Talk:Cedar Creek Mine Ride

Picture and Information

I, unfortunately, in my entire collection of CP photographs, do not have one of CCMR. If you have one upload it and stick it in the infobox. Also, regarding the height and drop...rcdb.com and countless other sites list the height at 48 feet and give no stat for the drop...however Cedar Point's official site [1] says the drop is 48 feet and the lift height is 55 feet. I've indicated this in the infobox as such...If anyone has solid evidence for the former, let us know, otherwise I think the official stats from the site are the correct ones to use. Stratosphere 09:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

So, we should add another reference for now? |haosys| 14:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Three with Dual Lifts?

This article says 3 CP toller coasters have dual lift-hills. I, for the life of me, can't think of the third one with a 2nd lift hill. Naturally, CCMR and Iron Dragon have them, but could someone clarify what the third is?! The only ones I can't replay in my head are WildCat and Woodstock Express, but I'm almost certain they only have one lift hill each... VexedTechie 23:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Gemini, of course! :) Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 01:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, right...how could I forget?! I suppose, though, technically, Gemini is two roller coasters, as it doesn't have a mobius layout, but rather two separate tracks. I still can't believe I forgot about everyone's favorite "wooden" (steel-hybrid) coaster. Thanks Stratosphere. VexedTechie 02:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The DJ in the queue at Millennium Force a few years ago actually brought this up as a trivia question. You're not the only one, everyone came up with Iron Dragon and CCMR, but Gemini never crossed anyone's mind, even mine at the time. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 03:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Trains and terrain

Does anyone object to me saying this is a terrain coaster? It is close to the ground, and according to ultimaterollercoaster.com, which is obviously reliable as it's included in many articles, it follows the definition. But more importantly, RCDb.com says there are 4 trains on this coaster, and I don't know why you keep reverting it.Wackyike (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm cool with it being labeled as terrain. Although I wouldn't consider it a top model of this coaster type, I believe it is the best fit and the design of this ride is heavily influenced by the lagoon. Had the lagoon not been present, the ride design clearly would be different. Also, not sure on the whole 3 or 4 trains issue. Now-a-days I believe its park policy to run 3 max, but there are probably 4 potential trains that are available.FirstDrop87 (talk) 03:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

According to Terrain roller coaster, terrain coasters take advantage of the (usually) natural undulations of the land upon which they are built. Cedar Creek Mine Ride is built on mostly flat ground, with a slightly lower section over the waterway. It does not follow any natural dips and rises in the terrain, and makes use of a considerable amount of supports, at one point standing 48 feet above the ground. By your definition every mine train would be considered a terrain coaster as they all run close to the ground at several points along their course.—JlACEer (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Instead of automatically changing the page to your beliefs when a discussion has already taken place, I encourage you to post your opinion before making changes to avoid any edit wars. Also, when changing an infobox, please do not remove the attribute. I can understand your viewpoint of Mine Ride not being a terrain coaster, but what do you propose it be classified as? FirstDrop87 (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Some rides don't have an obvious classification. A similar discussion took place about Millennium Force, whether it was a terrain or out and back coaster. Wackyike's argument was that since it goes over the lagoon, it should be classified as terrain. However, that is not true and it's the same scenario here.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 15:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

@FirstDrop. I can, however, this was not "my opinion" I clearly linked to another wiki page with a clear definition of a terrain coaster. If I had said I think it should be, or I'm cool with that, then I might have added to the discussion first. In this case, however, I felt an immediate change was justified. I'm just trying to go back to the various pages and undo some of the damage from WackyIke. As far as a classification goes, is there anything wrong with just Mine Train since there is already a wiki page for that?—JlACEer (talk) 17:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

"Mine Train" isn't a type of track layout. Also, saying it was terrain wasn't "damage" because Firstdrop had agreed with me.Wackyike (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

As I stated above, I believe terrain is a best fit for Mine Ride as it incorporates the lagoon into the ride experience. I do understand how it does not apply and why it should be left blank for this reason. Perhaps we need to identify another type of roller coaster layout? FirstDrop87 (talk) 06:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Just because there is a lagoon, that doesn't mean it is terrain. Terrain is about elevation changer and taking advantage of the hills and valleys.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 15:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The land around the lagoon is at most 12 to 24 inches above the surface of the water. That is not a significant enough elevation change to call it a terrain coaster. There are plenty of coasters that appear to be on flat ground that probably have more of an elevation change than that. Not every infobox has to have Track Layout filled in.—JlACEer (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

@Wackyike Getting people to agree with you is irrelevant. If you want to contribute, find a legitimate source. Have you noticed that more than half of what you contribute has been undone by other editors? I'm not trying to discourage anyone from contributing to Wikipedia, but if you want to be useful around here, you need to back up your contributions with citations and provide a short edit summary when you add, change or delete. You have provided some good information on some pages, but unfortunately such edits seem to be few and far between.—JlACEer (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, consensus building is part of Wikipedia; it isn't irrelevant. Millennium Force wasn't labeled as out and back on RCDB, yet the consensus is that it was out and back. While some of my edits have been undone, keep in mind that some are done in good faith.

I guess it would just be best to leave the track layout blank since we cant reach a consensus.Wackyike (talk) 02:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is moot, because the Cedar Creek Mine article doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. At some point, I'll be going through articles like this one and recommending them for deletion. You can read more about why in a recent discussion here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

@Wackyike. Not sure where you come up with this stuff. That discussion on MF was a waste of time and no consensus was reached. The last post suggested it be left blank. Wikipedia relies on citations, not persuasion. And don't try to claim good faith for bad edits — do some research and cite your sources.—JlACEer (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

If you look at the history of GateKeeper, Space Spiral, and some other articles, you will notice that in some of the edit summaries, it said "reverted GOOD FAITH edits by Wackyike". Obviously there's a mistake if you think I was assuming bad faith.Wackyike (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I never said they were bad faith edits. On the contrary I do think you are at least attempting to be helpful. You just need to do better research and find reputable sources before you start making changes.—JlACEer (talk) 18:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)