Talk:Euthanasia Coaster

Reflections

This is not linked in any way, shape or form to the article. I just love the wikipedian sense of humour; I mean 'unintentional survival of passengers', that sounds like something you would hear in Aperture or a Dark Comedy Film/Show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.159.15 (talk) 00:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how 10G's for 60 seconds is going to kill most healthy people. Unconsciousness, sure, but death seems highly improbable. 174.24.42.135 (talk) 01:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, 10G is quite a heavy lot of force. As far as I know normal people pass out in less than 10G in less than 60 seconds. Oh Frustration (talk) 15:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You might be right. Most people will pass out at about 3G, with a G-suit this is increased to about 7G and with training that can be increased to about 10-12G for short periods of time (as with a jet fighter pilot) but seeing as brain death doesn't normally occur until after 3 minutes without oxygen the passengers who don't have a cardiac arrest are more likely to just turn up unconscious at the end of the ride. There are two modifications to the basic design which would mitigate this risk. Firstly, invert the car so the passengers endure 10G of negative-g. This would almost certainly cause a cerebral haemorrhage. Secondly, have some blades that decapitate the passengers on the final turn. As far as I know no one has ever survived decapitation.

Several problems with decapitation, mainly that it defeats the purpose of having the people die in a nonglorey fashion. Also many people have survived several attempts of decapitation, that's why they got rid of methods like the guillotine. What would fit this ride better is a sudden turn to snap the neck, or a sudden stop. The car could be inverted for the negative-g, then strong magnets could be used to invert it back to positive-g right before it returns to the station. This would give anyone cardiac arrest, cerebral hemorrhage, and a broken neck; thus insuring 0% survivability. What do y'all think of that combination? --MahaPanta (talk) 07:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to see a therapist. 86.139.229.98 (talk) 16:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I also got a big laugh from 'unintentional survival of passengers'. The whole article is brilliantly absurd. What I came here to ask though is how long people would be subjected to 10g for in those loops. It seems the vast majority of the duration of the ride would be the slow climb up to the top of the big hump. While 10g might render everyone unconscious, would it deprive their brains of oxygen for long enough that they don't just regain consciousness when they come to a stop? Credulity (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I have to admit, the first time I saw this article, I thought "Is this an Uncyclopedia article?" However, my biggest question is why in the world would the London College of Art back a project like this? That's insane! Capedude2005 (talk) 03:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it's juts a design concept, trying to figure out what would be too much for the human body. Think of it as similar to those silly space ship looking concept cars that go 250 mph they always show off at car shows that are never actually produced. 174.125.119.64 (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

As someone who suffers from severe depression and contemplates my demise much too often, my ultimate desire is relief from the pain, and the ability to enjoy that relief, something which euthanasia does not offer. I suppose deep inside I don't feel I have the right to terminate my life any more than I had involvement in starting it off. However, with my ups and downs, I can't see this as the 'glorious' death promised to the rider, who once on his final way up, should reconsider and realize that he is not going to be aware that the pain he ran from came to an end. In fact, he may become aware of how regretful and sad his final decision was now that all hope is gone for relief. I'm not saying that will be the case, I'm just saying, we don't know if we've chosen the worse of the afforded evils. Do we seek death or do we really desperately and painfully seek relief when we consider ending our lives? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.131.193.96 (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you ok? BTW I wrote a story about the coaster for my English class and included this as a sort of epigraph, I thought it was so Wikipedia that this would be in the talk page. Chimp1872 (talk) 01:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Cultural Reference

This article is the second time I've heard of this coaster. The first was in a recent Science Fiction story, "Vladimir Chong Chooses to Die" by Lavie Tidhar, in the September 2014 issue of Analog Science Fiction and Fact. The description wasn't the best (possibly inaccurate), but is definitely the coaster described there. I'd add it to the list here, but I'm not sure the story itself would quality as "popular" culture; as with many stories in Analog since the new editor took over, it wasn't that great of a story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.155.39 (talk) 06:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Over-engineered

Wouldn't it be simpler to just build a Rotor wall and spin it up to 10gs? Rotor (ride)

This roller coaster is ridiculously large for what it's trying to accomplish.

It would be _simpler_ to build a three storey high ramp and push people off the top of it. That's not the point. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Most or all of the ride up can be eliminated by building it off one of those ten tallest buildings, and having a nice restaurant at the top. You could call it The Last Supper. And use it instead of execution poisons for mass murderers, serial rapists, etc., so it benefits society. --97.123.101.88 (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Accuracy

Article currently reads in part On 14 June 2013, Norwegian rock group Major Parkinson released "Euthanasia Roller Coaster", a digital single with lyrics alluding to Urbonas's Euthanasia Coaster. (my emphasis) However the reference given does not mention the date, and it has been changed from 13 June by an IP.

Suggest removing the date as the source does not verify it, either way. Andrewa (talk) 01:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Changed MarjonW (talk) 18:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Not encyclopedic - should be deleted

I propose deletion of the page as it is not an encyclopedia but a self-promotional one. The euthanasia coaster project is simply a scientific provocation on how to make a roller coaster that can kill a person by exploiting acceleration and other side effects. There are thousands of such articles in Nature, Science, Focus, etc., and none of them are encyclopedic. These are the typical articles that serve as fillers a newspaper (be it a newspaper, or a monthly, etc. ..). If is really to consider necessary, could be put as a curiosity on the page dedicated to roller coasters, even if even here it can be questionable, as there are thousands of variants of roller coasters, curiosities, open parks. then closed, accidents, etc .. which are not all mentioned. The architect Julijonas Urbonas is not known for anything other than the thing, not even at the social level, as can be verified from his profile https://www.instagram.com/julijonas/

The director of the short film H positive has only that film to his credit, as can be verified https://www.imdb.com/name/nm7576971/ and we are talking about a short film with 30 thousand visits (a negligible number to be considered important, always at an encyclopedic level).

So we are faced with news with a shocking impact, which is an end in itself and for the article, but which has nothing encyclopedic.

As I'm italian I don't really know how to deal with the cancel/delet template, so if someone can do for me, I'd be glad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harukanaru (talk • contribs) 18:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Valid reasons for deleting an article can be found at the deletion policy. Instructions for performing such a nomination can be found here, though it's recommended you read this first. Lastly, I suspect this will be an uphill effort for you because this article has already been deemed a good article, though I don't say this to dissuade you. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:17, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

This can be known

I don't care if you like or not
Read this:
Hello, I voice a concern reluctantly. This article could inspire intentional cases of youths’ death which weren't done by anyone but the youth themselves. The Euthanasia Coaster does indeed feel like a fun way to go, but it should not be on Wikipedia. Children use this website. If any Wikipedia workers are reading this, I recommend a Kidipedia (or other names, it just popped into mind) for younger children in primary schools or foreign equals. This concerns me as when I was younger a boy (I shall not state his name for privacy reasons) kept on saying ’he wouldn't come over back tomorrow’ and ’end me’ and ’I hate my life’. If a Kidipedia is made, I advise nothing I 2A00:23EE:1109:BA69:8DB:B9C3:7F50:48C4 (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

See relevant policy WP:Wikipedia is not censored. If you are concerned, there are resources to block children's activity online on certain websites. Adog (Talk・Cont) 15:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

If a child is able to build the roller coaster described here, and do it without any form of adult assistance or supervision, I would be both deeply impressed by their resourcefulness and very doubtful that they needed Wikipedia to give them the motivation to do it. WP Ludicer (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Possible Popular Culture addition

Hi! I haven't edited a wiki before and am too afraid to anger any Wiki moderators. The game Everhood has a song in it called Euthanasia Rollercoaster, and without revealing too much about the story, the song is played during a fight where the game heavily revolves around death in an exciting way / everything inside of the game is intended to die. (I know Wikipedia doesn't have spoilers, so I tried to keep the explanation as vague as possible. I can go more in-depth if required) Mimichew94745 (talk) 12:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mimichew94745: It never hurts to ask. In this case, I would check out WP:POPCULTURE to help you with your inclusion. So long as you can provide a reliable, verifiable source and write it well it should not be a problem for this page. If it does not have a reliable source, it is probably not worth inclusion. Fortunately, we do include spoilers on Wikipedia per WP:SPOILERS.

Even if your edit gets reverted, you may always come to a talk page to discuss why it was and how you can come to a consensus. Be bold! My edits are occasionally reverted, it happens. Keep on learning. Anyone can edit Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome, no matter your skill level so long as you have the determination to improve your quality and a drive for information. Adog (Talk・Cont) 13:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Pop culture again

I'm inclined to delete the whole "in pop culture" section here as in many other articles; but even granting that it is, or could be, appropriate, how does the bit about "Glenn Paton's short film H Positive" merit being listed? -- Hoary (talk) 05:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Hoary: I remember 15 or so years ago when Wikipedia articles were infected with "Trivia" sections. As they disappeared, they got replaced by "Pop culture". Trivia by any other name is still trivia. I find these sections to be rather useless, but it seems one cannot keep them out. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

It would help if people made at least a token effort to adhere to MOS:POPCULT: Cultural references about a subject should not be included simply because they exist. A Wikipedia article may include a subject's cultural impact by summarizing its coverage in reliable secondary or tertiary sources. A source should cover the subject's cultural impact in some depth; it should not be a source that merely mentions the subject's appearance in a movie, song, television show, or other cultural item. This article appears to cite no sources discussing the cultural impact of the 'Euthanasia Coaster ', and accordingly shouldn't have a 'popular culture' section at all, per the MOS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:33, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, I'd have no objection if all were deleted. ('Scuse the digression, but I'm contemplating the DYK: "the concept for the Euthanasia Coaster, a roller coaster designed to kill its riders, caused concern among anti-euthanasia groups when it went on display?" No I didn't know that, but I don't feel the teeny-weeniest twinge of even the mildest surprise. I also wonder how this article can be "Good".) -- Hoary (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I think they can be WP-acceptable, and I tend to weed un- and poorly- sourced stuff when I come across it. Sometimes sources are surprisingly good. It has some interest to note that this idea spread a little, but WP:PROPORTION applies. However, items must have a decent independent source. Not the work itself, WP:BLOGS, etc etc. So the How High We Go in the Dark is a bit iffy. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:34, 1 September 2023 (UTC)