Talk:Millennium Force

DYK nomination

Template:Did you know nominations/Millennium Force

Why is this ride's height 310'?

If this ride's height was measured at 310' 11", then why did it say that its height is 310'? 208.59.132.152 (talk) 01:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Giga definition

When Millennium Force opened in 2000, it was the first and only giga coaster, a term coined by Intamin for a coaster that exceeded 300 feet. The definition has been changed by enthusiasts to apply to a coaster from any manufacturer that exceeds 300 feet. Then with the construction of Orion, Cedar Fair (along with the KI fanboys) stretched it to include a coaster with a "drop" that exceeds 300 feet. Such information does not belong in this article, particularly when the opening paragraph discusses the origin of the term. Originally it was 300 feet in height, and that was it. —JlACEer (talk) 04:29, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I feel like there should at least be a note or parenthesis stating that the definition was changed in 2019. If it just remains as flat only 300+ft, then it wouldn't correlate with not only the current definition, but also the definition as listed on the article for "roller coaster."

Maybe something like this:

"Millennium Force broke five world records and was the world's first giga coaster, a term coined by Intamin and Cedar Point to represent roller coasters that exceed 300 feet (91 m) in height (later changed in 2019 to include both heights and/or drops between 300-399 feet)." AtomiicCoasters (talk) 23:09, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

That much detail is not necessary in this article. Giga coaster is already linked and if people need more information they can click on it. When the term was originally defined it was a coaster over 300 feet and that's all that needs to be said in the opening paragraph. This is exactly how the Magnum XL-200 wiki article is also written. The definition for a hypercoaster at the time of Magnum's opening was any coaster 200 feet. The fact that it has been narrowed (by some) to 200 to 299.99 feet is not relevant to that article, and the fact that giga coaster has been redefined (by some) to 300 to 300.99 feet is also not relevant to this article.—JlACEer (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Golden Ticket Award Box

The Golden Ticket Award box is getting quite wide. I do not know how to fix this but I am leaving this here so maybe someone who knows how to can! Therguy10 (talk) 00:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Trivial incidents?

@Plighting Engineerd, Blubewwy, Therguy10, Epicgenius, JlACEer, and Adog: – pinging some of the top editors at this article.

Incidents like this one (Bird strike) or this one (Person getting banned) seem very trivial to the overall topic and its history (a historic roller coaster), verging on WP:UNDUE. Right now, since these were in recent news, they may seem relevant, but in 30, 40, 100 years, will they be? I'm leaning toward doubtful. Trivial occurrences like this might be better placed in an article dedicated to listing incidents like List of incidents at independent amusement parks. We should probably only keep incidents here that significantly impacted the ride in some way (e.g., extended outage, severe injuries/deaths, leading to ride modification, etc).

Pretty sure there was general agreement about this in the past at WP:APARKS, but I didn't go digging through the archives. Thoughts? --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@GoneIn60: Thanks for bringing this up. I'll mention that while I restored the entry for the person getting banned, this was not due to an opinion on whether or not it was relevant for the article, just that the person who removed it seemed to have a misconception that it did not take place at this park.

While the story about the chicken nuggets has been widely reported by reliable sources, its inclusion in the article is should likely be based on how relevant it was that it occurred on Millennium Force specifically. In my opinion, this could have happened on any thrill ride; however, its severity is exacerbated by fact that Millennium Force is as large and fast as it is due to its giga height. Plighting Engineerd (talk) 18:46, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Appreciate the explanation! Just seems like it could open the door here (and elsewhere) to allow minor incidents in. On some rides with lots of minor incidents, it wouldn't take long for them to quickly consume a large portion of the article, which could cause problems when trying to get an article passed at WP:GA and especially at WP:FA. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with the notion that, unless the incident poses immediate or overtime sustained significance, then it may be omitted from the article. I think the criteria you outline is good GoneIn60. Adog (Talk・Cont) 19:31, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree with this as well. Plighting Engineerd (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@GoneIn60, thanks as well. My position is the same as Adog's; unless the incident has sustained significance (e.g. it caused a major change to park rules), I don't think it necessarily meets the bar for inclusion 10 years for now. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:27, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

@GoneIn60 I think the outrageousness of those two particular incidents and how widely covered in news sources they were warrants their inclusion in this article. I would think that editors can keep the most trivial incidents (lift hill stoppage, ride evac, etc) out of this article pretty efficiently. I do see the concerns regarding keeping these in the article though, so if they were to be taken out and kept only in a list of Six Flags park incidents article or something, that would be understandable too. Blubewwy (talk) 02:18, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

"...and how widely covered in news sources they were"

Wide coverage can get tricky, because in the moment, it can make any event seem relevant or significant. But we also weigh significance over time. Without ongoing coverage of the event, we have to evaluate that flash-in-the-pan coverage against all other aspects of the article topic that appear in sources. In 20 years, would an in-depth article or book chapter covering Millennium Force even mention these minor incidents? If we were to gather the thousands (possibly in the tens of thousands) of Millennium Force sources, what percentage would mention these minor incidents? If it is ridiculously miniscule and not crucial to the understanding of the topic, then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia, even if the detail is verifiable. This concept is covered at WP:PROPORTION.

And back to an earlier point... Here's an earlier version of the Incidents section that sits at 161 words. For an article that's around 2300 words of readable prose, it's a concern but not a huge deal. However, most amusement ride articles are easily under 1000 words, and a large percentage probably under 500 words. Having multiple minor incidents consume that much space will usually be a problem.

Appreciate the feedback. I'm sure a lot of editors are thinking the same thing when they add them in, not realizing most won't stand the test of time. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2026 (UTC)