Jump to content

Talk:WindSeeker/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Ride type or the Cedar Fair installation?

With the addition of the section on "Models" is this article moving away from being just about the Cedar Fair installations? I don't see that all of this information is relevant for the article. I feel this should probably only be a fleeting mention in one of the other sections stating that Cedar Fair WindSeekers are the highest capacity version that Mondial offer. At the moment, I see the section as being disjoint from the rest of the article. Does anyone else see where I am coming from? Themeparkgc  Talk  22:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I've been thinking the same thing. Until another Wind Seeker is built, I feel the models should be left out. One thing I noticed on the website is that in this, it shows a red and white Wind Seeker. Is that just an animation or is there another Wind Seeker in Europe or something?
We do have to keep in mind that WindSeeker is the ride at Cedar Fair parks, Wind Seeker is the model. So if a model page was created, it would be named Wind Seeker then this page would stay WindSeeker. We could then just place a not to be confused with the ride at Cedar Parks, WindSeeker at the top of the other page. However, a model page should not be created until there are more outside of the Cedar Fair chain.--Astros4477 (talk) 00:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Now that I consider it, I agree with Astros4477. They shouldn't be mentioned here unless/until a different model is actually built; until then, the other models are merely theoretical (I doubt they have complete versions of these other models sitting in a warehouse). Because of that, I think we shouldn't even mention that the existing versions are the highest capacity model offered, since it's likely the only model that actually exists outside of drawings. jcgoble3 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC).
Just delete the section. When I added it, I thought that "Wind Seeker" was just a spelling error on Mondial's website. Thanks to Astros4477, now I understand what the difference in the spellings mean. Regarding other WindSeekers being built else where, we can scratch all Six Flags off the list as we all know they build the Sky Screamers. I think we will only see WindSeekers (outside of Cedar Fair) going to private/family theme parks. Hey, Dollywood got rid of the Timber Tower, and from pictures, that looks like a good spot for a Wind Seeker!!! :-P --Dom497 (talk) 11:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Models section minus Removed per the obvious consensus. jcgoble3 (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I will make a "Wind Seeker" article on my user space when I get a chance. Therfore, if a Wind Seeker does get built outside of Cedar Fair, the article would be all set to go.
Since we're merely speculating at this time, it might be better to store the article offline on your computer, lest it run afoul of WP:STALEDRAFT and get deleted at MfD. jcgoble3 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC).
True, I'll just work on it using Microsoft Word.--Dom497 (talk) 00:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The True WindSeeker Height

When you read this, you will probably think that I'm a out of my mind but I think I may have just figured out the real height of WindSeeker.

I went to this photo. When you take a really good look at the picture you can see that the wood that is holding the pieces, they extend to about two parking spaces (its easier to look at the grey piece). I then went to Google Earth and went to Wonderland's parking lot. I measured out 2 parking spaces and I got a distance of 39-40 feet. Because there are 8 tower pieces (and they all looked like to be the same sizes), I did 40 x 8. When you do it you get 320 feet. Add on about another ten feet because of the steel platform and "UFO" and you got the magic number: 330 feet (100 meters).

My only concern about what I just did is that are two parking spaces really 40 feet long (one parking space 20 feet long or 6 meters long)???? That kind of sounds like a big number but I guess that number could be right. Anyone know what the average size of a parking space is?

Anyway, another obvious problem is that this is all good old fashion original research.

P.S I found the location of where the photo of this (Carowinds WindSeeker) was taken and I also got 12 meters which was the same distance for Wonderland.

My conclusion to this is that when the Mondial website says "65/100", it must mean either 65 meters or 100 meters.

Why would Cedar Fair advertise a lower height? I don't know but my only *funny* thought is that 301 feet sounds alot better then 330 feet....which also brings me to say that they would also be false advertising Leviathan which is apparently taller then WindSeeker.--Dom497 (talk) 23:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

To quote Wikipedia's verifiability policy, "Verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia". I believe that maybe the tower is 330, but the height that people actually reach is 301 (full height less the height of the UFO and arms of the seats). Anyway, as you said yourself it is original research and thus shouldn't be included. Themeparkgc  Talk  01:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Cedar Point WindSeeker Electrical Cable Comes Loose

I don't know if this is considered a major accident, but from what it appears, on Saturday morning, the black electrical cable that is attached to the tower someone managed to get its way out of the two bars located around the cable to prevent it from flying out. Screamscape should have a bit more info about this tomorrow. If enough info about the accident is revealed, we can add it to the article under the "Problems" section of the article. It also appears that the gonadal is not moving and is around half way up the tower meaning that the operators probably pushed the emergency stop button.

http://twitter.com/screamscape/status/209291876417798144

--Dom497 (talk) 01:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I do know that they had to manually bring the gondola down. All the articles I have seen just say it got stuck though, I hadn't heard anything about cables becoming detached until I saw that photo.--Astros4477 (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I have added the info to the article.--Dom497 (talk) 22:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Any chance of adding some news articles over the Screamscape links? Themeparkgc  Talk  22:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Picture wise, your not going to find that on news articles. Rider reports, your not going to find on news articles. I already tried searching and all the news articles I found say nothing...it almost sounds like Cedar Point told the news channels/sources not to say that an entire electrical cable set got cut in half.--Dom497 (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Found two that show the damage up close, but neither actually mentions anything specific about it: ABC Toledo and ABC Cincy — GoneIn60 (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Accidents and Problems section

What's the difference between the Accidents section and the Problems section? I feel they could be combined but I wasn't sure what the difference is.--Astros4477 (talk) 13:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The accidents section is under the history section. I think that keeping it where it is now is fine.--Dom497 (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I see "Accidents" as a subset of "Problems". They're just more serious problems. I would suggest combining the two into a single main section titled "Incidents". It's a neutral term that covers everything there. What do you guys think about that? jcgoble3 (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm ok with that.--Astros4477 (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
When I think about it more, I agree with Jcgoble3.--Dom497 (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Evac system

There's an article in the Orange County Register here about the new evacuation system. Some of the stuff here should be added to the article. I'll likely sort through it within the next week or so if no one else gets to it. Suggestions on how best to incorporate it are welcome. Assuming that this is installed at Kings Island and stored in a place visible to the public, I should be able to get a good photo of it on opening day (April 27). jcgoble3 (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

It's been confirmed that no WindSeeker's are allowed to operate without the system in place so you should be able to get a good pic :) . This kinda info can be included in the history, problems, and structure sections but I don't know if putting it in all three sections would be a bit overkill.--Dom497 (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
That would be overkill. I'm thinking that the accidents section should be cut down and merged with the last paragraph of the problems section. This information about the evacuation system should be introduced in the problems section as something along the lines of: "As a result of this investigation, an evacuation system was added ..." Themeparkgc  Talk  23:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Update: The KI WindSeeker is still closed. The evac system was unfortunately hidden behind a fence, preventing any usable photos of it, and from the looks of things I suspect it may stay behind that fence unless and until needed (and FWIW I'll note that KI's version is the only WindSeeker to not have had these problems in the past). So a photo of the system at KI seems unlikely. One of you may have better luck at Cedar Point or Canada's Wonderland when those parks open in the next couple of weeks. I will be at Cedar Point for CoasterMania in June, but not before then. On other notes: We still need to work the information from the news article above into this article. Also, there's an unconfirmed report here that the one at Kings Dominion is fully operational, and so we need to look into finding a reliable source to back that up. jcgoble3 (talk) 04:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
There are also reports that the CW model was operating yesterday as the park was open to people that work for BMO Bank (don't know if you ever heard of it). UPDATE: I personally can confirm WindSeeker open yesterday as a result of a photo update on CW Mania. Also, it seems that the evac system will remain in storage at all times unless needed. I'll work on getting one of the photos from CW Mania.--Dom497 (talk) 12:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Updated:--Dom497 (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes I think it's been confirmed it'll always be in storage unless needed. Unfortunately I won't be at CoasterMania but I'll be there a couple times in May so I'll check it out. Also, is there any update on Carowinds? They opened at the same time as KD.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 13:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
The last time there was any mention of Carowinds was when Lance (Screamscape) said WindSeeker would not open in time for opening day (https://twitter.com/screamscape/status/317390512799768578). --Dom497 (talk) 13:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing the reopenings

KI's WindSeeker was open today; I rode it this morning. Look for whatever source we can find to back that up. I frankly don't think we're going to have much of a choice in regard to sources for the reopenings. The only one that's likely to generate a news article when it reopens is the one at Knott's, since it had the most high-profile problems and the forced shutdown. The KI reopening didn't even get a Facebook status from the park and was only tweeted because someone asked about it. I think we're going to have to go with whatever we can find on these, be they fansite posts, tweets, Screamscape, or whatever. Beggars can't be choosers. jcgoble3 (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

CW model was running last night for the preview night. I highly doubt any Toronto news source will publish that it reopened. I'll see what I can find and if not, we might have to go the way jcgoble3 mentioned above.--Dom497 (talk) 18:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I've added the out-of-date tag to the article until we make a decision.--Dom497 (talk) 11:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
As per a suggestion that was made to me on KICentral here, I have removed all of the statuses from the infobox completely except for Knott's, which we know is still SBNO. The basis for this is, as malem on KIC stated, that it is better to give no status than an incorrect status if we cannot properly source the correct status. I think this makes sense, as the reader won't be misled by the SBNO statements, and leaving Knott's listed as SBNO allows the reader to make his or her own inference that the others are therefore operating, without us actually stating something that we can't source. I've left the out-of-date tag on the article as the prose still gives the most recent events as being the closures. Any objections to this, or can we live with this for the time being while we wait on Knott's to reopen and the news article likely to come with it? jcgoble3 (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Just got to hope that the news article comes with this sentence, "The other WindSeekers across the Cedar Fair have also re-opened." :) --Dom497 (talk) 02:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
If the newspaper does their homework to make a thorough report, it will. But that's not guaranteed, unfortunately, and if it doesn't, then we're back to my first post in this section. jcgoble3 (talk) 02:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Any luck with sources? -- Zanimum (talk) 12:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

WindSeeker at Knott's is still closed so there is still nothing.--Dom497 (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
We finally got an article...from another malfunction. [1] --Dom497 (talk) 02:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
@Astros4477: I don't think all the installations are closed. Kings Island is still operating and Carowinds is also reported to be open. CP is the only one that is apparently closed.--Dom497 (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I've looked at several webcams and can confirm that that all WindSeekers are operating. Astros, I think you misread the news article as it was talking about the September closure.--Dom497 (talk) 00:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Ya I read the article wrong. Although I was going by the PointBuzz News and you can see how I thought they were all closed.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 02:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Glad to see we finally got a source. On a side note, I've removed myself from the {{maintained}} template at the top of this page, as I've lost interest in trying to maintain a moving target. Other things have begun to take over my time, and I'm beginning to lose interest in Wikipedia entirely as a result. To that end, I've marked myself as semi-retired. I'll still pop in on occasion, but don't expect me to do any major work on this article from here on out. Maybe if the issues with these prototypes get resolved and they can actually get them to work right reliably for a while (yeah, right), or more likely IMO Cedar Fair finally decides to pull the plug and tear them down, then I might come back and get involved again. But right now it's a moving target with all the problems and shutdowns, and I no longer have any interest in chasing it. jcgoble3 (talk) 02:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Some Windseeker thing at another park

So there's plans of a Mondial Windseeker ride coming to Adventureland (Iowa), I'm confused of putting it together into the Windseeker page or create a new article on the ride. The Adventureland park is a family-owned park and not a Cedar Fair park, so is it a good idea to create a new page or put into the same page? Another question is, is Windseeker a trademark of Cedar Fair or Mondial? ///EuroCarGT 20:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I think we should make a different article about it or it might not even be notable enough for its own article. Wind Seeker is the model name, WindSeeker is the name of the ride at the Cedar Fair parks so I don't think they should be in the same article.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 20:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay! So gather up some references and sources, not sure if it's notable, but rides with the same model have different pages. ///EuroCarGT 20:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
I'd agree that this page should remain as one for Cedar Fair rides. If/when the other ride has enough sources, it should have an article created. Themeparkgc  Talk  00:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I've created a sandbox on what the Storm Chaser ride page might look like. However I only got 1 source, so I need to gather up more. I search the ride on Google and got lots of theme park forum sites which are not good sources. ///EuroCarGT 01:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Some new details on why the Knott's one was moved

Just gonna drop this link here: [2] Last paragraph has some details on specifically why the one from Knott's was moved to Worlds of Fun. I'll let those who still maintain this article figure out how to add it, since I haven't dealt with this article in a while. jcgoble3 (talk) 03:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the article goes in detail enough to include it. It says that the board wanted new ladders in the shaft. When the ride shipped, there were already ladders in place.--Dom497 (talk) 11:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on WindSeeker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on WindSeeker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WindSeeker/Archive_2&oldid=1137325912"