Talk:List of roller coaster rankings

Tallest coasters

The "tallest coasters" section was incorrect. It listed pepsi max and magnum XL 200 as two of the top ten tallest coasters. I updated it to include the REAL number 9 and 10, silver star and goliath.

Can we go past 10 please?

I have seen tables for which my all time favourite ride, stealth, would be almost on the list but not quite. I would really like to go up to 12 or 15. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.32.4 (talk) 13:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Standard display for record holders

I propose using a standard display style (table?) for listing the record holders that would (hopefully) be easier to read than the current bulleted list used for 'Tallest'. Proposed columns, regardless of record category:

• current record ranking (1, 2, 3),
• coaster name,
• park,
• park location,
• date built,
• operating dates,
• and a column for the record information (height, speed, length) being listed.

Could some columns be combined? Sure, why not? I also propose that the lists be limited to just the "top ten" in a particular category so this page doesn't become a list of all coasters that were ever over 200 ft tall. SpikeJones 12:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Notable?

Continuing a discussion from the "Roller coaster" talk page, does anyone have suggestions on how to indicate coasters that are indeed notable and should be listed on a page for "Notable roller coasters" (Coney Island Cyclone) vs coasters that aren't (Six Flags Runaway Mine Train)? Cyclone is easy: we add a category for "National historical registered Coasters" or something. But there are others that are certainly notable for some reason or other that weren't "first" or "biggest", but are generally considered important or noteworthy.SpikeJones 12:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Complete circuit

I removed the following item from the list of "firsts":

• First amusement park coaster to run a complete circuit: Switchback, Coney Island. 1884

Doing research, it appears that Switchback was not a complete circuit - that is, riders did not return to their point of origin, and that at each end of the 600ft track, ride operators had to move the car from the lower (exit) end to the upper (start) track for the return trip. SpikeJones 13:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Tunnel?

DarkRaven added * First looping coaster to feature an underwater tunnel: Anaconda, Kings Dominion. 1991. Regardless of the fact that the tunnel went underwater, do we need to differentiate a coaster that has a tunnel versus a tunnel that goes underwater? A tunnel is a tunnel, regardless of what it goes under. How notable is this? SpikeJones 13:50, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• I think it's pretty notable and worth keeping on the list. It seems to be a big deal among PKD fans. I've been to that park many times; the Anaconda was built such that most of the ride takes place over a now mostly filled-in lake. Having watched the ride in action, I know that the tunnel is rather short and that the train passes through it quickly, but it was still considered a significant first at the time the ride was built (and still is today, to a lesser extent). The average theme park visitor, when reading this list, would probably find "first coaster to go underwater" easier to understand and more significant than "First coaster with heartline inversion" or "First coaster with a möbius-style track". I suppose the Anaconda is sort of the precursor for rides like Hades at the Mt. Olympus Theme Park in Wisconsin Dells, Wisconsin; Hades is a wooden roller coaster that is mainly beneath the park's parking lot. --Idont Havaname 03:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, although simply because a coaster seems to be a big deal among PKD fans doesn't qualify a coaster for this list by itself, as practically every coaster could say that it is significant to a particular park for some group or other. Looking for confirmation for you, I found at least one site that listed both Anaconda and Loch Ness Monster as taking riders underwater. Which came first? And the references all seem to indicate that Anaconda is the first "looping coaster with an underwater tunnel", implying that there may have been a previous non-looping coaster with same. Anybody know? SpikeJones 04:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

The Loch Ness Monster opened earlier (1978 vs. 1991). So I guess it wins. (I've never been to Busch Gardens or seen that ride, but I'd think a publication like Washingtonian would be reliable on this stuff.) It might be worth asking people at ThrillNerds or a similar site if they know of any others that were built before that. For now, I'll go ahead and change the article to say Loch Ness Monster. At any rate, especially since there is more than one looping coaster with an underwater tunnel, that category deserves an entry in the article just as much as any others. --Idont Havaname 06:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Looking at it again, this seems somewhat disputed... PKD's website says that the Anaconda is the first coaster with this feature. This picture of the Loch Ness Monster from RCDB seems to show an underwater tunnel (though it's not clear in the picture where the tunnel is going), and Loch Ness's RCDB page doesn't mention anything about the tunnel. (On a side note though, here is a picture of the Anaconda's tunnel, taken from the train while going down the hill leading into the tunnel.) Google also indicates that it has a "spiral tunnel" but doesn't say anything about it being underwater. Maybe Washingtonian was wrong about that, or maybe they've reworked the tunnel; I'm just guessing, but try asking about it on a roller coaster forum and see what kind of answers they come up with. --Idont Havaname 06:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

That tunnel is just in water. It doesn't go "underwater", per se. Timetrial3141592 19:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Telepherique at Parc Saint Paul

I've just added the following to the article:

* First suspended standup roller coaster with spinning cars: Telepherique, Parc Saint Paul (1992) [1]

I assume this is probably the case, since RCDB says that it is a very unusual ride. It is listed on RCDB as a roller coaster and is promoted on Parc Saint Paul's site as one. Are there any other rides in existence that are similar to this ride that are older? (The English version of the Parc Saint Paul map calls it "Cable cars", but it appears to be more like a combination of a skyway and a roller coaster, with one rider per car and no restraints.) --Idont Havaname 03:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

i have no idea what you are pointing out in your links, i looked at the brochure in both english and spanish and i have also looked at the rcdb entry and searched for your "coaster" and if you are talking about what i think you are it isn't a coaster just a child's thrill ride so i removed the refrence, feel free to put it back up with a better refrence/picture/link/information anything will do, sorry if i'm mistaken 76.48.204.53 05:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

what qualifies for World Record list

I saw that somebody added a "World's Tallest Dive Coaster" item, which is fine -- but in my opinion it would be more helpful if that same person (or others) would include at least 2 other dive coasters so we could see the top 3 tallest dive coasters. it would be more meaningful than just having one coaster listed in the "world record" section.

Along those same lines, I removed "most inversions" as (a) that's currently listed above under "coaster firsts", and there's no easy way to identify all the coasters that have 9, 8, or 7 inversions on this list. For something like inversions (where there will be more than one coaster in a given category), I recommend we just list the first one to achieve each goal on the "coaster firsts" area instead of as a "world record". Same thing could probably be said for "number of coasters in a park" area as well. Thoughts? SpikeJones 19:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Most inversions seems like a legit record. someones just gotta prowl through the list of notable coasters and make a list out of them. the list probably won't change very often either. anything with more than a few inversions probably has an article already Towel401 (talk) 04:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Number of coasters in a park should stay listed if only for reference, it also helps on planning where to go on trying some coasters out.

-dive coaster is a model designation from B&M there are currently only 2 (+ 1 prototype overseas somewhere i believe) in existence both at Busch garden's parks (Tampa & Virginia) so that should probably be removed or edited as there is no strict definition as to what a dive coaster is (i.e. a coaster with a brake at the top of the lift hill that falls at 90 degrees or should it be greater than 90 or near 90?) that's almost like making a list of "tallest stratacoasters" (stratacoaster == intamin production model) where you just list the "top thrill dragster" and the "kingda ka", or "tallest 4th dimension coaster" where you just list "X" and "Eejanaika"... don't get me wrong i like noting those coasters that's why i didn't remove it, but from an informative standpoint it makes little sense and generally speaking the newest one will probably also be the tallest 76.48.204.53 05:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, the newest "stratacoaster" will be the tallest. Those things are glorified drop towers; I like to call them "GP" coasters, standing for either General Public or Giant Phallus, in reference to the shape of the layout. (The preceding statement makes reference to a part of the anatomy that some find to be not appropriate for discussion.) Timetrial3141592 19:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Move?

Shouldn't this page be at List of roller coasters? Because to be on Wikipedia, something has to be notable already, right? --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 00:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

this was moved to a separate page as it was gunking up the works over on the Roller coaster article.SpikeJones 01:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

How should we classify Eejanaika?

Eejanaika, which opened this year, supposedly has 14 inversions, although the track itself inverts only two times. The other inversions are due to the seats rotating; Eejanaika is an S&S/Arrow 4th dimension roller coaster, similar to X at Six Flags Magic Mountain. (X was a prototype of Eejanaika.) That said, how should we classify Eejanaika in the "most inversions" category? --Idont Havaname (Talk) 02:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

RCDB does not recognize seat rotations as a legitimate inversion. The track itself inverts just twice. To remain consistent with other roller coaster sources, Eejanaika should be considered as only having two inversions. (in other words, we wouldn't consider it in the 'most inversions' category at all -- while it may be a good ride, it isn't notable for being (a) first; or (b) most in any particular category. SpikeJones 09:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the Most inversions section to explain why these 4th dimension rides are not included, as even though enthusiasts don't recognizes them as having many inversions, other sources do. Maybe a new section under the most inversions section should be added in the future, but for now I felt an explanation was all that is necessary. I forgot to login when I edited the page also! Thinkharder 08:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Besides, even if one counts seat inversions, the total adds up to about ten. I have no idea where the 14 came from. Timetrial3141592 19:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Can Anyone Identify This Rollercoaster? Is It Even Real?

My girlfriend posted this question on the Talk page of the main Roller Coaster article, but probably would be worthwhile to ask here too. Please look at this photo: http://img5.fashionguide.com.tw/Forum/ImgMsg/2007/0211/02052337.jpg - is this a real rollercoastr or is it just a computer-generated picture? Hi There 05:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That is Top Thrill Dragster at Cedar Point. I remember seeing this photo in the winter of 2003, when the ride was still under construction. --Coaster1983 16:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your reply! Hi There 05:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Fire in the Hole

There appears to be some inconsistency regarding Fire In The Hole (Silver Dollar City) as to whether it is a true roller coaster or not. Definitive answers anyone? SpikeJones 21:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Inaccuracy's and Self Contradictory

Basically the Entire Section of Roller coaster firsts on here have no verified claims and some coasters are listed twice with 2 different dates which makes it Self Contradictory. That section should ethier be deleted or reworded and sorted out.Sawblade05 11:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Some coasters are listed twice due to being "first" in different categories. Can you provide examples, please? SpikeJones 13:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The Viper is listed twice in the same category with different years (1982 and 1985). I took out the later year based on the Viper article. The info removed was:

• First coaster with five inversions; Viper, Darien Lake. 1985

--Tinned Elk 01:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

How to provide references

I would like to start adding references to the information on this page, but I think using a footnote/references section would take up a lot of room with one reference being needed for each entry (or maybe not). Is there anything wrong with having the inline references just follow the information on the same line? Any suggestions or ideas on this? --Tinned Elk 02:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a big ref section is a problem. Looking at the featured lists, I see that articles that need refs, such as List of inductees of Canada's Walk of Fame (I didn't even know there was one, how sad) indeed has inlines for each. I suppose with the list we have here we will eventually be getting many dupe refs, especially if we can find one good one with all these records already listed. ALTON .ıl 02:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

well, I spent the day reading two roller coaster books (not as fun as riding them, but still fun), and at least one had lots of the records in it (Roller Coaster Lover's Companion, Steve Urbanowicz). I imagine RCDB will also be a good source. So...maybe I will make a copy of the list and see how many are in the book. Of course, having the refs in such nice columns does help. --Tinned Elk 04:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there's nothing wrong with using DB for everything. I'll start some off, but ref work is tedious and gets me pissed off (mostly because other people plop in messy url cites after I {{cite web}} everything). ALTON .ıl 06:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Time for a tidy up?

Maybe I'm alone in thinking this, but the article as it stands is full of useless facts and trivia - who would honestly be looking for the First coaster to feature a "bent cuban eight"? The very name of the article of itself is ambiguous, what counts as notable? The article would be of very little use to someone unfamiliar with the subject, way too many specific terms. I'd like to propose a clean up, though I'm not sure what the best form of action would be - maybe some agreed guidelines on what should be included? Seaserpent⁸⁵_Talk 21:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The 4 bullet points at the beginning of the article certainly do lay out groundwork for what should/could qualify. Agreed that some items that have been added since this article was broken out from the main Roller Coaster article are more obscure than others and could, in theory, be removed. SpikeJones 22:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that Seaserpent85 removed several facts deemed "irrelevant." But the choice of deletions seems rather arbitrary to me. Can we please discuss this matter here and try to reach some consensus on which items should be deleted, if any, and why? I personally have found every item interesting, but I won't complain if certain items are removed after reaching some consensus. In the meantime I will restore the deleted items, because if we ultimately decide to keep any of those items but there are intermediate edits, the items will be harder to restore. Also, apologies if this was discussed elsewhere and I overlooked it.--Skylights76 (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

In my defence it's hard to come to a consensus if there's no one around to reach it with! I think the first thing we need to agree on is whether or not this article is even necessary - in its present state as "evolution of roller coasters" I'd happily vote for its deletion were it to come to that. There are so many poor aspects of the article that it probably needs to be completely rewritten. My view is that all the trivia from the "Roller coaster firsts" section should be removed and the article should be renamed to something like "List of roller coaster records" and be shortened still. Seaserpent⁸⁵ 21:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

MY PROPOSAL: I think all or almost all of the information in the article should be preserved in some way, shape or form - but then, I'm an inclusionist. My idea is to break the article into two parts. One would be "Roller coaster records," which would incorporate all the tables. "Firsts" don't qualify as records, so what to do with them? Some suggestions for a new article:

1. "History of roller coasters" - Create a new article and link to it from the "History" section of the main roller coaster article. We could even maybe use or draw heavily from that section, then shorten that section in the main article. Then we could incorporate the "firsts" into the article in one of the following ways: a. In the main text. b. As a separate section, "Roller coaster milestones" or "Notable roller coasters" or "Roller coaster firsts" if you prefer. c. In a timeline, "Timeline of roller coaster firsts." I've seen html-based timelines on Wikipedia before, but I can't remember where.

2. A new article using only the "firsts" info, and with one of the titles I suggested above.

3. A new article that's just a timeline.

So that's just off the top of my head. I personally like the idea of the separate history article w/timeline the best - it's the coolest and most ambitious. What does everyone else think?

--Skylights76 (talk) 11:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of splitting it into "History of roller coasters" and "Roller coaster records", and I'd say that firsts should be included in the latter. I also agree that there should be a timeline in the history article too, so I think I'm completely in agreement with you! :) Seaserpent⁸⁵ 10:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, what? Did you mean to say "firsts should be included in the former"? Because they're already included in the latter. If you meant former, then we're in complete agreement... I went ahead and separated the firsts by date, just to see how it looks, as a small evolution toward a timeline. There are a lot of firsts--it will be a big timeline. I do think we should delete the America-centric entries. This is an international encyclopedia so there's no reason to have those. I'll go ahead and do that. --Skylights76 (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I also like the ideas you have presented, Skylight. I support those changes. Coaster1983 (talk) 00:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Would it make sense to go ahead and at least start by organizing the "firsts" section by date headers rather than the current way it is being done? It is fairly confusing and took me awhile to figure out that it is actually in chronological order. Emackert (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be better, but what do you think of my timeline idea? I think it would present the info in a much better way. Plus "Timeline of roller coaster firsts" kind of rolls off the tongue, doesn't it? And for some reason, "Timeline of" gives it some heft, a reason for existing. At least, I think so. Without, it's kind of like, uh, ok, I'll skip this. --Skylights76 (talk) 11:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

As the person who broke the "firsts" and "records" section out of the main RC article as that article was getting a wee bit too long, all I can say is that while the "records" portion may or may not encyclopedic (and in some cases duplicates the items in the "firsts" section, the "firsts" section certainly does fall into the proper arena when looking at the history of coasters. I don't know why the article was moved to "Evolution" from "Notable". The article content made more sense under the previous name.SpikeJones (talk) 12:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

OK everyone, I've moved the "firsts" section to History of the roller coaster, copied in the history section from Roller coaster, and spruced everything up. I'm renaming this article List of roller coaster records. So, feel free to comment on and add to the new history article, as it needs to be expanded (also, you can try whittling down the history section in Roller coaster). Plus, the list of roller coaster records needs editing to make it more consistent. --Skylights76 (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Orion Emergency Egress System

According to Universe Today, this will be the world's third tallest (116 m) roller coaster. AFAICT it will also be the tallest dive coaster. It is being built by NASA as an emergency escape for Orion astronauts. So it's notable for several reasons, but I'm not sure where to add it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.6.83 (talk) 07:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

We thought about it many months ago when this was first announced. The issue is whether it needs to be included because it's being built with "roller coaster technology", or excluded because it's not a coaster thrill ride. My opinion? Exclude it. SpikeJones 12:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the Roller coaster article. --Tinned Elk 00:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Coaster (Exhibition Park, Vancouver)

We generally call it the Big Dipper but apparently its official name is Coaster. Time to amend the wooden roller coaster lists maybe, though on the low end of the speed record I think it's "in there" especially if the top speed of 90kph+ is used; not very high only 25m, but its original height was even higher but the first hill was rebuilt after a fire, that much I know. This article is the source for teh following stats:

The Coaster by the numbers . . .

Built: 1957/58 Cost of original construction: $200,000 Cost of 2006 refit: $249,000 new linear wood feet going into this year's work: 49,396 number of trains: 3 Train capacity: 16 passengers Average speed: Approx. 72 km/h Max speed: Up to 90 km/h Motor: 75 hp, 1923 Westinghouse runs at 1,280 RPM Belt: 24 metres, leather Chain that hauls trains up the lift hill: 65 m Track length: 1 km Number of supports: 282 Coaster site width: 30 m Coaster site length: 152 m Ride time: 90 seconds average Max track height: 25 metres at peak of first hill Riders: 500,000 per year (approx. 20 million total) Maybe no records, but in need of an article, .....it's won a few "favourite roller coaster" polls, lately in 2001Skookum1 (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

This article only lists the top ten in any category. The Coaster comes in 112th in speed on RCDB's list of wooden roller coasters (notice the link is page 5 of the list). Excluding any coasters not in operation or under construction, The Coaster comes in 89th. A classic coaster to be sure, but not anywhere near the current fastest woodies. Also, I couldn't find any information that the park has ever been called Exhibition Park, except maybe informally. It's called Playland Park and it's located at Pacific National Exhibition. --Skylights76 (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you've got it backwards; Playland is a subarea of Ex Park, which is the whole terrain bounded by Cassiar/Bridgeway, McGill, Renfrew and Hastings Street. We generally just call it "the PNE" but like Playland, that's a tenant of the park, like the racetrack. Ex Park includes all those, plus the Pacific Coliseum, the Agrodome and Empire Stadium. Playland is not a park, i.e. civic-chartered; it's a DBA name. But thatnks for the feedback on the stats, I'll have to loo at your sources and see waht the various Vancouver-gee-aren't-we-great boos say.Skookum1 (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, Exhibiton Park is technically just the racetrack, though it's used to refer to the whole park in the same way "the PNE" is. The official name of the park grounds is Hastings Park.Skookum1 (talk) 18:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

An idea

I was thinking: Only some of the coasters in the article have actually held records. If the best a coaster has ever gotten is 2nd or 3rd in a category, that's not a record. It's a ranking. I suggest we change the name of the article to "Rankings of roller coasters," or "List of roller coaster rankings," and also add top 10 tables for 2007's Golden Ticket and Mitch Hawker steel and wood coaster rankings. Maybe NAPHA too. That would be a great article, with all that juicy data on one page.

But we still ought to have an article for actual records, under the current name. This should be easy to do-- just use this article as a base, cut out the non-record holders, and add old record holders using RCDB's advanced search. Granted, some of those tables might be pretty short -- the wooden record holder for length before The Beast opened in 1979 was Hochschaubahn, which opened in 1909! Before that there was one other record holder, and then the oldest coaster for which RCDB has length data: the Gravity Pleasure Switchback Railway. Surely the table would be longer if the data were complete-- there are 35 pages of search results for wooden coasters on RCDB, but only the first 10 pages of results (sorted by length) have length data. But we can add that disclaimer to the article. Or resort to the Guinness Book.

This same research could also be used to add any missing succession boxes to individual coaster articles.

Thoughts? --Skylights76 (talk) 07:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Missing data

I know our preferred source for data is RCDB, but what about when they get it wrong? I spotted an error in their data that affects this article - Hades should be among the top 10 fastest wooden coasters, as its top speed is 70 MPH, according to stats on the official Mt. Olympus Park site. The problem is that RCDB simply doesn't have the speed data for Hades. This site has the data and gets the rankings right, as does this site (although the latter also includes defunct coasters).

I wouldn't be surprised if some of the other tables in this article are also missing data. My suggestion for the future: expand our sources. Compare data from RCDB, Coaster Grotto, and ThrillNetwork.com (are there any other good databases?), and look for discrepancies. If there are any discrepancies, we should consult the parks' official web sites for the definitive info.

I'm going to be busy in real life for a while so I won't be able to do any cross-checking or corrections, but I would like to hear anyone's thoughts on this matter. --Skylights76 (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Ultimate Rollercoaster.com is many times a superior source to RCDB for stats. However, the database focuses on North America coasters with limited data outside that area. The only reason URC doesn't get the attention it deserves is because of a lack of photos for each of the rides. Thrillnetwork is a blatant scrape of RCDB. I've personally spoken to someone who helped do that. 68.4.71.225 (talk) 08:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

What argument can you provide that URC is so superior to RCDB? I've seen a lot of info at URC that has been outdated, whereas I haven't seen this problem with RCDB. As for ThrillNetwork, I compared the data for several coasters between TN and RCDB, and aside from the basic matching stats, each site has unique data that the other site doesn't have. This suggests that TN is not a "blatant scrape" as you claim. --Skylights76 (talk) 09:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Tallest Roller Coasters

Looked up Behemoth (listed as 280 ft.) and the real height is 230 ft which would make it not make the list...so what is the real rest of the list? Can some one figure this out? Sean283 (talk) 05:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The tallest drop list had been modified 6 days ago. I restored the list to the previous version. Coaster1983 (talk) 16:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Ring Racer

According to many roller coaster forums Ring Racer is up and running now, but I cant find a verifiable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.121.168.55 (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"Running"? It was presented crawling with VIPs onboard during the F1 race. Since, it had two major breakdowns during testing, the latter in early September included a pneumatic explosion that shattered windows, spread debris, and injured several workers. Nürburgring management tried to cover it up. The Ringracer is part of the big financial scandal at the Ring. It will not run in 2009, maybe never. -- Matthead  Discuß   18:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed article renaming

OK, I wrote the following before I realized I had proposed the same thing 17 months ago (see my previous post). Consider this a second chance for you to comment. This time I'll follow up! (hopefully)

I'd like to rename the article to "List of roller coaster rankings" and change the headings accordingly. The roller coasters are currently ordered according to rank, 1-10, while the records are relegated to a column on the far right of each table. Many of the roller coasters are not record holders at all, but merely currently ranked in the top 10. If the article were mainly about records, one would instead expect to see the records column on the far left, and the coasters ordered chronologically. However, some tables include as few as one record holder, which wouldn't make much of a list, and finding information on some of the older record holders might prove difficult.

One effect of this change would be that Daidarasaurus would be excluded, since it is SBNO in a park that has been shut down, and this article would be only for operating roller coasters. Daidarasaurus' record would still be referenced in the succession box on that roller coaster's article, as well as in the articles of the previous and next record holders. This article would be unlinked from those succession boxes, since this article deals with rankings and not specifically records, and excludes non-operating record holders.

This change would also open up the article to the inclusion of qualitative rankings, e.g. the top 10 from the Golden Ticket Awards and Mitch Hawker's Poll.

If no one objects, I'll make the change in a few days. -- skylights76 (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

FAKE

Kingda Ka isn't the FASTEST ROLLER COASTER! It's the second fastest ring°racer is the fastest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.127.97 (talk) 21:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

No reiable sources indicate that ring°racer has taken the record away from Kingda Ka.Coaster1983 (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Heights????

Resolved

Ok, so the heights on the tallest roller coasters are incorrect (not just superman:the escape and the tower of terror but others too) i see some of those heights are going by the DROP of the roller coaster. however, it says HEIGHT not DROP. so if we are going by drop, we put drop not height, but if we are going by height we put height and make the heights correct. i would like someone to verify whether we are going by height or drop. Mrprofdrjjjj (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

That tallest steel coaster drop table is for the drop height. I changed the height column to drop height in the table.Coaster1983 (talk) 20:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I was just confused, because i knew the height of some of the roller coasters were higher than that. so thank you very much Mrprofdrjjjj (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Other Rankings?

• Longest/shortest duration from start to finish.
• Most vertical loops.

68.8.99.245 (talk) 03:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)