Talk:Top Thrill 2

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Top Thrill Dragster. 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/20111106192109/http://rcdb.com/r.htm?ot=2&pp=86 to http://www.rcdb.com/r.htm?ot=2&pp=86
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131125045107/http://www.martin-vleminckx.com/mva_web_3_019.htm to http://www.martin-vleminckx.com/mva_web_3_019.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100625194911/http://people.setonhill.edu/ChristopherUlicne/project1_cu.html to http://people.setonhill.edu/ChristopherUlicne/project1_cu.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: , When a ride is closed for maintenance or even for repairs, if the amount of time is indefinite and generally considered short-term, then we usually don't track that on Wikipedia. Major repairs that are covered in the media (by more than one reliable source) will generally be listed in the article. However, this shouldn't change the status from operating to closed, unless the closure spans a significant amount of time and is receiving a lot of press coverage. Currently, that's not the case with the September 2017 incident, which hasn't even been confirmed by the park. Speculation should be kept to a minimum and will undergo heavy scrutiny.
Other editors at the project have brought this up many times in the past, and one of the most recent discussions is here:
:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amusement Parks/Archive 3#"Under refurbishment" and WP:TRAVELGUIDE.
I'm almost tempted to remove the speculation altogether, as it's not really beneficial to the article at this point. Wikipedia isn't a travel guide or a newspaper. Temporary closures and minor incidents that may be covered in those are not necessarily appropriate for an encyclopedia. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closed for maintenance 

message: This article needs some updating. JParksT2023 (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Care to be more specific? Not much has changed since the article was granted GA status. The coaster is still one of only two strata coasters in the world. It is still the second tallest, with the second-highest drop and the third-fastest speed of any coaster in the world. It still has six trains, each painted a different color. It still uses the same hydraulic launch to propel the trains to 120 mph in four seconds. What do you think "desperately" needs to be changed?—JlACEer (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I do see some  tags, so that could be an issue if not cleaned up over the next few months, but those were just added a month ago, so there's time. , anything specifically you think needs addressed besides that? --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: My main concern was the tags (I did not see the date they were added, which is my fault). As you know, tags like the citation needed tag can constitute an immediate failure of a good article review, so that is what I was mainly concerned about. I was also thinking that this article could use some updating as well with more recent information. I do see your point, —JlACEer, but I do think that it could be useful to find more recent information to update the article with. I was a little harsh in my original statement, but I do think it needs to be cleaned up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JParksT2023 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, well, harsh or not, it did call attention to the problem. It's unfortunate that content was added without proper citations. I've located several sources and added them to the article. I'm still trying to locate a source for the structure having been completed shortly after the official announcement. It would seem logical since the highest point was topped off just one month prior, but we can't draw our own conclusions. I hope we can find a source as it was so unusual for any park to wait so long before making an official announcement. The structure was almost completely finished before Cedar Point issued a press release with specifics. It would be beneficial to be able to keep that statement in the article.—JlACEer (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Work Needed 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: page moved.  Adog (Talk・Cont) 16:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Top Thrill Dragster →  – Precedence from Talk:Iron Gwazi#Requested move 17 September 2019 (and discussion beforehand) indicates roller coasters that are renovated or refurbished utilizing aspects of its previous incarnation should be merged and renamed in a single article. These two attractions share a common history and realistically it is a succession. It should not be a controversial move, but I want to ensure this has support to move at this time given its recent announcement. Adog (Talk・Cont) 13:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 1 August 2023 

message: The ride manufacturer is Zamperla. Source: https://www.cedarpoint.com/top-thrill-2-update 2600:1009:B178:C68D:F055:713C:3B1C:573D (talk) 04:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not that simple. Zamperla modified the original ride. They didn't build one from the ground up, meaning they are not the "sole" manufacturer of the ride. If we look at RCDB's entry, it still has Intamin listed as the make with a note at the bottom about this. The infobox lists both Intamin and Zamperla in different fields, and this seems like a good compromise. We don't need to pick a winner here. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Steel Vengeance has RMC as the manufacturer and not have the original Mean Streak manufacturer. Cedar Point says Zamperla is the manufacturer in this sentence: Top Thrill 2 is currently experiencing an extended closure as Zamperla (the ride’s manufacturer) completes a mechanical modification to the ride's vehicles. 2600:1009:B17B:210A:4436:2B1A:AAD6:AB4F (talk) 03:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That's apples to oranges. The entire track was replaced during the construction of Steel Vengeance, going from wood to steel, and it is a completely different layout (100% different). Also, RCDB's entry for Vengeance shows RMC as the manufacturer, treating it as a brand new ride. For TT2, more than 50% of the original layout remains intact and RCDB still lists Intamin, so it is a different situation. Furthermore, you still haven't commented on the fact that the infobox lists both Intamin and Zamperla already, so I'm not sure exactly what the issue is. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manufacturer