Talk:Tatsu

Untitled

The article says the ride lasts one and a half minutes, but the info box says three and a half. Is this a discrepancy, or does one not include climb/load time or something?

It never says where the on ride photo takes a picture of you

Does anyone know where the on ride photo's are on tatsu?

I would guess the camera's at the bottom of the pretzel loop as it is on S:UF but I have no way of knowing first-hand, Tatsu's on the other side of the country for me :( Dusso Janladde 23:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I personally do not recall there being a camera on this ride

(unsigned comments)

Are there links to reviews?

I can't get enough of Tatsu; it is easily one of the best rollercoasters in the world. The sensations are quite intense, but by the same token, it's very smooth and definitely not a headbanger. What a shame if Magic Mountain closes next year (because the land has become so valuable to home developers). If so, I hope they move Tatsu somewhere. --Sandover 19:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be very difficult to move Tatsu, as it's built to follow the terrain at SFMM. If it was moved to a flat park, the supports would have to be completely re-engineered and most of the pretzel loop would have to be underground. Dusso Janladde 23:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

In fact, the reviews would help support a useful, NPOV Wikipedia description of what it feels like to ride Tatsu. It's currently missing from the entry.

Because I am not "frightened" by Tatsu, it can't be the "fright factor" that makes it popular (I deleted that; too subjective). That said, I bet some people are frightened because of the way riders are strapped in with their arms and legs exposed. Riders look down (or up) with nothing between them and the wider world... Because of that fundamental difference in configuration, I think every other effect — speed, elevation, movement — feels exaggerated.

Also, the pretzel loop creates a notably strange physical sensation, unique to this type of coaster and probably impossible to recreate on a conventional design. Can we find documentation of this? A design note, perhaps? Sandover 03:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

If anyone can find any material on its history or notes (besides the stats), I'd be happy. I found nothing after an hour of searching.. ALTON .ıl 06:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The ride is meh. Drop, turn, cork, turn, inversion that feels just like the cork, turnaround, curve, pretzel, my change falls out, inline twist, helix, wait wait wait, get released. Timetrial3141592 01:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

How could you say that Timetrial3141592? Tatsu is brilliant just like Sandover said. It's a bit rough around the pretzel looop, but it's all part of the fun. Also, the inversions are perfect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.253.56 (talk) 08:03, November 29, 2007

History?

The History section as it currently appears isn't really the history of the ride so much as a retelling of the construction of the ride, probably taken from the Discovery Channel episode of Mega Builders. I don't know how accurate those dates are. Perhaps the construction company had a goal of April 8, but the only date that Six Flags announced was the first press day of April 29, 2006. I also don't think this much construction detail needs to be in a coaster article.—JlACEer (talk) 06:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

What else would we put in the history section? In most articles, a roller coaster is built and there's no news about it for 20 years.--Astros4477 (talk) 15:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering why everyone feels a new coaster needs a "history" section. I just don't think all of these details are necessary, like the fact that one of the footings was too large or that everyone on the crew signed the piece of track when it was topped off (that's pretty common). I prefer something along the lines of Cheetah Hunt or separate the construction and delays like was done with Maverick (roller coaster).—JlACEer (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that. I like having a history section because if there was no history section, a lot of articles would stand no chance at being promoted to GA or FA. I actually think there are four milestones for a ride. When construction started, when it was topped off, when the track was finished and when it opened.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 20:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps this discussion should move to WP:AP. Either way, so what are we including and not including in history sections (even in other articles)?--Dom497 (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I think all coasters (I might even say all articles) should have a history section. What to include in it is another story. The things highlighted by JlACEer above probably shouldn't be included. I'm more with Astros, although I'd also add to the list any further information on the ride's original announcement and marketing/promotions to build up to the opening (e.g. teaser campaigns, first rider auctions). Once the ride is open there's also the potential to include notable modifications and ridership milestones among other things. Themeparkgc  Talk  23:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tatsu/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 07:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments first quick comments

• Is it Tatsu or Tatsu?
• " at the 34 position" -> "placed 34th."
• If written in USEng, "rumours" should be "rumors" right?
• Should "summer" really be capitalised?
• "were later found" they existed, so what do you mean by "later found"? Like ancient artefacts?
• Is it "Flying" or "flying" roller coaster?
  • Flying Coaster is the B&M model name; flying roller coaster is the general type of roller coaster.--Dom497 (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• Infobox, 1600 riders -> 1,600 riders to be consistent with other values above 999 in the box.
• "at position 34 in its opening year and peaked at position 30" no need to use "position" here in my opinion.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I have addressed all your comments.--Dom497 (talk) 00:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)