Talk:Mystic Timbers

Designer

DisneyFan22, I opposed the designer as well until RCDB updated their page listing it. We consider RCDB a reliable source, and it's cited in the infobox. Please get into the habit of checking their website if you're going to continue to edit roller coaster articles. Also, in regards to adding "testing" and other custom statuses, remember this is an encyclopedia, not a forum or park guide. Encyclopedias take on long-term perspectives and don't need up-to-the-minute status reports, especially for amusement park attractions. See this recent discussion at the WikiProject of what statuses are allowed per consensus. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Update:

There are multiple sources cited within the article and many that are not yet cited that contain interviews/commentary from Adam House, a senior design engineer at GCI, basically taking credit for much of the initial design work. There is one source in particular (this one) that actually mentions both Jeff Pike and Adam House without specifying really which one was behind the original concept. It does seem to imply Jeff might have had the original concept, but it was later modified and customized by Adam House. I've removed any mention of Jeff Pike from the prose for now until we can get additional clarification on this. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

It could be that the best compromise here is to simply list GCI as the designer, since all of these individuals getting rammed into the article ultimately worked for or were contracted by GCI. Thoughts? --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

It's rare to have the individual designer included, unless it's noteworthy in another way (such as John Wardley being connected to the B&M coasters at Alton Towers). I'd just go with GCI. --McDoobAU93 15:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the more I think about it, the more that makes sense. Making the change now, but anyone else feel free to weigh in. We can always revisit if necessary. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Jeff from Skyline here. Can shed some light on this. The team that now comprises Skyline Design LLC was and is responsible for all track centerline design, calculation and verification for new GCII wood coasters, including Mystic. Adam and the GCII team typically gather ideas from the parks and work through a few iterations and ideas ("We think the station should be in this area, would be nice to have the lift visible form here, can we use this valley for something, etc) then present that information to Skyline to develop the actual track layout, plan, profile, banking and dynamics.

Adam's role is as the "Lead Engineer" on the project, and he is responsible for coordinating all of the engineering efforts and participating in the process from initial layouts through the final design. Adam has to focus in things like brake arrangement, lift hill and drive equipment, coordinating with the controls engineer to make sure the control system is installed correctly, overseeing the shop drawings to build bents and frames, etc. Skyline's role is to provide the detailed engineering including the track centerline design, ride dynamic design and all of the dynamic calculations.

When media are interviewing folks, they usually don't care about the distinction and take it upon themselves to consolidate the descriptions to simply "Designer". In reality, every project like this requires a huge effort from many people, and they all deserve credit for their contributions. However, if an accepted definition of "Designer" is "The entity responsible for the ultimate layout, arrangement, profile elevations, selection of elements and dynamic calculation" then that would fall within Skyline's purview and we should be credited as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.120.126 (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Since we have a source that backs up that Skyline did the design (RCDB), I think that just the company name would be enough in the "Designer" field. --McDoobAU93 19:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

We may need more editors to weigh in here, but my initial thoughts are that while we typically hold RCDB in high regard for the accuracy of information, it is not a static publication. Corrections are made all the time, and sometimes information is not listed because it has not yet been verified. This becomes a problem in controversial situations, where we have other secondary sources publishing information that may conflict with RCDB, either directly or indirectly. This is also a problem for an encyclopedia; its purpose is not to simply serve as a dynamic mirror of an online database, but instead favors a long-term approach that is keen on waiting for a general consensus among a topic's primary and secondary sources. At this point in time, it would seem we don't have that stability, but I'd be interested in hearing what others think. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

My, how things have changed in a few short years! Just wanted to circle back to say that a lot more publications over the years have given the proper credit Skyline Design deserves for their apparent contributions. Fortunately, the article was updated in this edit back in late 2020, which I agree with. For anyone reading this down the road, the main concern was that we weren't rushing to a conclusion, but it's good to see we finally got one. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)