Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

2012 coaster for Paultons?

Ian

Ian

From CoasterForce
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
Social Media Team
On the Wiki page it says:
"In late 2010, Paultons Park announced they are to build a "mega coaster" to open in late 2012 that will cost in excess of £5 Million. They said they will release more details in 2011."

Has anybody else read anything?
 
If it's on Wikipedia then I'd stay very skeptical about things, it's probably some crazy Paultons enthusiast dreaming and hoping for the best. But then again it might very well be that Paultons are getting a Mack Launch for 2012. Who knows.
 
^ Wikipedia can be a reliable source if you know how to use it correctly ;)

But yeah, I have looked around a number of sites and found nothing. If anything, Ian, you'd be one of the first to hear of such rumour as I know you have a strong link to Paultons. So yeah, nothing to back this up as of yet.
 
Oh yeah, don't worry, I've emailed them. I'll see when I get a reply on Monday. Hopefully.

They told me this year that they've reach their coaster limit and wouldn't be getting a new one for several years.
 
nadroJ said:
If it's on Wikipedia then I'd stay very skeptical about things, it's probably some crazy Paultons enthusiast dreaming and hoping for the best. But then again it might very well be that Paultons are getting a Mack Launch for 2012. Who knows.
Click to expand...

or an intamin mega lite... :roll:
 
ciallkennett said:
^ Wikipedia can be a reliable source if you know how to use it correctly ;)
Click to expand...

How does one use Wikipedia 'correctly'?

I'd like to see a woodie similar to Antelope at Gullivers, it would fit in wonderfully. But obviously that is not going to happen.
 
nadroJ said:
ciallkennett said:
^ Wikipedia can be a reliable source if you know how to use it correctly ;)
Click to expand...

How does one use Wikipedia 'correctly'?
Click to expand...

A LOT of articles are written by university professors, those are probably a good place to start.
 
But how do you know which are written by academic professionals and which are written by raving lunatics?
 
None of them are completely written by raving lunatics, only small bits of information on it are ever wrong. The ones that get abused tend to be the popular culture pages, but they're checked so regularly that mistakes don't stay there for very long.
 
I don't know..... John Petrucci was a pirate for a good 3 months!

And Lewis Hamilton was an arsehat for a fortnight! ;)
 
I think what I was going to say has been covered - a mix of common sense (i.e is Lewis Hamilton really an arsehole?) and using information that is correctly and reliably sourced.

Right, back more so to the topic on hand...
 
Yeah, the lunatic bits are usually SO obvious that you should be able to tell, or you shouldn't be allowed on the internet at all.

You never know who has edited ANY internet site really, you just need to trust.
 
Wikipedia is actually more accurate than Encyclopaedia Britannica because it relies on numerous academics AND amateurs to contribute and incorrect information gets weeded out... But where Wiki falls down is stuff like this, which is a very particular niche where a fandom can add rumours without anyone "in the know" weeding it out, because there are limited people in the know. That doesn't mean it's not true, I think it probably is - but it's a rumour none the less and you have to be careful of any outlandish claim with no source on wikipedia.
 
I've had confirmation from the park, there are no plans for a new coaster for the next few years.

Looks like I'll be waiting a little longer for a mega-lite on my doorstep!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top