Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amusement Parks/Collaboration/Operation B&M

Interesting Article

Anyone working on updating B&M coaster pages might find this article interesting. http://www.newsparcs.com/en/article/00006007-how_bolliger_mabillard_established_its_strong_reputation_interview_with_director_walter_bolliger It might also serve as a source. —JlACEer (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the manufacture?

@Themeparkgc:@Astros4477: Ok, we need to clear something up. Who is the manufacture of B&M roller coasters? Is it B&M or CSF? All B&M infoboxs say the manufacture of the roller coaster is really the designer (B&M) so I don't know what the right information is. In my opinion, I think B&M is really the designer and Clermont is the manufacturer.--Dom497 (talk) 02:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of hard to say. I think it would be best if it is kept as B&M who manufacture the ride, however, CSF should be listed as the fabricator (if applicable). B&M is not always the designer, as Werner Stengel has had that role for a few of their coasters. I think manufacturer should be thought of as the company that a park goes approaches to purchase a ride. Nobody goes to CSF to ask for a Wing Coaster, they go to B&M. The same happens with other firms; here are some examples that I am familiar with:

Superman Escape

Manufacturer: Intamin
Fabricator: a local firm
Designer: Stengel

Justice League: Alien Invasion 3D

Manufacturer: Sally Corp.
Ride System: Bertazzon
Interactive System: Alterface
Visuals, sound, props, lighting: all separate firms

We could possibly start a discussion to see whether we want to change the wording of the infobox from "manufacturer" to something else, but I think I prefer it how it stands. Themeparkgc Talk 23:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Themeparkgc:Ok, so in the lead sections do we put, "...designed and manufactured by Bolliger & Mabillard" or "designed by B&M"? And I know I'm going against to what you said above but the definition of manufacture is, " To make or process (a raw material) into a finished product, especially by means of a large-scale industrial operation or To make or process (a product), especially with the use of industrial machines"....which is exactly what CSF does, not B&M. I believe Intamin falls in the same boat as well. Maybe I'm just being pessimistic.--Dom497 (talk) 00:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Dom497: For the lead: "... is a B&M _____ Coaster located at ..."? It covers all bases as it doesn't imply B&M actually fabricated the track. Another idea with terminology is to label B&M as the main contractor with CSF as a subcontractor. Themeparkgc Talk 23:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that a coaster is more than just track and supports. Yes, Clermont manufactured the steel components, but that is not a coaster. The entire project takes many subcontractors, including those used for the concrete footings, the company that does the erection, the company (Dyna-Brake) that supplies the magnetic braking, the control systems, the trains, etc. Arrow was this way too, all of their track was bent by Intermountain Lift, and in the latter years they were using Clermont to manufacturer the steel supports. If you want to start listing subcontractors, you are going to open a can of worms. Also keep in mind that Clermont just bends the steel following B&M's specifications. On a wood coaster would you credit the carpenter who bent and laid the track or do credit the company like GCII or Gravity Group?—JlACEer (talk) 23:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, how about we just keep the lead to what Themeparkgc said?--Dom497 (talk) 02:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of the lead should be like that. I'd rather not have all that information in one sentence, its good to separate stuff.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 18:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amusement Business

@Themeparkgc: When did Amusement Business stop reporting on roller coasters?--Dom497 (talk) 12:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The May 2006 issue was their last, but prior to that they switched from a weekly publication to monthly and started covering more Nascar Races and less Amusement Parks. I don't know if you will find much coaster coverage in the 2004/2005 issues.—JlACEer (talk) 14:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks! I just wanted to know so I know which articles I can work on (Themeparkgc I assume will be taking care of the ones covered by AB; and to reduce the work load for him, I do have an idea but will bring that up at a later time).--Dom497 (talk) 02:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I will do what I can, but I am planning on slowing down on OpB&M for a while. For the next month or so I plan to:

get all the Rocky Mountain Construction articles up to GA, operation RMC if you will ;)
write articles for some current attractions which could be added elsewhere in the future, e.g. Aqua Twist
prep some articles for future attractions offline, e.g. SFGAm's new woodie

Themeparkgc Talk 06:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone working on Operation B&M has trouble finding a source for a fact that you are pretty certain is correct, let me know. I can always check the back issues of RollerCoaster!, First Drop or Amusement Today and see if it was mentioned in an article. I don't really have time to help with rewriting articles, but I can assist with some fact checking.—JlACEer (talk) 16:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Themeparkgc: Ok, take more than a month if you need; there's no obligation that you have to work on Operation B&M; working on something different is good every now and then! Either way, I might as well mention my "idea" now. Here it is: So because Amusement Buisness really just handles the history section of a roller coaster (and sometimes reception), I can work on all the sections within the article except the history so that way you only have to worry about updating the history section. Then, we nominate it. @JlACEer: Thanks for the offer but I pretty much learn the history of the roller coaster as I research it! (You have one awesome job that I would want) :P --Dom497 (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Themeparkgc: So do you think my "proposal/idea" (above) will work?--Dom497 (talk) 14:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are GA nominations from multiple authors possible? The idea could work. Themeparkgc Talk 00:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Themeparkgc: I don't think so. But what we could do is take turns being the "first" nominator and than add a note to the nomination saying that the other user is also involved.--Dom497 (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]