Talk:Top Thrill 2

Work Needed

This article needs some updating. JParksT2023 (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

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)

I do see some {{citation needed}} 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. JParksT2023, anything specifically you think needs addressed besides that? --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

Requested move 1 August 2023

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)

---

Top Thrill Dragster → Top Thrill 2 – 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)

• Support – It Should Be Renamed Matthew Campbell (talk) 13:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support – do it baby i'm ready to go — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.174.185 (talk) 14:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Epicgenius (talk) 15:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support – Revamped/refurbished rides with a name change, such as Steel Vengeance and New Texas Giant, result in a move to the new name. We should do the same here. Sourced information about the change should be added to the article prior to the move, however. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Manufacturer

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)

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)

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)

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)

After giving this more thought, it really doesn't matter which way we list this, as long as both companies are listed in the infobox. Looking at Phantom's Revenge as a good comparison, D. H. Morgan Manufacturing is listed as the ride manufacturer instead of the Arrow who originally built Steel Phantom (although that ride underwent a more severe overhaul). In any case, in the interest of moving on, I've moved both the "Original manufacturer" and the "Renovated by" into custom fields, so that they display next to one another. That should clear up any confusion and settle this once and for all. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2024

I do not think this ride will be open anymore, due to the Cedar Fair—Six Flags merger. Do you think this ride will never reopen forever? 2601:40A:8400:1820:8932:22D5:DAEF:3BA2 (talk) 21:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

“Serious injury”

Feels like the article is minimizing the impact to the person who was injured in 2021. Editorializing and bias can take place by not saying something just as much as it can be by saying something. it would possibly be more accurate to quote a news article from a reputable source, or clarify that the incident resulted in brain damage, causing the person to be permanently disabled. ( not to mention a $2M settlement IIRC) “Serious” is very generic and the omission of further detail implies that the person fully recovered. 208.38.246.85 (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Did an editor refuse to insert something, or did someone revert you when you tried to improve it? What source did you have in mind? It seems rather accusatory to come right out and say that bias is involved, when in fact, it might have just been overlooked and not noticed. There are multiple solid sources cited, including The Plain Dealer and Sandusky Register, and the incident was originally described as "serious".

In hindsight, once the full effect of the injury was learned weeks or months later, I'm sure a reputable source covering that in more detail could be added to expand that if needed. Let's not overreact or assume anything though; focus on the content and improving the article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Future consideration for image insertion

The infobox image should really capture the launch area as well as both spikes (if possible), but definitely at least one spike with the launch area like the old image did. I added hidden comments in the article noting this.

Also, dropping template code below for future use once a better image becomes available for the infobox. We can insert it into the "Ride experience" section (or some other location):

{{Multiple image|perrow=2|total_width=400
|image1 = Top Thrill Dragster.jpg
|image2 = TopThrill2.jpg
|footer = Top Thrill Dragster (left) and Top Thrill 2 (right)
}}

Just a thought. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)