Talk:The Racer (Kings Island)

Untitled

This coaster has historical significance (credited with sparking a new Golden Age in wooden coasters) so I'm upping its importance to high. --Skylights76 (talk) 07:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I was born and raised in Cincinnati and spent a lot of summers arguing with neighborhood kids which Racer was better, backward or forward. Perhaps the article can be expanded slightly to include the park's rationale for recently setting them both forward again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.179.6 (talk) 14:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Infobox manufacturer name

I understand the name was eventually changed from Philadelphia Toboggan Company to Philadelphia Toboggan Coasters. I also understand that the category is automatically created/linked based on this entry. However, it seems that the name listed here should be the name of the company at the time when the roller coaster was built. That's what readers expect to see. What if tomorrow the company's name changed to Pittsburgh Coasters? See my point? Of course, most readers can just click the link to discover the company's history, but Wikipedia's MOS recommends that information be included without assuming that readers can or should click the link. Details like this should be presented in encyclopedic fashion (supporting the use of the old name, not the current name). I tend to agree with that. What are everyone else's thoughts on this? GoneIn60 (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

This would require changes to the infobox. Maybe we could add an optional parameter like {{{manufacturer_category}}} with similar usage to the {{{location_article}}} parameter. If this was to be implemented you would set {{{manufacturer}}} to Philadelphia Toboggan Company with {{{manufacturer_category}}} set to Philadelphia Toboggan Coasters. I'll post a link on the infobox page to this discussion so we can get some more thoughts. Themeparkgc  Talk  23:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that but manufacturers have changed names a few times and in my opinion, it would be a lot of work to go back and find out what the name was when it was actually built. RCDB lists the current name too.--Astros4477 (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It would be a lot of work if we don't accept the current name. Instead, I propose that we do accept the current name emphasizing at the same time that the former name is preferred. That way editors can make changes as they see fit over time when they come across a reliable source. My original concern was that if an editor, such as myself, wants to use the original name, then we could do so without worrying that it will get shot down for not matching the infobox template. GoneIn60 (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I always prefer to list the name of the company as it was known when a ride was built, as well as the park name when it was built. I have been doing so since I started writing articles. If we want to use the current name then technically everything from Arrow Development/Arrow Huss/Arrow Dynamics should be changed to S&S.JlACEer (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

promoting it to B-class

Is there anything we should do to promote it to B-class since it does not have issues with? --Starship9000 (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 3 August 2017

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved. There is a clear absence of consensus to move the article. bd2412 T 13:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

The Racer (Kings Island) → The Racer – The redirect has trivial edit history and should be overwritten. There is no other topic on Wikipedia with the exact title "The Racer", and therefore the parenthetical disambiguation "Kings Island" is unnecessary. Currently, the redirect points to Racer, but I believe this should be changed. For example, look at Matrix and The Matrix. The former leads to the disambiguation page while the latter goes straight to the film article, which is the primary topic with "The" in the title. The same holds true for Joker versus The Joker, and based on this reasoning, I believe we should do the same for the roller coaster. I plan to add a "For other uses" hatnote at the top that links to the disambiguation page. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 05:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I have notified WP:WikiProject Amusement Parks about the discussion.

• Oppose No comparison, the Matrix is a mega-notable film series and the only "The Matrix". There are several The Racer - the 1953 novel filmed as The Racers with Kirk Douglas, several other ride including The Racer (Kennywood), often named with "The". "The Racer" by Ib Melchior on which the Death Race film was made. And so on. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

...several other ride including The Racer (Kennywood), often named with "The"

Respectfully disagree. Racer at Kennywood does not contain "The" in its title, and per condition #2 at WP:THE, any occurrence of "the" preceding Racer would be written in lowercase. The solution to the other points you raise is to create The Racer (disambiguation) to include the handful of topics that have "The" in the title. They are all less significant in terms of traffic. The Kings Island roller coaster article drives more daily traffic than the others you've listed combined (the comparison is even more staggering once you remove the ineligible Kennywood Racer). A google search shows the Kings Island coaster at the top of search results. I think a closer look is warranted here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Racer (Kennywood) cites only one source that is not the ride's self-published official advertising website, and that source uses "the" before every occurrence (of which there are only two, but it's all we have). It is also difficult to imagine anyone writing or speaking about the topic without using "the". It would be unnatural to say "I'm going to take a ride on Racer". It is also not the only competing topic, as noted. Having said that, I do acknowledge that the Kings Island ride is very notable. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I should also mention that this isn't just a roller coaster at some amusement park. The Racer is credited by many sources as the catalyst that fueled the second golden age for wooden roller coasters. It drew so much attention to the park, it was featured on two nationally-televised sitcoms, The Partridge Family and The Brady Bunch. It is a critical landmark within the industry and is recognized as such. No other topic with "The Racer" in its title holds that level of significance. It's not even close. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

But the novel and the short story are both more significant in film history. There are clearly more than enough sources in GBooks to have an article on either of them. And the Hughes H-1 Racer is referred to as "the Racer" in aviation books. (see page views for the airplane) I'm just not seeing how the total readership are going to benefit from ambiguating the article title to make it less recognizable. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

If you were comparing the novel or short story to the average roller coaster, I would tend to agree. But neither was all that significant within their respective industry. Both did lead to films. However, they were sub-par at best and didn't win any awards, receive overwhelming praise, or generate significant revenue. Just being a novel, film, or short story is not enough. You are comparing it to one of the pillars from another industry, which again, traffic on both Google and Wikipedia significantly favors. The main benefit is to take users typing "The Racer" to a place that more accurately reflects their search. The current place is crowded and less refined. At the very least, it should be The Racer (disambiguation) featuring a shorter, more relevant list. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't see evidence that this is the primary topic of the term "The Racer", or that "The" should be included in the title per WP:THE. Its page view count isn't substantially higher than Racer (Kennywood), also known as "The Racer".[1]--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Cúchullain: Have you looked at the second condition at WP:THE? Racer at Kennywood would not have "the" capitalized when the definite article precedes the name in running text. Therefore, we shouldn't be comparing these two in all fairness here. If you remove the Kennywood coaster from the equation, there is nothing remotely close to the Kings Island coaster, especially when you are only considering reliable sources where "The" is capitalized. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that I can't see the Kings Island Racer should have "The" either. "The" isn't consistently capitalized in sources,[2][3][4] and both are known as "the Racer".--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Final speed bump

Despite popular belief (and KI's blog) the final dip on Racer was not removed to accommodate a walkway to Outer Limits: Flight of Fear. The walkway was able to go under the tracks without changing the hills. In 1996 only the left side had the dip removed. The right side was done during the 1996-1997 off-season, a full year after the walkway was installed. The walkway underneath is before the old final dip. If you look closely enough, you can still see evidence of where the ledgers existed between the walkway and the covered brake run. That section is over a grassy area — not the walkway. Here's a pretty good photo showing the original dip. Note how close it is to the brake run. Compare it to this one.—JlACEer (talk) 21:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Yep, looks like you're on to something. This image was taken in 1996, and you can see that at least the dip on the right side (backwards track) was still intact. The walkway heading back to Flight of Fear is clearly shown and in use. Since it's an old photo from a bad angle, can't really tell if the other side's dip is still in place, but either way, it seems to match up with your explanation. Still curious to know why either dip was removed, and why Don Helbig would get that wrong of all people? Interesting... --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I heard two different explanations, but of course I can't be sure about either — and both could be true. One is that on rare occasions, if the wheels were cold and the train was sluggish it would valley in that final dip, not making it up to the brake run. The other is that when the train was running hot, it was hard to stop with the skids, so they wanted to increase the length of the skid brakes. However, the skids were replaced with fin brakes just a year or two later, so that seems lees plausible. I do agree that it seems odd that Don doesn't remember the walkway being there with the dip. I remember it, and I remember all of my friends being equally puzzled with the removal of the final dip since it had nothing to do with the walkway to OL:FOF.—JlACEer (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Both seem plausible to me. Maybe the dip removal was tried first, followed by the brake upgrade when that wasn't enough? Might explain why one side was removed first (for testing), thought they had the fix and then removed the other side. Regardless, I remember that last dip. During a good race, you'd watch the other train near the end as you both came out of that dip and hit the covered brake run, disappearing from sight. Great climax! Just not the same racing experience without that if you ask me! --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)