# Talk:New Texas Giant

Current records listed on here are false, the Texas Giant is no longer a wooden roller coaster, it is a hybrid; so im removing that part of the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpshuler (talk • contribs) 19:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC) 

Should we move this page to New Texas Giant?Xtreme2000 (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to it. The web site calls it both the "New Texas Giant" and just "Texas Giant", but Amusement Today has it listed under the new name. What does the sign at the entrance to the ride read? That might be the deciding factor and good indication of whether or not it's a permanent change. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd support that. The entrance sign says the New Texas Giant and RCDB lists it as New Texas Giant.--Astros4477 (talk) 17:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd argue the WP:COMMONNAME is Texas Giant. Even when it was relaunched I recall seeing in the media it being called "new Texas Giant" (new being an adjective) and not always "New Texas Giant". Since a common name is preferred over an official name on Wikipedia, I'd be opposed to the move. Themeparkgc  Talk  23:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Support a move. The Rattler was moved to Iron Rattler when a similar change was made to that ride. --Ahecht (TALKPAGE) 01:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Themeparkgc  Talk  23:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Here we go again. Theme park fans are deleting legitimate, significant WP:WEIGHT material about accidents at a theme park. They are also not getting consensus in Talk. --Nbauman (talk) 03:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I deleted unreliable witness statements only, not "facts". These witnesses claim to have seen and heard things that they could not have heard or seen. The lapbars on this ride are hydraulic and don't "click", the portion of the ride where the accident occurred cannot be seen from where many of the witnesses were, and two quotes about the lapbar position directly contradict each other. This isn't Wikinews, and just because someone was quoted in the paper or on TV doesn't mean that it can, or should, be included here. Per WP:NEWSORG, reporting of rumors has little encyclopedic value unless it is verifiable, which in this case it is not. I have no problem giving this incident proper WP:WEIGHT, and when actual facts about the accident are released we can include those in the article. I edited the article to leave some of the statements in, but removed the unreliable and contradictory ones. --Ahecht (TALKPAGE) 13:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
The question is not whether the lapbars click; it's whether WP:RSs said that the ride attendant said that the lapbars click, according to WP:RS. In fact, many WP:RSs reported that. So according to WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT, it was reported by multiple reliable sources and should go in the entry.
It may well be that the lapbars don't click, but according to this account, that's what the attendant said. The attendant may have been wrong. That might have something to do with the accident. If you can find a WP:RS who says, with regard to this incident, that the lapbars don't click, add that.
This is an important part of WP:RS that a lot of people don't understand. Yes, if many WP:RSs are wrong (or you think they're wrong), it goes into the entry even if it's wrong. All you can do is add other WP:RSs with a correct view.
(Unfortunately you can't just find something that says, without regard to this incident, that the bars don't click and put that in; that would be WP:OR. I went to the German ride manufacturer's web site and saw a description of the car, which said that it was a pneumatic bar, and it didn't seem to click, but it would have been WP:OR for me to add my own research and conclusions to the entry.)
Furthermore, according to WP:NOCONSENSUS "In deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, image, or other content being kept." --Nbauman (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
First of all, this is not a deletion discussion. Second, a WP:RS didn't say the lapbar clicked, an unreliable source quoted in a WP:RS did and per WP:NEWSORG a rumor, even when reported by what would otherwise be a WP:RS, is of limited encyclopedic value. Third, I will refer you to WP:DRNC. --Ahecht (TALKPAGE) 03:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
This is not a rumor. It's eyewitness testimony by an identified person -- Carmen Brown -- who saw it. It was reported in the Dallas News, and repeated by multiple well-established news outlets which are generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact, which is the criteria of WP:RS. The AP fact-checked the story. 
It doesn't matter whether you think the eyewitness is reliable or not, for Wikipedia purposes. What matters is that those reliable sources quoted her. 
I don't want to say that the lap bar did or didn't click. I want to repeat what the eyewitness said, as quoted in WP:RSs. You haven't given one good reason for deleting this. 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/woman-dies-while-riding-texas-giant-roller-coaster-at-six-flags-over-texas/2013/07/19/ddc0b9e0-f0dd-11e2-bc0d-556690a86be2_story.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/woman-dies-flags-roller-coaster-texas-article-1.1404147
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/21/woman-killed-rollercoaster-fell-police
http://gma.yahoo.com/six-flags-roller-coaster-accident-witness-says-victim-132725040--abc-news-topstories.html
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20130719-breaking-news-arlington-police-fire-at-six-flags-for-fatal-incident-texas-giant-said-to-be-involved.ece
Early attention was beginning to focus on witnesses’ reports that the woman’s safety restraint may have come undone.
Carmen Brown of Arlington was waiting in line as the victim was being secured in for the ride. She said she believed that the woman’s son was on the ride with her.
Brown said the woman had expressed concern to a park employee that she was not secured correctly in her seat.
“He was basically nonchalant,” Brown said. “He was, like, ‘As long as you heard it click, you’re fine.’ Hers was the only one that went down once, and she didn’t feel safe. But they let her still get on the ride.”
--Nbauman (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Carmen Brown told WFAA that she saw the "click" incident and that she saw the woman fall out (despite the fact that she didn't and couldn't have seen her fall out from where she was). The other sources are just regurgitating the original interview with WFAA, and when reporters base their information off other news coverage, the coverage is only a single source.
Carmen Brown did say it (the RSs clearly establish that), but the fact that she said it doesn't matter. Per WP:NOTNEWS, "not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia" and while the accident is definitely suitable for inclusion, every interview on the subject is not necessarily suitable. Even if what Carmen Brown said were true, not every widely reported statement by a witness needs to be included in an article.
Don't forget that this article is about the Texas Giant, not Carmen Brown, WFAA, or media coverage of roller coaster accidents. For example, KTVU, a WP:RS, quoted an NTSB intern as saying that the pilots of the crashed Asiana flight in San Francisco had the made-up names Sum Ting Wong and Ho Lee Fuk, and while that was widely reported in WP:RSs and ended up being included in the KTVU Wikipedia article, it was not relevant enough for inclusion in the Asiana Airlines Flight 214 article.
Finally, and most importantly, WFAA itself has backed off on that interview. The day after the accident, they silently edited the original article that contained the quote to remove any mention of the lap bar clicking[1], and in an article the following day addressed the now widely repeated quote as being suspect and quoted the manufacturer as saying that the lap bar is infinitely adjustable (and therefore doesn't click)[2]. From WP:DUST:"However, with breaking news, reports are often made without the usual level of background checking, and are often superseded by later reports."Reports on breaking news stories can often be driven by a desire to get a "scoop", including less reliable sources or minor details, which would not get included in a less time-critical report. Wikipedia is not driven by a printing deadline, so it is better to wait until details have been clarified than try to track scoops and correct later. Sources from "scoop-based" reports should be treated with caution, especially if the information in question is not repeated in later, less hurried, reports. A newspaper might only have to be "correct enough for today", but Wikipedia should strive for more."Editors should be wary of adding too much information based on sources published very shortly after or during a current event, but instead allow time for secondary sources to do research and publish material without time pressure, which should give a broader picture and better impression of what viewpoints are deemed significant."
Lots and lots of early news stories on well publicized incidents include false witness statements by people that want to get on TV or see their name in the paper, but these false statements are generally not included in later articles (or Wikipedia articles) on the incident. Because such false statement are not included in later reporting, it's hard to track down examples, but it happens all the time. --Ahecht (TALKPAGE) 20:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Let's take this one point at a time. This is not a rumor, it's eyewitness testimony, right? --Nbauman (talk) 03:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Texas Giant/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Dom497 (talk · contribs) 01:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: 

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

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 


### Comments
Shouldn't the article name be "New Texas Giant"?--Dom497 (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I was hesitant in doing so per my reasoning here. If we were to want to rename it, a full requested move would probably have to be initiated as I am not sure whether an uncontroversial move would be accepted. I feel this would be outside the scope of a GA review. Themeparkgc  Talk  04:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
@Themeparkgc: I understand your reasoning but than why is "New Texas Giant" always referred to as the coaster in the article? Either way, I let this pass as long as you promise start a full move request to see what everyone thinks. :) --Dom497 (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
@Dom497: But if I'm on the "slightly oppose" side, why would I be the proposer of a move? If you think this is an issue, then feel free to start one yourself. The only reason why I refer to it as the New Texas Giant in the article, is so that I can distinguish between it and the original Texas Giant without having to write old/new all the time. Themeparkgc  Talk  22:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
"After relaunching in 2011 as the New Texas Giant, the ride's popularity has returned" - Sounds a little weird with the "was". Kinda an option thing to fix.--Dom497 (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I've reworded it. Is it better now? Themeparkgc  Talk  04:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Just to clarify, "Six Flags Over Texas performed over 1,200 feet (370 m) of trackwork on the ride in the 2008-2009 offseason, with the ultimate aim of improving the ride's smoothness. Although the maintenance did improve the ride, park officials needed a more permanent solution. Initial speculation indicated the ride would be removed entirely from the park; however, Six Flags Over Texas denied any intention or consideration to do so" is all supported by ref 6? (I don't have access to the ref so I just want to make sure).--Dom497 (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes. I'm not sure why I never added the URL, but I have now, so you can verify if need be. Themeparkgc  Talk  04:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Wasn't the cause of the accident published? If so I think that should be mentioned. Also, if possible, maybe include how this accident influenced many other Six Flags parks adding seat belts to their coasters (if there are no other sources than Screamscape, just ignore this comment) and how Iron Rattler was also closed after the accident (maybe this is going to far for the scope of the article?).--Dom497 (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Due to the lawsuit they only published the fact that it was not a mechanical failure, a fact I have now included in the article. I've also added the following sentence with a news article to support Iron Rattler's seat belt additions: "The incident saw Six Flags introduce seat belts as secondary restraints on other roller coasters within their chain". Themeparkgc  Talk  04:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
"Additionally, a 540° helix after the mid-course brake run was converted into a 180&deg" - Bolded part needs to be fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Fixed Themeparkgc  Talk  04:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
"Without losing too much speed" - This sounds boarder line OR because its hard to tell with the refs listed. I'd say its best to remove this unless there is a source that says exactly this.--Dom497 (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Removed Themeparkgc  Talk  04:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Ref 1 needs to be formatted. Also, try to find a better source that list's how long the ride is.--Dom497 (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Lol, missed that one. RCDB doesn't have the duration, so it has been removed (site note: Duane now lists the two rides separately [3] [4]). Themeparkgc  Talk  04:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Ref 16 is redirecting and Ref 14 is dead.--Dom497 (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Fixed both with archive links. Themeparkgc  Talk  04:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Close but just needs a little work...will be on hold for 7 days.--Dom497 (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

@Dom497: Thanks for the review. I think I have addressed everything. Themeparkgc  Talk  04:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Pass! Good work!--Dom497 (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on New Texas Giant. 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/20131210215236/http://www.amusementtoday.com/issues/may_2011/at_may_2011_web.pdf to http://www.amusementtoday.com/issues/may_2011/at_may_2011_web.pdf
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) 09:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)