Talk:List of roller coaster elements

message: In my opinion, this article should focus on elements that appear in a wide range of coasters. In other words, common ones. One-of-a-kind elements that may appear on just one or two rides should really be discussed on their respective ride's articles. For example, one editor recently attempted to add the helix element from Shambhala: Expedición al Himalaya to the article; while B&M has apparently given the element a name, Shambhala is the only ride to feature it. As such, it should be in that ride's article alone for now. If B&M start adding it to many other future designs (something they have yet to do on their hypers), then perhaps. Opinions?  --McDoobAU93 18:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that sounds reasonable. If the element has two or more installations then it should be included here. Rather than just removing the information maybe Shambhala and any other relevant articles could be expanded with this information. Themeparkgc  Talk  23:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  One-off elements 

message: This article uses the term "camelback hill" two times, and the term "camelback" (without "hill") four times.  From the context, it would seem that a camelback and/or a camelback hill is probably a roller-coaster element, but oddly it is never defined on this page.
There is no article on it either.  Camelback hill redirects to Air time, and yet that article never uses the term "camelback" except in a photo caption, and offers no definition of it.  The redirect made me think that maybe a camelback hill is a hill that causes zero-G or negative-G to the riders, but the caption seems to indicate that the situation is more complex than that.  Camelback is a disambiguation page which doesn't seem to have any options related to rollercoasters.
If a camelback and/or a camelback hill is a roller-coaster element, I suggest that someone should create a Roller coaster elements#Camelback hill section for this article!  If it's not, I suggest that it be defined.  I have been riding roller coasters all my life but have never heard of this term.  I know that camels have one hump or two, so maybe a camelback hill is a hill with two humps?  I'm guessing a camelback and a camelback hill are the same thing, but that's just a guess. — Lawrence King (talk) 01:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. Two years later, and the situation has not changed. I'm placing the jargon template. 12.233.147.42 (talk) 00:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for bringing up this concern. The article clearly needs a lot of work, and I plan to make a lot of improvements over the next few months. For now, I've added the camelback entry under thrill elements with references and removed the recently-added  template. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please define "camelback" 

message: Just dropping a note here that moving this page to "List of roller coaster elements" may be more appropriate based on its current format. We could then put everything into charts, with each one belonging in a particular category (i.e. Inverting elements), to make it easier to link to subsections closer to the element name. For example, we would keep the "Inverting elements" section, and a link like Batwing (roller coaster element) would redirect directly to that section. I may start working on this over the next few months. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: As the only coverage of the term roller coaster element is the two lead sentences, an argument can be made that this is already a list article, albeit with rather thorough coverage of some list entries. Moving to List of roller coaster elements makes sense to me with roller coaster element becoming a  until a general article is written. —Ost (talk) 06:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Converting the article to a list 

message: There isn't any source cited for using that term, and I can't find any information about this term being used. Twisted Cyclone's element is described by the manufacturer as a "reverse cobra roll,"https://www.rockymtnconstruction.com/twisted-cyclone/ but other than the name, matches the text's description of the element. Kondaa's is described by the manufacturer as a "non inverting cobra roll,"https://www.intamin.com/project/kondaa/ which doesn't contain the two heartline rolls that the text describes nor does it invert at all, and therefore belongs under non-inverting elements. I'm making a new section for Non-Inverting Cobra Roll under Non-Inverting elements, and unless I can find a citation for Inside Out Cobra Roll, change the name to Reverse Cobra Roll --Alaskabear41 (talk) 18:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The section was created recently by an anonymous editor in this edit. Must have been missed by others watching this page. I went ahead and removed it. If you have secondary reliable sources that mention the non-inverting element you wish to add, then please be sure to cite them. If you only have primary sources straight from the manufacturer, then it would be best to wait until secondary sources are found. If you need help understanding the difference between primary and secondary, see WP:PSTS. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Alaskabear41: I see you've already added the content. Please be sure to cite the information in accordance with WP:V and WP:CITE and see the advice I mentioned above about waiting for secondary sources. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I cited RCDB for the non-inverting cobra roll; if that isn't a good source to use let me know. --Alaskabear41 (talk) 19:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It will suffice for now. In the long-term, this page will be overhauled and elements that are not predominant on roller coasters will likely be removed from the page. So unless it catches on, it probably won't survive the overhaul. We'll see. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:23, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inside Out Cobra Roll? 

message: As a person who visits this article multiple times a week, I find it unnecessary to add things that are unique to only one coaster, such as the "demonic knot." Maybe we should delete these parts? I say yes. --RusherLeBFDIFan (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Note that this has been a topic of discussion for almost a decade and most everyone on the talk page agrees. Unfortunately, this page attracts a lot of IP and one-time editors.—JlACEer (talk) 20:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

text: Disagree. Just because only one current coaster has a specific element doesn't mean that the element doesn't exist or doesn't need a name and description. Maybe that element will appear tomorrow on a new coaster. Maybe a new manufacturer will give it a different name. The Pretzel Loop was once new and singular. This page exists to describe different elements on coasters. I've never heard of that element but now I want to know what it looks like. Mtjaws (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: "" – Wikipedia isn't a collection of all that "exists" (WP:INDISCRIMINATE). If and when something rises to prominence and receives ample coverage in reliable sources, then Wikipedia would have reason to cover it. Minor details and aspects are often left out. Encyclopedias are not databases. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

text: Agree. One-off or first-of-their-kind elements should be listed and described in the article for the attraction that has it. That resolves the problem of wanting to learn more about the element since it would probably arise from someone first learning about the ride and going to its article. If it becomes popular and appears on multiple rides, then it can be added here.  --McDoobAU93 21:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

text: Agree – Articles on Wikipedia are a summation of all significant aspects for a given topic. We should treat articles like research. In a study about "roller coaster elements", only the most relevant elements – usually those that have received significant coverage – would be explored. Elements that only appear on one or two coasters wouldn't likely make the cut, unless they were prominently featured in a major mainstream source like Amusement Today, USA Today, LA Times, etc. Editors trying to add obscure examples would be required to demonstrate significant coverage or some other reason that justifies WP:DUE. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maybe we should kill our darlings? 

message: Has anyone actually ever heard this term used? I do not know anyone or any publication that has ever referred to a pre-drop as a tester or trick hill. It was apparently added back in 2010 by an IP editor who had a habit of adding a lot of unsourced material, much of which has been undone or deleted. Others have changed the wording a bit over the years, but no one seems to have ever questioned the term. If there are no objections, I would like to rename this section pre-drop, which is how it is defined on the Bolliger & Mabillard page.—JlACEer (talk) 20:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't, and if there are sources out there, they would need to be heavily scrutinized. That term has been in this article for as long as I can remember, so it's possible some sources have used that term as well after seeing it here. I support rephrasing/cleaning up that section, dropping that term, and deleting the Tester hill redirect. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tester Hill 

message: I couldn't find mouse turns in there, although they are quite common. Or are they listed under a different name? 
(Mouse turns are sharp turns, where the train feels like it's going off track.) 
Mia 2A02:810D:A8C0:1EC:F5EA:7FDE:A187:7BC1 (talk) 03:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mouse-Turns?