Talk:Leviathan (Canada's Wonderland)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Leviathan New For 2012

Hello, my user name is Dom497. I will be one of the many users editing this page leading up to the opening and future of the ride. Because this ride was just announced and it is not yet open... please include at least one reference with every statement/sentence you add. If you do not, chances are that your edit will be undone. If high levels of vandalism are found by IP users, this page will be semi protected. Thank-you!!!--Dom497 (talk) 12:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination

When this article has stabilized, I'd love to submit it to the Did You Know main page queue. It looks good so far. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

{{Did you know nominations/Leviathan (roller coaster)}}

Pronunciation

I know this probably sounds stupid, but would it be possible to include the pronunciation of Leviathan, because even I don't know if I'm pronouncing it right?--Jakeriederer (talk) 23:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a darned good point. Having only seen it on computer screen, and not on BT, I find it equally mysterious. I imagine that even people who consider themselves religious wouldn't know about the correct pronunciation of this Biblical sea monster. -- Zanimum (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

 Already done Themeparkgc  Talk  00:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Preferred unit of measure in Canada?

In the press release and statistics on the official website, imperial unit of measure has been primarily used with with the metric system as a secondary unit of measure. However, in all secondary newspaper sources (such as those cited in the articles), the metric unit of measure has been used instead. At this time I've implemented the statistics in imperial format, however, should this be changed to metric? Themeparkgc  Talk  00:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia manual of style, the primary unit should be those used in the country the article is in. So I would agree, the primary unit should be metric. You might also check the source material, because I doubt the top speed is given as 148 km/h, it's more likely 150 km/h. Metricmike (talk) 01:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Record

Hey guys! Well i'm just trying to help out as much as I can since I live very close to Canada's Wonderland, its been a part of my whole life. So if you need pictures or anything like that I'll be happy to send you some! And secondly, I figured that rcdb.com is a reliable source since its cited on nearly every roller coaster page on wikipedia. It says that Leviathan will be the 8th fastest roller coaster in the world, and I saw on here it was the 10th?--Jakeriederer (talk) 16:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Good to hear that you'll be able to assist. When it comes to photos feel free to upload them to Wikimedia Commons or a Flickr account and release them under the appropriate license. Secondly, I don't know where on RCDB you are seeing that it will be the 8th fastest. This is a listing of all roller coasters, sorted by speed. As you can see Leviathan is 10th on the list. This is also supported by secondary newspaper sources cited within the article. Themeparkgc  Talk  22:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's where I got the list from http://rcdb.com/rhr.htm, but I don't know if it's correct?--Jakeriederer (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I was counting Superman: Escape from Krypton and Tower of Terror II separately (even though they both have the same speed). Also I was including ring°racer which isn't open yet (is that ever going to open?). So yes, according to your source it will be 8th, however, if ring°racer opens it will be 9th. I'll fix the article up shortly to make it 8th. Themeparkgc  Talk  23:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Wowzers, what a horribly hard name to type, ring°racer. Just for the sake of confusion, The Sun decided to randomly guess that it was to be 5th largest. I guess they're prophesizing an earthquake or something, that'll destroy a bunch of roller coasters. -- Zanimum (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Clean-Up

I'm surprised to see how whacked up this article has gotten since I left. I will be cleaning up the article and adding info when ever I get a chance...if ever.--Dom497 (talk) 03:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't call these changes "whacked up". Yes, some unsourced information was added, but {{Citation needed}} was added shortly after. These have now been resolved with cited references. Feel free to continue monitoring and improving the article though. Themeparkgc  Talk  10:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok...so it may not be "wacked up" but the section where is gives info like "Beginning during the week of September 11, 2011, Leviathan's break-run and station portions of track were put into place.[24] As of September 27, 2011, the brake-run and station portion of the track has been completed.[22]", before the most recent one added, there is info missing...I may add it in the future if no one adds it.--Dom497 (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Milestone Dates

You guys need to really pay attention more to when the milestones ACTUALLY happen.....here are the correct days that u can put in

High Speed Curve: Dec 3 Over banked turn: Dec 5

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150423309598924&set=a.10150333128398924.351913.95469803923&type=3&theater http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150423306223924&set=a.10150333128398924.351913.95469803923&type=3&theater

--Dom497 (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

When were these photos put online? Did it happen to be after the blog post and the changes to this page? Even though you are semi-retired you still have the time to come out and complain about this article and its state. In future, please feel free to spend the time fixing it yourself as that is what this encyclopedia is about. Themeparkgc  Talk  22:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Milestone Table

I took a look at the milestone/constrution table in the article and noticed the dates listed are inaccurate. Me living right beside Wonderland know when each milestone was complete but that would obviously be original research. Therefore, I don't the think the table should be in the article.--Dom497 (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking it could be removed along with a lot of the information in the history section that cites CWMania/Facebook. I would leave only the information actually verified with a date by the ride's blog. Everything else is speculation and/or original research as to when it was actually completed. Themeparkgc  Talk  03:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the table and some other info.--Dom497 (talk) 14:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Time For Real Leviathan Pictures???

All the current pictures on this article are animated. The coaster is complete and I think we should add a least 2 pictures that show the actual coaster. On Flickr, there is a user who's name is "crobart". It appears he has taken a lot of nice pictures of the coaster that I think would be perfect for this article. I worked with this user to get some of the WindSeeker photos on Wikipedia last year so even though the pictures are copy-righted, I think he will be generous once again and willing to change the licenses on some of the pictures. There are so many pictures to pick from and want someone else's thought on what pictures I should ask for.

His pictures of Leviathan can be found here.

So which ones do you guys think are the best?--Dom497 (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Many of those pictures are nice but I think we should wait until the tunnel is put in and all the theming is done. Besides, there's snow in those pictures. There's nothing wrong with that but there will be better pictures in a week when the coaster opens for the first time.--Astros4477 (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Can we change the infobox picture with maybe one of these?--Dom497 (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

All of those pictures would be copyrighted and thus cannot be used on Wikipedia. Since the ride is open, the images couldn't be used under fair use either. Themeparkgc  Talk  23:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The same user that I was talking about before uploaded some really nice pictures on Flickr. I can ask him to change the licenses if you guys like some of the pics.--Dom497 (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I think this would make a good infobox picture for right now. Then I'd say put this one somewhere in the article. I think those are the two best pictures to fit the article right now.--Astros4477 (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

There are some already CC licensed images on Flickr, if we don't have success with the photographer above. (I do like his.) -- Zanimum (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I have managed to get a user from CW Mania who uploaded this picture to change the license to one of the ones that Wikipedia accepts. I will upload the image as soon as the license is changed. This picture will be perfect for the infobox!--Dom497 (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I think this one is better, it's the same picture, just with the lift hill in the background which makes it good. And it shows more of the architecture and more of the fountain that the logos on. --Astros4477 (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I was able to get a image of the hammerhead turn. It is in the article if you guys want to see it. I will also see if I can get the image mentioned above.--Dom497 (talk) 23:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC) The image mentioned above by Astros4477 is now in the article.--Dom497 (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Video about building Leviathan

http://dcnonl.com/article/id50286/--leviathan-roller-coaster-construction-a-tight-squeeze-at-canadarsquos-wonderland-in-vaughan-ontario

Daily Commercial News has an article about building the coaster, with a video. Near the end of the article is mention of the subtrades hired, is that relevant, or too trivial? -- Zanimum (talk) 01:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The video also mentions that development of the coaster took about 2 years.--Dom497 (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Future GA?

I know the article is a bit unstable at the time, but just for a future note, maybe we could look into bringing the article to the GA level. We could use the layout that the Behemoth article uses as that article is already a Good Article. Am I looking at a complete fantasy or am I looking at a possible future for the article?--Dom497 (talk) 03:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Just because it has the layout of Behemoth, doesn't mean it meets the GA criteria. As you have said it is a bit unstable at the current time — I agree with this. I'm thinking after it opens there will be a flood of reliable sources about it. I feel at that time, the article will improve dramatically. So by the middle of this year it may be close, but that all depends on how this article evolves. Themeparkgc  Talk  00:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

From what it looks like now, I say we can nominate it maybe sometime in late-May (just so the article is stable). Over the next few days I will be adding some info to the article that will help get the article to GA level.--Dom497 (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Bear in mind there are things like peer reviews and copy edits that probably should be done first before the article is nominated. Themeparkgc  Talk  08:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry...I know. :) --Dom497 (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I see Dom497 (talk · contribs) has nominated the article for GA. There is still one {{citation needed}} tag that should be resolved. In a quick search I couldn't find a reliable source for it. Maybe the statement should just be removed. Themeparkgc  Talk  23:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I was the one that added the tag and I couldn't find anything stating that, probably original research. I have removed it.--Astros4477 (talk) 01:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I kinda took hoped that we could find a reliable reference by the time a review is commenced. Oh well, better to play it safe (in the event the article is failed because of that one issue) than sorry.--Dom497 (talk) 02:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Well done guys. The article has been promoted to GA. Themeparkgc  Talk  22:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Leviathan IS A GIGA

So if GIGA is a Intamin term and B&M can't use it, then why did the early construction plans and material tags say "Giga Coaster" on them...--Dom497 (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to comment on what Dom497 said, the packaging when the coaster was being built had labels that said it was a giga coaster. I think it confuses people when they see hyper because the definition of a hyper is a full circuit between 200-299. --Astros4477 (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Therein lies the problem ... the coaster community at large has dubbed it that because manufacturers started using it. Arrow and/or Cedar Point coined "hyper coaster" for Magnum XL-200, while Intamin and/or Cedar Point coined "giga" for Millennium Force and "strata" for Top Thrill Dragster. However, running counter to that are (a) B&M's own list of products doesn't mention a giga-coaster and (b) RCDB, arguably Wikipedia's best reliable source for coaster info, doesn't call it a giga-coaster. So if we, as coaster fans, call it a giga-coaster, that's our original thought. If/when B&M physically markets something they call a giga-coaster, as in mentions it in their product literature/website, then it can change (and I'd be wondering if Intamin will give 'em a buzz about that). --McDoobAU93 21:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

(Didn't know I had so many talk page stalkers) Anyway, I agree with McDoobAU93 and I am sure JlACEer (talk · contribs) (who originally reverted this change) would agree also. B&M have not marketed the ride as a giga - to them it is still a Hyper Coaster. Themeparkgc  Talk  22:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the "coaster community at large" it seems to be mostly internet users (at least to me). None of my coaster friends think of this as a giga, and none of the industry trade publications are using that term. I don't think it's a matter of not being able to use the word (I haven't found any registered trademarks for it) I think it's more of a preference. Morgan and B&M didn't/don't want to use terms that tout another manufacturer's product. I think the early use of the word giga in early construction plans was just conjecture from enthusiasts. I looked at all the press releases from the park and I don't see any mention of the word "giga." Do we have any photograph evidence of this packaging that says giga?

A hyper is any coaster over 200 feet. No one ever defined it as precisely between 200-299. It was actually made up by a reporter for ACE News back in 1989 and Kinzel liked it, and the park started using it. I don't think Arrow ever marketed any of those rides as hypers (I'll have to dig up the early Morgan ride catalogs). Even the early B&M catalogs say mega coaster, not hyper, yet eventually it caught on. As I mentioned when I changed the B&M page several weeks ago, we should attempt to consistently use definitions and terms that the manufacturers are using and avoid using "made-up" definitions if we want these pages to maintain an air of professionalism. As McDoob says, if other manufacturers start marketing coasters with term giga, then we can change it, but at the present time, no one other than Intamin uses it.JlACEer (talk) 00:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with keeping it listed as a Hyper coaster but I did find a picture, http://parkthoughts.com/2011/08/09/canadas-wonderland-2012-mystery-construction/. It is the 3rd picture on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astros4477 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 17 February 2012‎

Thanks — that's interesting! But to get back to Dom497's original question, the steel comes from Clermont Steel Fabricators in Ohio not from B&M. I'm sure the guys in Ohio are familiar with the term giga so that's what they decided to use when they tagged the steel components.JlACEer (talk) 12:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

When I saw that picture, it didn't look like the labels I've normally seen on B&M pieces, either. There was one in plain view on Goliath on the transfer track for years, for example; better yet, I found one for SheiKra here for comparison. --McDoobAU93 15:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

To elaborate a little more on what I said earlier. Hyper originally meant a coaster over 200 feet, but the manufacturers think of it more as a style of coaster. If you go to the Chance Rides Hypercoaster page you will see that they market a 150-foot, 200-foot and 300-foot hypercoaster (they make it one word). LaRonde's Goliath is less than 200 feet but it is pictured on B&M's hyper coaster page. If you think of this as more of a style of coaster rather than trying to have terms for every 100 feet (Hyper, Giga, Strata, whatevera), then it makes sense. Besides, giga is a terrible term for a coaster. In the metric system it means a billion, not 300. I'd like to know which marketing "genius" thought this was an appropriate term for a 300-foot coaster.JlACEer (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I remember seeing a picture of a small plate on the side of a (presumably) Millennium Force car that clearly said "Intamin AG Giga Coaster" or something like it, so it looks like the marketeers in Wollerau are to blame. --McDoobAU93 16:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Like this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrewb94/5368673264/JlACEer (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I go to Cedar Point pretty often and yes all the Millennium Force cars have a plaque on them that says Intamin Giga Roller Coaster — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astros4477 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 17 February 2012‎

Sorry for the late response but if you check out this link, Canada's Wonderladn calls it a giga: http://www.cwmania.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=51728#p51728 --Dom497 (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

A better link would be to here. Themeparkgc  Talk  21:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but I pretty sure that the term "Giga" can be used in the article now\again. Agree?--Dom497 (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

That shows that Canada's Wonderland markets it as a giga coaster but not that the official Bolliger & Mabillard model of roller coaster is a giga coaster. I would say leave it as is for now. Themeparkgc  Talk  22:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm on vacation right now, so as soon as I get home I will e-mail B&M (I know it sounds a but "extreme").--Dom497 (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

One point to consider unless they publish it on their website or similar, it will be considered as original research. Themeparkgc  Talk  22:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

True....--Dom497 (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually what it shows is that an "Education Representative" (Krystin Diceman) at Canada's Wonderland is using that term. Possibly some intern, who got her information off the internet. I've yet to see anything from the marketing department that uses "giga." I'm really puzzled as to why you are so obsessed with using this term. It will be a really big, fantastic coaster, it doesn't need extra hyperbole. And no, sending an e-mail is not too extreme. I'm sure we are all curious as to what they have to say. Next time I see Walter Bolliger at a trade show, I intend to ask him about the whole giga thing.JlACEer (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The point about anyone contacting B&M, either via mail or directly, is that it can't be used as a source for the edits here. Will it be good to hear it from them? Of course, but unfortunately it still wouldn't be good enough. The only thing that would, in my opinion, necessitate a change is when Bolliger & Mabillard changes its marketing and calls such rides "giga coasters". That would most likely necessitate RCDB changing its description, which would then be the preferred reliable source for such an edit here. I agree that "giga" and such is pure marketeering and not terribly encyclopedic; frankly "hyper" isn't much better, but because so many market models under that name, it's made its way into the project. --McDoobAU93 18:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

B&M just added the Wing Coaster model to their official website a few days ago so I guess we might have to wait a few years to really find out if Leviathan is a Giga or Hyper...--Dom497 (talk) 03:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Wing Coaster has been on their website for several months now, they were advertising the Wing Coaster at the IAAPA trade show last November and it is in their printed ride catalog. The term Wing Coaster didn't just recently appear.JlACEer (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to throw it out there that I went to go ride Leviathan today and I can confirm that the model is "GIGA". The plague that has all the ride details on the operator booth says "GIGA" on it so I think that confirms the model of the coaster. I couldn't take a picture of it because the employees were rushing to get people on and off the coaster.--Dom497 (talk) 02:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

This is original research and thus should not be included in the article until it is verified by a reliable source. I've left the model field in the infobox blank until a definitive confirmation of the ride model can be found. Themeparkgc  Talk  06:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

If Dom497 got a picture of it, would it then be ok?--Astros4477 (talk) 12:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I would like to know the same thing too. If it is ok, I would try to get a picture of it the next time I go to the park.--Dom497 (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

From WP:OR:

“ Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. ”

I'd prefer to wait until B&M/RCDB say something about this ride. Themeparkgc  Talk  23:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Is a statement from the Toronto Star good enough? [Because I just found one!]--Dom497 (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

City newspapers are rarely a good source for amusement articles. I see incorrect information on a regular basis. The recent rash of disinformation regarding Kings Island's 40th anniversary is a perfect example. I'm not sure I would trust the park plaque on the coaster either. Both wood coasters have plaques on them that say they were built by PTC, but those plaques are incorrect. I'm still puzzled by the obsession with wanting to call this a giga and I have a feeling this discussion isn't going to end until it gets changed.JlACEer (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the plaque is pretty reliable. I haven't seen the plaque so I'm not sure how reliable looking it is though. I'm not sure where I stand on this, but if I was the final decision maker, I would call it a giga. I don't really get the whole who "coined" the term. The definition is any full circuit roller coaster between 300 and 399 feet, Leviathan falls in that category.--Astros4477 (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

If any of this helps, the plaque says that the Manufactured Name is a Giga.--Dom497 (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

A "definition" is the formal statement of the meaning of a word. If you think Giga has a formal and widely accepted definition of "a full circuit roller coaster between 300 and 399 feet" please cite a valid source (other than what enthusiasts and wikipedians have made up).JlACEer (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I know this hasn't been disused for a while now but after a little bit of research on how B&M labels their coasters, B&M doesn't not consider Leviathan a Giga. However, Canada's Wonderland does. When I was at the park yesterday I noticed that the posters for sale said "Type of Coaster: Giga Coaster". I took a picture of the poster but to lazy to upload it now. If you guys want me to I will when I get a chance. 'Till then, I'll let other users decide weather mega or giga should be added to the article (yet again ;-) ).--Dom497 (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Drop length

I know this has been discussed before but I think it's time to bring it back up. @GoneIn60: recently made this edit that stated the drop for Leviathan is 306 feet. Although the source may say that, I doubt that is correct. As we know it slightly goes underground so it's atleast 306 feet. I think it should be removed until we ever hear something from the park, which could be never.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 13:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

@Astros4477: The drop is exactly 306 feet as the train levels out at the exact same level as the ground (the track goes underground a bit but the riders are level to the ground: http://www.cwmania.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10032/094~0.JPG ).--Dom497 (talk) 15:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

It does appear that the train levels out as Dom497 mentioned. Also, here's another source that states the drop is 306 ft. Obviously, there's not a lot of confirmation in the media or from the park itself, but there may be a good reason for that. If the two sources are correct about the height and drop being the same, then it actually makes sense that news reports aren't going great lengths to describe them individually. Usually, it's the other way around – when they don't match (as is the case with most roller coasters), the distinction is made and both the height and drop are reported separately. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Opening paragraph in History section

"In the early planning stages of Leviathan, had Bolliger & Mabillard declined to make a roller coaster over 300 feet (91 m), the roller coaster would have not been constructed. Walter Bolliger admitted that he "owed" the park as an inverted roller coaster could not be built several years earlier due to an exclusivity clause."

Can anyone explain exactly what this is saying? I'm not following. Thanks... --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

@GoneIn60: The GM of Wonderland told Walter that if he would not agree to build a coaster over 300ft, he would go find another manufacture to do so. When Flight Deck (Vekoma SLC) was built at the park, it wasn't what the park had wanted. They were in the middle of designing a B&M invert and Cedar Fair had bought the rights that no B&M invert could be built within 200 miles of Cedar Point. Wonderland was 198 miles away. When B&M called Cedar Fair they refused to allow Wonderland to build the ride so the roller coaster was sent to California Great America and Wonderland got a SLC.--Dom497 (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. That makes more sense now that I have the context. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)