Talk:The Big One (roller coaster)

message: I went on it last Saturday or Sunday (the weekend's a bit of a blur) and it cost £7 each, is this because it was off-season or is the statement in the article "it costs £9 a go" out-of-date? edd 16:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: When it opened, I thought it was the tallest and fastest roller coaster in the world. Not tallest and steepest. - Dudesleeper ·  Talk 13:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Records 

message: I don't think that this ride hits 87 mph because it only has a 205 foot drop. Griffon has a 205' drop, yet hits only 71-75 mph. Goliath at SFMM has a 255', but only hits 85 mph. So, the ride should only hit 72-76 mph. 71.172.229.167 02:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blackpool has exaggerated the height and speed since the day it was first announced. The 235 advertised height is from sea level and not the actual height of the coaster — note that the Blackpool website never claims 235 as the height of the coaster — just a very nebulous "height." This coaster cannot possibly reach a speed of 87 mph without external propulsion or LIMS. This was all confirmed by the designer and builder of the ride.—JlACEer (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources—JlACEer (talk) 04:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big One's Speed 

message: To the IP address who keeps changing the height and speed of the ride in the infobox, please refrain from editing until you can find reliable sources to back up your claim. I very much doubt that the ride reaches 84mph, and there are plenty of sources to back up the original statistics... to name a few, CoasterForce, Thrill Network, Ultimate Coaster, Coaster Crazy, RCDB. Any subsequent edits will be reverted unless you can find some reliable, impartial sources - see WP:REF for details. Seaserpent85 12:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, This coaster could not have been 80mph, because if you look at the fastest coaster box at the bottom, one is 80mph and the other is 80.8mph. If you look at Steel Phantom article, you will not see this coaster in the box. Also, The height would have to be between 205' and 259'. Branson03 20:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to height and speed 

message: According to Pleasure Beach, Blackpool the height of the rollercoaster is 235ft and it reaches speeds of 85-87mph.   I believe the park itself is more reliable than any "enthusiast" website who generally take the information from RCDB, which, according to the park is inaccurate. Guiness World Records, in 1994, were happy to submit the Pepsi Max Big One as the Tallest, Fastest, Steepest rollercoaster in the world at 235ft and 87mph.   It reaches 85-87 mph as Blackpool generally has a strong easterly wind which pushes the train faster than it would on a normal layout in a normal amusement park.   As I say, I have now re-edited the article to show the OFFICIAL height & speed as accessed at www.pleasurebeachblackpool.com on 03/11/2007   I trust this will not be yet-again reedited with inaccurate information from an enthusiasts website.   Please contact Pleasure Beach Blackpool to confirm the information on Wikipedia!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark@livingstonalive.co.uk (talk • contribs) 20:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the records from Arrow Dynamics the drop is only 205 feet. The park's claim of 235 feet is from SEA LEVEL. The actual height from the ground is only 213. This is backed up by multiple sources, including an interview with Ron Toomer who was the president of Arrow Dynamics. He gives the specific heights for Magnum, Desperado, The Big One, and Steel Phantom. The reason all the enthusiast websites have the same information is that they too got the information from Arrow Dynamics. Please do not change this entry. The park's marketing department will likely continue to use a "height" of 235 feet, but that is not a statistic for the actual height of the structure.—JlACEer (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure where the wind boost idea came from but that is nonsense. This coaster does not reach a speed of 85—87 mph — that's impossible given the actual height of the drop. Those speeds would require a drop of at least 250—260 feet.—JlACEer (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Height & Speed 

message: "the usual acceleration for the ride is 74mph/112kph"?  mph and kph measure speed, not acceleration.  --Tigerthink (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acceleration? 

message: The last time I was on The Big One, a couple of years ago, the tape over the tannoy was still claiming it was the "tallest, fastest and longest rollercoaster in the world". Are they still playing these lies over the tannoy?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.224.4 (talk) 00:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tannoy Announcement at Station

message: "At its highest point above ground level, the ride reaches 213 feet (65 m)". So how can it be 235ft high? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 235 was incorrect. An IP changed it recently, so I changed it back to 213. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing to do with Blackpool being partly subterranean, then. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: See Big One's Speed above. The 235 foot figure is from sea level, something the marketing department latched onto years ago when the coaster first opened. —JlACEer (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Height 

message: The article stated that the ride's build cost of £12,000,000 equates to "$19,669,316" — which is nonsensical, as it carries the implicit assumption that the cost was exactly £12,000,000.00 to the penny. It would be far more reasonable to state the conversion to two significant figures, as $20,000,000; which is the figure that has been stated by the Coasterpedia (Wikia) article for quite a while now.
I corrected this significance error back in April, only to have the correction undone a few hours later for no stated reason. I can only presume that the other editor has never heard of significance; has never, for instance, read the Ludicrous Precision article on TV Tropes. — Korax1214 (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true. Except that it's equally ludicrous to suggest that it cost exactly £20 million. Is there a better source than Coasterpedia (Wikia), which perhaps uses the word "about" or "roughly"? 20.133.0.13 (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That is indeed the point I'm making; that the "$19,669,316" conversion is predicated on the assumption that the "£12,000,000" cost is exact, which is very unlikely indeed. In the absence of any source which definitively states otherwise, it must be assumed that the £12x10^6 figure is approximate, and hence any conversion thereof should be stated accordingly. — Korax1214 (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

text: This issue has recently come up again, with an IP editor claiming the build cost to be "$15,858,480" (and committing the further errors of putting the dollar cost first, as if it was the pound cost which was the conversion, and of failing to account for currency fluctuations). — Korax1214 (talk) 09:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Conversion rates in 1994 fluctuated between $1.49 to $1.51 = £1. Your conversion of approx US$20 million at the time is too high.—JlACEer (talk) 15:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are we converting the currency to US dollars to begin with? It should simply state £12 million per MOS:CURRENCY, especially since this is an approximated cost. Conversions to other currencies are only needed for "less-familiar currencies" per the guideline. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I wasn't sure if we should be putting more than one currency in the cost, but I wanted to at least make sure it was accurate. Good to know that the MOS suggests using just the local currency.—JlACEer (talk) 16:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries! That was kind of a rhetorical question directed at anyone that wants to keep the conversion. I was pretty confident you didn't insert it!  ;-)  --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

text:  Re. JlACEer's point ref. the conversion rate, I was taking on faith that the original conversion of "$19,669,316" was accurate for 1994. It appears that the significance error wasn't the only one. Still, I for one am glad that MOS:CURRENCY finally(?) settles the matter. — Korax1214 (talk) 07:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Build cost — absurd statement thereof 

message: The official page for the rollercoaster lists it as "The Big One" with a capitalised "The".  Should the page be moved to reflect this?  I know the policy at WP:THE is normally to exclude definite articles, but this does seem to be part of a proper name. YorkshireLad (talk) 11:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm surprised it has taken this long for someone to bring this up. Although we typically avoid using "the" before a roller coaster name, there are exceptions such as: The Beast (roller coaster) and The Voyage (roller coaster). I would not oppose changing the article's page name.—JlACEer (talk) 13:36, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , (aware that I'm reviving a discussion from nearly a year ago, that I somehow never replied to) I may move the page tomorrow, in that case.  The "The" does seem to be capitalised in the article (as described at WP:THE.  In any case, the "the" is an integral part of the name—if the convention were to italicise rollercoaster names, say, you'd write "The Big Dipper", but "The Big One"—so perhaps this might be a case of WP:IAR even if it does turn out to be not to the letter of the MOS guideline on definite articles. YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add definite article to title? 

message: What is a pop can? Is it a can that bursts open or something? I'm confused? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7f:dc08:9000:468:5648:ba4b:9195 (talk) 19:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: "Pop" is a short-hand version of "soda pop". Probably a more common term in the US, specifically the northern part of the US. It's just another way of saying drink can. Other options include "soft drink can" or "soda pop can". I'm not opposed to changing it if you feel the need. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Linked it. Also not opposed if you want to change it, but I think most people outside of the U.K. know what a pop can is.—JlACEer (talk) 15:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pepsi Max pop can? 

message: In July 1994 during the ride's inaugural season, 26 people were injured when the computer system failed to completely stop a train returning to the station. The result of this brake failure was a collision with a train parked inside the ride's station. Another train collision occurred in August 2000, caused by another computer failure and injured 16 people.
In April 2021, a train ascending the lift hill halted, leaving a number of people stranded near the top of the ride. Park staff had to scale the ride and safely guide riders as they walked down off the ride.''
Is this really necessary? The ride has stopped on the lift hill countless times during operation to date and will continue to do so, including evacuations. This is nothing unusual and in fact intended behaviour for any roller coaster, so is this addition really worth making a note of? As far as I'm concerned an "incident" should be a case unique to the ride in question such as dangerous situations, collisions, injuries etc, and not one that is a (rather sensationalized) regular occurrence on rides worldwide and part of their operating procedures.
:IMO, no. Train stoppages are not incidents that need to be recorded in wikipedia no matter how much the news like to sensationalize them.—JlACEer (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Incidents