it, why not MF?Wackyike (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Terrain is such a loose term often used incorrectly to describe a type of roller coaster. Major elements – such as the first drop, banked turns, or an inversion – need to make significant use of the terrain, and typically there should be more than one element on the ride that fits the criteria. The Beast is a great example. The first drop utilizes a steep hillside, and several of the turns are banked by a hill. And it's not just about elevation and banked turns. The Beast's entire track following the 1st lift hill is in a wooded area isolated from the rest of the park, which is clearly a notable feature of the ride.

Instead of pointing to other coasters as a reason to label MF as terrain, we should just focus on MF. Other coasters could be incorrectly labeled. So with that in mind, I don't see any examples of MF relying on the use of terrain for either the track layout or ride experience (passing over water on part of the ride is hardly significant). --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Some of those coasters are actually correctly defined a terrain, on RCDb.com. With that in mind, we actually can compare it to other coasters.Wackyike (talk) 12:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

It could be considered original research for us to do the comparison, but more importantly, you won't be able to achieve consensus here without defining clear examples that show why terrain is a significant part of the ride's design. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

RCDb.com doesn't say what MF is, which is a problem. I guess it is subjective to what is considered "close to the ground."Wackyike (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, you guys win. It's an out and back. I apologize for that comment about Wikipedia not being a reliable resource and anything else I might've done.Wackyike (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

It isn't about winning, and no need to apologize. We welcome and appreciate others who want to improve articles. Just keep in mind that when you think a change may be controversial, open a discussion about it on the article's talk page. If you cite a source for every change you make in an article, then a discussion isn't usually needed. As for the "Out and back" designation of this coaster, it's certainly worth noting that there aren't any cited sources that support it. May be better off leaving this one blank, though it doesn't really matter to me. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

World Records

There seems to be some confusion between Millenium Force (the ride) and Cedar Point amusement park. Millenium Force surely does not and cannot have held park records? SovalValtos (talk) 07:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there needs to be more clarification in the "Park records" section, but it is mentioned in the lead that the coaster either broke or helped break these records. So, although some are park records, it was this coaster that helped the park achieve them. You can see this briefly mentioned in the Featured article candidate discussion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The lead does not reflect the body of the article which claims holding, rather than helping break. I think it is stretching a point to say the Millenium Force (the ride) even helped to break the first record under 'Park Records'; Most rides at an amusement park (68/73), just by being one in a group of seventy three. Surely it would be better to change the section to start

Park records[edit]

Cedar Point amusement park has held records for the following (May 2000 statistic on left and May 2013 statistic on right):[33]

SovalValtos (talk) 18:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Raking Section - Entrance image

The image I posted is a picture of the logo of Millennium Force that is located at the entrance to the ride. The picture itself might not depict the entrance per se, but the picture is located at the entrance. If anyone wants to double check, check out the streetview link below. https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4820618,-82.6864622,3a,75y,165.82h,76.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZDo02sDRKKdF6f8BvbfinQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 D437 (talk) 20:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the sign is located at the entrance. In an article that already has seven pics, I'm not sure what value it brings to the table though. If the image was properly cut and only depicted the sign, then perhaps it would be acceptable with a proper caption, but that's not the case in your proposed edit. The image is poorly centered on the sign and shows an employee in the lower right. I recommend finding a better one and getting consensus here before readding. To avoid turning this into a gallery, we may need to cut out a picture or two before adding a new one. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

See, the employee in the corner adds a natural element to the image, it won't look like its a studio image, I agree it looks amateurish, but that's what the image is all about, it should show what the entrance actually looks like. In many images on Wikipedia, there are people in the picture, there's vehicles, there's tourists, you wouldn't say avoid all of them and concentrate only on the subject, you'd say it looks good and natural. Its the same here. Also, the more the number of relevant images, the better the reader understands the article. Most of the people I've seen just scroll through many of the articles concentrating only on the images. Let the image stay, it will help if someone's researching the rides the night before they go (they generally do that!).D437 (talk) 05:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Deadly437: There's nothing wrong with a park employee or guest being in the picture, but an off-centered picture with the head of an employee looking down is where I would draw the line. If more of the employee was showing, and if the sign was closer to the center, then it would be more acceptable. The way it was positioned in the shot is distracting and doesn't live up to encyclopedic standards. I see you've already rammed it back in before consensus was reached. Per WP:BRD, it's better etiquette to avoid actions like that while we have a discussion going. Otherwise, it can be seen as a form of edit warring which is not permitted. Let's give it some time to let other editors weigh in. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry, but there was no response from your side for a considerable amount of time, so I thought you agreed with my views. But you are right. We'll let other editors weigh in.D437 (talk) 03:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not a fan of this specific photo. I'd be in favor of having a better photo of the actual entrance and sign. The photo in use is amateurish and the lighting is too distracting for me. Plus, it is off-centered and that is distracting as well.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 03:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

In response to the comment, "...there was no response from your side for a considerable amount of time...", keep in mind that a reasonable amount of time is 1-2 days (sometimes 3 if a weekend is involved). You waited only 9 hours. Many of us are only active on here Mon-Fri and are located in different time zones. Typically when only two editors are involved in the discussion, you should definitely wait for confirmation from the other editor, or at least post another reply asking for a response using the {{ping}} option. Then after another 24 hours, if there still isn't a response, you can make the decision to reinstate the edit that was being challenged (some editors would prefer that you wait longer, like a week since we're in no rush here). Hope that helps for future reference. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)