Talk:Hybrid roller coaster

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because I was not aware that a page like this had been previously in the past. I would like to know what warranted the previous deletion to see if I can address it on this article. Please message me on my talk page if possible with that so I may take a look. --🎵SingingZach🎵^(talk) 20:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Lack of reliable sources to establish notability and questionable conclusions. There are probably as many or even more mine train coasters as RMC conversions. The article mentions the term is mostly known to be utilized by RMC — according to whom? If the term is going to be applied to wood-tracked steel-structured coasters, there were hundreds built and 50 still operating, but that fact seems to have been glossed over. The term gets tossed around quite a bit but it has never really been defined by reliable sources.—JlACEer (talk) 22:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback! I have edited the article addressing your concerns. I also looked at the original deletion discussion and took note of the comments left there to try and address those concerns. 🎵SingingZach🎵^(talk) 15:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Runaway Mine Train (Six Flags Over Texas) has it as a steel roller coaster and the refs I have checked do not refer to it as hybrid. Also, could you associate the references with the specific point they are meant to reference rather than put them all together at the end of the paragraph. This will make it easier to check them. noq (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I rearranged the references in the article to the specific points in the article they are trying to reference. For Runaway Mine Train, RCDB categorizes the coaster as a hybrid (take note that hybrid coasters are more of a category or class and not necessarily a type of roller coaster). I added a reference to RCDB in the article. 🎵SingingZach🎵^(talk) 16:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

What do RCDB mean by hybrid? The other references do not refer to Runaway Mine as hybrid so are not useful for showing that it is hybrid. Ref 14 seems to say that hybrid is a term used by Rocky Mountain to describe its products - it also defines the type based on the track type. noq (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

In Ref 14, Six Flags used that term to describe New Texas Giant, not Rocky Mountain. If you look on RMC's website describing their I-Box track design (the same type used on New Texas Giant), you will not find mention of "hybrid" anywhere. https://rockymtnconstruction.com/ibox-track/

Looking back at the refs for Runaway Mine (excluding RCDB), I agree and could not find mention of hybrid or a description to merit the hybrid title. As such I will remove mention of the ride from the article and simply replace it with another mine train with secondary sources I have found stating that the track and supports are made from different materials. 🎵SingingZach🎵^(talk) 11:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

This is further evidence that this page should be deleted. You are trying to make an encyclopedic article out of enthusiast jargon. So far all of you come up with for sources are glorified enthusiast blogs and RCDB entries. The only news source from WKSU likely got that information from Cedar Point's press release. CP marketing jumped on the chance to have a new coaster type — the "Hyper Hybrid," but marketing departments are even worse sources than enthusiast blogs. There isn't enough information to make this an encyclopedic article. I applaud your effort, but I also encourage you to consider not putting any more time into this.—JlACEer (talk) 13:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Update

@Noq, SingingZach, and JlACEer::

Interesting discussion. There are some sources out there, particularly news, that have a tendency now to refer to these newer coasters as "hybrid", especially during the PR marketing period before official openings, but I have yet to see scholarly sources define or adopt the term. RCDB is probably the most notable so far that has used it. The scarcity of sources is likely because coaster records are only broken up into two categories – wood and steel. Hybrid serves as more of a footnote noted by casual observers pointing out an observation they're making, which lacks significant relevance to the subject of roller coasters.

Should this article exist? My gut says no, not yet. At least not until we have adequate coverage justifying notability. For now, it can be changed to a redirect and covered in a small section of the main roller coaster article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

SingingZach, do you oppose a merge and redirect, merging the limited information we have here into roller coaster and changing this page to a redirect? At this time, I'm not seeing a reason to keep this as a standalone article. The subject can be adequately covered in a few sentences at the main article. Essentially, you need one sentence to define what the term is and another sentence or two to list common manufacturers with a few examples. I personally think a standalone article (content fork) should wait for more information. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Attribution

Text and references copied from Roller Coaster to Hybrid roller coaster. See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Text and references copied from Hybrid roller coaster to Roller coaster. See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Further reading

Yes, they don't specifically mention "hybrid roller coasters by name.
I think we should err on the side of helping readers. Too much context, not too little. WP:Not paper. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

What good is irrelevent context? There are hundreds of amusement-park related books, are you going to list them all? I made it pretty clear that none of these support the term "hybrid roller coaster." If anything you are adding sources to support deletion of the page.—JlACEer (talk) 15:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Steel track

Sorry for the simplistic question, is there a roller coaster where the track is not made of steel? I don't know much about roller coasters but assume they all have steel tracks, like a train. -- GreenC 00:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

There are roller coasters that are considered "wooden". For these roller coasters, there are pieces of wood that are laid down, and the wheels run along a piece of steel. The wheels do not actually run along the wood, but are considered a wooden roller coaster because that is what the foundation is. The second image on this page gives a decent view.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 01:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Source by Weisenberger

JlACEer, I had a look at the 2013 source by Weisenberger. On page 18, he briefly mentions the term "hybrid" in relation to RMC's use of topper track. He explains that coasters using that technology are still classified as wooden, but then he adds that not everyone is convinced that it shouldn't have its own category "hybrid". That's all he says in a nutshell. Aside from the source becoming outdated, I also consider this a passing mention of hybrids. He doesn't really go into detail. We probably need to replace this source with a better one if we are going to retain the claim that the term is controversial. We also need to expand on the controversy answering questions like, "Who is this controversial to?", and digging more into that if we're going to include it. Otherwise, it's a claim left alone on an island that creates more questions than it answers.

Curious to hear your thoughts and if you have any sources in mind, thanks! --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I originally pinged you thinking you were the one who added it, but apparently that's not the case (as seen here). My mistake! --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:02, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Reverted edit (accusation of promotional text)

If the text I deleted is not promotional, it at least comes across as giving a lot of prominence to selected companies, and phrases such as "at the forefront" read like peacock terms. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 08:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

AlmostReadytoFly, if you'd like to look into rephrasing, that is certainly an option. but complete removal is unwarranted. Being at the forefront simply means pioneering or being among the first and most notable. That's not necessarily promotional if it is historically accurate and backed by sources. Open to further discussion and suggestions. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 16:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC)