Talk:WindSeeker/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Attention!!!

FROM NOW UNTIL JUNE 2, 2011 (OR UNTIL THIS MESSAGE IS DELETED) PLEASE NO ONE EDIT THE WINDSEEKER PAGE. A MAJOR EDIT IS CURRENTLY UNDERWAY AND ANY EDIT BY ANOTHER PERSON COULD CAUSE PROBLEMS WITH THE EDIT. Thank-you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dom497 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. You can't just tell everybody not to edit the article for two days. You can use {{Inuse}} while you actually have the edit box open, but note that the documentation for that template says, "Specifying periods of several days or longer for this template goes against the spirit of simply avoiding edit conflicts; please only use it for sessions where you are actively editing the article." You may also want to take a look at Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, which may apply here. jcgoble3 (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done Major editing complete.

New Section (History and 'Ride' or 'Ride Experience')

I (Dom497) will be making a 'History' sub-topic for this page in the next couple of days so please don't make that sub-topic. Another sub-topic that you could make could be called 'Ride' or 'Ride Experience'. In this subtopic provide info about the riders experience on the ride such as g-force, what happens during operation of the ride and how the ride works. This sub-topic could almost replace the current sub-topic called 'Layout'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dom497 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done "Ride" section. I also relocated and reworded "Layout" to make it become "Structure". Themeparkgc  Talk  04:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done "History" section complete.

Edit request from 64.134.169.93, 15 June 2011

The Sandusky Register has reported that WindSeeker has launched at Cedar Point (www.sanduskyregister.com). Please update.

64.134.169.93 (talk) 01:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done Themeparkgc  Talk  04:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Some WindSeeker photos taken yesterday

While at Kings Island yesterday, I took a few photos of WindSeeker yesterday. They can be found in my Flickr photostream here. Unfortunately, they did not do any full-speed testing cycles (or at least none that I saw), and they did not turn the lighting system on after dark, so I was unable to get to two shots I wanted most (that of it spinning at the top of the tower and of the lighting package). If anybody wants to use some of these photos in the article, post here which ones you want and I can upload them to Commons myself (doing it this way as opposed to someone else uploading the images themselves will allow me to add CC-BY-SA 3.0 to the 2.0 version of the license used by Flickr). jcgoble3 (talk) 16:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I took a look at the images and too bad that: 1: the ride wasn't fully operating and 2: instead of actually riders, there were test dummies. For the main info box, i think 5-WindSeeker from the Eiffel Tower would be the best choice as it shows the whole tower. Also, 7-WindSeeker seats really caught my attention because that image could be placed in the windseeker article in the history section sated something like "The test dummies used during testing at Kings Island".--Dom497 (talk) 19:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, the two requested images have been uploaded to Commons. They are at (in reverse order of request) File:Kings Island WindSeeker test dummies.JPG and File:5-WindSeeker from the Eiffel Tower.JPG, though the latter will soon be moved to File:Kings Island WindSeeker from Eiffel Tower.jpg. I will be at Cedar Point for five days next week, so I will try to get some photos of theirs in operation if I can take my dad's camera with me on that trip. jcgoble3 (talk) 21:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done Photos added to article.--Dom497 (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

WindSeeker Photo Loading Issues

If you have noticed that photos on the WindSeeker page are not loading properly, then please read this.

Please DO NOT attempt to fix the problem as the uploaded and other registered users are currently working to fix the problem. If the issue can not be fixed, another image of the logo should be added. Please DO NOT upload another picture of the logo until this section says that another picture of the logo is needed. Thank-you.--Dom497 (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE : It turns out the all photos on the page may experience this problem. If you encounter this problem, please do not attempt to fix the problem. Try waiting about 10-15 minutes (after closing the page/browser) then return to the main article. The photos then should all appear. (NOTE: This method may not always work) There is currently no other method to get the pictures to load properly and if another method is found, please post it here. I (Dom497) am trying to figure out the main problem and will try to fix the problem once the main issue is found. Thank-you.--Dom497 (talk) 00:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I am pretty sure this is just a database issue. Under high demand the server may not generate the thumbnails of the images correctly. I haven't seen this actually happen but that could be what is happening. Themeparkgc  Talk  02:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: The issues with the images have been fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

IP User Edit Requets

Because this page has been semi-protected for the next 2 weeks for high IP user vandalizam, IP users CAN NOT edit this page. If you are a IP users and want to edit the page, please, first, on the main page of this article click on 'View Source' (where the edit tap usually is). Then click on 'Request an Edit'. Fill out the form and click 'save'. A registered user will review your request and decide weather or not the edit should be made. There is no guarantee that your request will be accepted. If your request has to do with the current status of the Canada's Wonderland WindSeeker, your request will be denied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dom497 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Windseeker3.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Windseeker3.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Windseeker4.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Windseeker4.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Windseeker1.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Windseeker1.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Semi-Protection Review

The WindSeeker page is currently under review for semi-protection. If the page passes the review, IP users will NOT be able to edit the page. The conflicts of whether or not the Canada's Wonderland WindSeeker is open has caused this review to take place. This section will be updated once the review is complete and will state if the page has been semi-protected or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dom497 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The page has been semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks by Fastily (talk · contribs). Hopefully we can work out the current state of CW's Windseeker in that period and clean up the article a bit (those parts where it talks about it operating or not). Themeparkgc  Talk  04:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: As the 2 week semi-protection on the page has come to an end, anyone one (including IP users) are now allowed to edit the page. Please DO NOT begin to vandalize the page in any way or start changing the status of the Canada's Wonderland WindSeeker. Only change the status if you have a reliable source. If any vandalism is found, a second review for semi-protection will be submitted possibly semi-protecting the page for another 2 weeks or longer. Please do not ruin it for other IP users who edit this page properly by not vandalizing the main article. Thank-you!--Dom497 (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Knott's Berry Farm WindSeeker Photo

Because the WindSeeker at Knott's Berry Farm is completely different than the other 3 across America and Canada (colors, fencing, queue line are all different) if anyone is able to find or take a picture of the actual ride (NOT animated) please upload the image(s) to Wikipedia and add them to the main article for the ride. Also, a picture of any of the 4 WindSeekers operating during the night would be great. Thanks!!!--Dom497 (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

We can't upload too many images since we have a limit on that. Only Cedar Point's WindSeeker is uploaded becuase it is the main ride out of the other 3. I agree that Knott's WindSeeker should also be uploaded to show the difference, but the ride is not open yet. I say wait until August until it opens (probably not gonna open this month since testing phases are still left and we only have 10 days left). Giggett (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

What's the limit or the max amount this article can have? I do believe that there is no more space for any more pictures but because I added the words on the photos for the break-down of the ride, if someone takes pictures of the Knotts WindSeeker on similar angles as the current ones... we could use the Knotts WindSeeker for the break-down. I will have no problem transferring the words from photo to photo.--Dom497 (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Unless you include all the photos on a gallery and they are taken by yourself or another photographer who gives you permission to use their photos, then there is no limit on how many photos you can include, as long as you organize them all and have a reason to put them. Cuz also know that the purpose of this article is to explain everything about the ride, not to fill the whole article with pictures and use it as a photo gallery. So in other words, there is some sort of limit on how many photos you can use on an article, as long as you don't overabuse it. Giggett (talk) 17:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

OK!--Dom497 (talk) 17:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

One exapmle of a photo gallery would be as you said to include photos of the 4 WindSeekers at night. Then that gallery could include those 4 pictures and you can label it "WindSeeker at night" or something and include text on where those WindSeekers are. Also you can make a seperate section which explains how Knott's WindSeeker is different from the others, and include pictures of that too. Really those are just my ideas on why to add more pictures. Giggett (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I took a bunch of night shots of KI's version back at the end of June, but lost the memory card until I uncovered it just a few minutes ago. I just finished uploading them to Flickr and organizing them; you can find them here. As with my previous photos, please just note here which ones you want and let me upload them to Commons myself, as this allows me to add all other versions of CC-BY-SA to the 2.0 version used by Flickr. jcgoble3 (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you upload these 3:

• http://www.flickr.com/photos/jcgoble3/5957972823/in/set-72157627241341862
• http://www.flickr.com/photos/jcgoble3/5958530596/in/set-72157627241341862
• http://www.flickr.com/photos/jcgoble3/5957964237/in/set-72157627241341862 (optional)

Giggett (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I just thought I'd put it out there that anyone can transfer images from Flickr to Commons provided the license is compatible. The Flickr 2 Commons tool makes this process quite easy. Themeparkgc  Talk  22:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have submitted a request to the owner of the Westcoaster site asking if we can use his images on the WindSeeker article. If he gives me permission to use his photos, this entire topic can be archived and photos of the Knott's Windseeker will not be needed.--Dom497 (talk) 21:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

That would be nice, I'm pretty sure they'll let you. I've talked to them before and they seem friendly :) Giggett (talk) 21:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: The owner of the Westcoaster website has given me permission to use the WindSeeker photos that he posted on his website and use them on the Wikipedia. Becaus of this, the original request that i made (at the top of the sub-topic) is no longer needed. This sub-topic should be archived after i finish uploading and adding the photos to Wikipedia / WindSeeker article.--Dom497 (talk) 20:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Told ya :D Giggett (talk) 21:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

IMPORTANT UPDATE: I have uploaded and added 2 images to the WindSeeker article from Westcoaster. If am still looking through other photos of the ride on the website to see if more can be added. Pleas help by taking a look at the URL below and please post what photos might be good to upload. (I can only upload these pictures as i am the one who has the permission.) Once you enter the link, click on any links that say "Knott's Berry Farm" anywhere from the months of February 2011 to the present. Thanks!!!

• http://www.westcoaster.net/updates.php?updateCD=listing

--Dom497 (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Upload the ones where you think shows the difference between the rides (the colors, fencing, queue line etc...) We can gladly fit them all in a nice gallery. Giggett (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

O.K, give me a few days to look through the pictures and uploaded them to Wiki.--Dom497 (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

One idea could be where you can make a seperate section which explains how Knott's WindSeeker is different from the others, and include pictures of that too. Giggett (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I just love how you always have awesome idea's!!! :)--Dom497 (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't know if this is good, but it could be called "models" and explain what CW, CP AND CW Windseekers are like and then explain what the KBF windseeker is like.--Dom497 (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

You should only explain Knott's Windseeker's features, and how it's different to the other 3. Yeah, only mention the other 3 as one, do not explain them too much, just compare them to Knott's Giggett (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking of how the layout of the ENTIRE article would be affected and what i have in mind (If i were to create the sub-topic) MAY turn out to be a Major Edit.--Dom497 (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Use the existing ride features section and just add Knott's extra features as a sub-section Giggett (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

So just in contents from, your saying to do this:

Contents [hide]

• 5 Ride features
  • 5.1 Canada's Wonderland
  • 5.2 Cedar Point
  • 5.3 Kings Island
  • 5.4 Knott's Berry Farm
    • 5.4.1 Extra Features

Correct?--Dom497 (talk) 22:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm still on the model sub topic side of what to do and think this is the best option. You could always change it but i think this is the way to go.--Dom497 (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be so many "just like, just like..." on that features section for the first 3 rides, perhaps combine those 3 sub sections into one big paragraph and combine both like features from two different rides into one sentence, and then explain the differences of the 3 rides on another sentense. In other words, just say "this feature is on Kings and Canada, but not on Cedar" and "this feature is only on Kings version", either way, use prose to combine the first 3 sub sections, and leave an extra seperate section for knotts Giggett (talk) 22:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I seem more on the new sub topic side for some reason as it would provide more space for photos (not like we already have lots!) but i think that your idea is better. I could start working on it now but i need a final answer from you.--Dom497 (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

We will still have a whole new sub-topic for Knott's that can fit all the photos you want, even a gallery, we are just combining the 3 existing sub-topics (cedar, kings, and canada) into one big paragraph, and extend the knotts sub-topic Giggett (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I will start working on it now and once i'm finished, feel free to make some changes.--Dom497 (talk) 22:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay :) Giggett (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Finished the editing. Make as many changes as you want!--Dom497 (talk) 23:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I've made some changes on the new sections, looks about done now :D Giggett (talk) 06:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Table on the right needs to be edited

I can't find where to do this - it opened August 18 at KBF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.128.55 (talk) 22:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Never mind! done 208.127.128.55 (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:WindSeeker/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike 289 20:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure if this article is a good article-yet. To me it looks alot like a featured article.Mike 289 20:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I take that back. This article is good enough to be a good article BUT, before I do anything I want someone elses opinion.Mike 289 20:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

There might be a little tweaking needed so the article can be perfect, but other than that, everything looks good! Giggett (talk) 21:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Alright then, I'm passing this! Mike 289 15:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Possible 5th WindSeeker

IF YOU ARE A USUAL EDITOR TO THIS PAGE OR KNOWS A LOT ABOUT THE RIDE, PLEASE READ THE MESSAGE BELOW

According to Coaster-net, Carowinds has starting teasing guests for their 2012 attraction. QR codes have been posted on around their website releases 1 out of many parts of a picture. Once the picture is completed, in a "windy" banner like background and font, the photo reads: "Voiceless it cries, Wingless flutters, Toothless Bites, Mouthless mutters, Fun soars to new heights…August 24”". Although there is no current evidence, this image could easily mean a 5th WindSeeker being built. If anyone has additional info about this development please add it below this message.

IF INDEED THE RIDE IS A WINDSEEKER...

Once the ride is announced, please add it to the infobox on the main page and add any other additional info.

IF THE RIDE IS NOT A WINDSEEKER...

Please archive this message and DO NOT add anything to the main article.

Thanks!!!--Dom497 (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Really, a 5th WindSeeker? That is so cool! Well here are some links of the announcement of the teaser:

• http://parkthoughts.com/2011/08/02/carowinds-buys-61-acres-with-plans-to-expand-teases-for-2012/
• http://www.screamscape.com/html/carowinds.htm

Giggett (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: Along with the possibility of a WindSeeker being built, coster-net also stated that there were stakes in the ground with the words "Huss GF" (Huss Giant Frisbee). Those stacks have since been removed but the chance of a Huss ride being built instead of a WindSeeker still exists.--Dom497 (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE #2: From what it looks like, the chances of a 5th WindSeeker have grown as a QR code poster at Carowinds shows what looks like to be the top of WindSeekers swing structure. The image can be seen here--Dom497 (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Great! It seems kinda nice that Cedar Fair parks are gonna get more WindSeekers than the original 4. Cuz I think the original plan is to have a WindSeeker on EVERY Cedar Fair park. That way, a WindSeeker will be a symbol of a Cedar Fair park, just how evey Disneyland park has a castle. But yeah, it's nice that we are seeing this, and I know that it may take more than 1 year to add a WindSeeker to every park. So as I can see, it seems that these 4 parks got em' first, and maybe we might see the other parks getting them later in the future. And who knows, maybe Carowinds version will be different also. Giggett (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE #3: I highly doubt that this is the official Carowinds WindSeeker website as I wouldn't see why something that says "CONFIDENTIAL" on the site would be on the first page of Google when you type in Carowinds WindSeeker but just wanted to get it out there that if indeed this was official made for Carowinds, then the chances of a 2012 WindSeeker are 100%. The link to the site is: http://tlcreativedesign.com/Windseeker/

--Dom497 (talk) 22:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE #4: I have found a website that indeed tells us that the web link I posted above is truly the actual website for the ride. It says that site was hacked in someway and managed to find it's way onto google. Could these statements be true? I not quite sure but I do definitely know that (like I said in the third update) the chances of a WindSeeker are extremely high.--Dom497 (talk) 11:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE #5: The 2012 presentation from Carowinds has begun at the park. Once the presentation is complete, we will finally know if it is a WindSeeker... which at this is point is most likely.--Dom497 (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

FINAL UPDATE: It's official... Carowinds will be receiving the fifth WindSeeker in the Cedar Fair chain.--Dom497 (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This review is transcluded from Talk:WindSeeker/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I will be fixing up the statements that have no reference(s) in the next few days.--Dom497 (talk) 00:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

This needs input from an uninvolved editor. I've asked Wizardman (talk · contribs) to give it a review. jcgoble3 (talk) 00:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll give this a read-through most likely tomorrow. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Alright, here's the issues I found:

• "The Mondial rides at [Ontario]]'s" forgot a bracket there.
• "Canada's Wonderland, Ohio's Cedar Point and Kings Island, but late in the season at California's Knott's Berry Farmwere opened for the 2011 season while Carowinds will open their model in 2012." Confusing as worded. I get what you're trying to say, that Knott's Berry Farm's WindSeeker opened later. Will this be normal or were they just late this year? If the latter just combine all four noting that they started in 2011. Also add a space between farm and were.
• "All the WindSeeker's costed $5,000,000 each except for the Carowinds Model which coasted 6,500,000" cost instead of coasted, no apostrophe in Windseeker's, and comma after each.
• "There are strips of LED lights mounted on the arms that support the swings and colored floodlights which light up all of WindSeeker's tower from above" comma after floodlights, and reword to "which lights up Windseeker's tower..." to make cleaner.

These are just the problems in the lead, so I have a lot of combing through to do and there will be a lot of work on your end. Since it's already tagged as a GA, I'll just concentrate on pointing out the problems. Here's a couple more on top of that:

• "Another difference is that the tower at Knott's Berry Farm will not light up during the night as no LED lights at the top of the tower where placed." de-italicize not, and this contradicts the part in the lead that all four have lights. Which is right?
• You can't use YouTube as a source; get rid of those and replace where necessary.

Note here when these are fixed and I'll continue my review. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Dom and I have fixed all except the contradiction about Knott's and the YouTube sourcing, which may take a little digging. jcgoble3 (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Ya, in my opinion, just because of what the youtube sources cover, i think it will be hard to find actual written statements on the internet to replace the youtube sources.--Dom497 (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I've clarified the Knott's lighting. All that should be left from this first batch of issues is the YouTube stuff. jcgoble3 (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I undid your edit as the reference had nothing to do with the actual statements you wanted to reference.--Dom497 (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Because I copied the wrong citation by mistake. Should be fixed for real now. jcgoble3 (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I deleted one youtube reference as it was not really needed and could be accessed through the wonderland Windseeker link.--Dom497 (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I was able to delete and replace all the youtube references on the article.--Dom497 (talk) 19:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Here are some more issues I found in the History section after reading through the rest:

• "Throughout August 2011, Carowinds released 6 different QR codes hidden around the parks website. Each code could be scanned by a phone and after scanned, would lead the user to a website which revealed 1 of the 6 clues to what the 2012 attraction would be." Don't you mean throughout August 2010 and the 2011 attraction? If it's talking about something unrelated in the future than it shouldn't be in this article.
• "Throughout August 2011, Carowinds released 6 different QR codes hidden around the parks website. Each code could be scanned by a phone and after scanned, would lead the user to a website which revealed 1 of the 6 clues to what the 2012 attraction would be. Once the user found all 6 clues and put them together, the picture would read "Voiceless it cries, wingless flutters, toothless bites, mouthless mutters, fun soars to new heights... August 24".[21] On August 24, 2011 at 11am EST, the official announcement was made that Carowinds would receive the fifth WindSeeker in the Cedar Fair chain.[2]" A lot of questions here. First, is this just noting something for Carowinds or did this involve all five parks? Second, it should be "park's website". Third, spell out one of the six clues rather than the numbers., same for next sentence. Lastly, presuming this is just for the Carowinds park, make it clearer and condense it, since it feels like recentism to have all this thrown in.
• In that paragraph, I don't think the times are necessary (11am, 2 pm). Remove them.
• "At the time, all four WindSeekers were due to open sometime in spring 2011.[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]" Cite overkill; shouldn't only four at most be needed for that sentence?
• "Construction for the WindSeekers at Canada's Wonderland, Cedar Point and Kings Island began around late October and early November" Add 2010 after November just to make it clearer.
• "To install the ride Canada's Wonderland's" comma after ride.
• "However, after two-month delay it was announced on January 7, 2011, that their WindSeeker would not replace the Sky Cabin" A bit odd as worded. Change to "After a two-month delay...7, 2011 that their WindSeeker..."
• "From May 24, 2011 to about mid-June 2011, the ride was intermittently operating due to a variety of problems which have now been mostly resolved." Makes it sound like a current statement added in back in June. If it's now running smoothly then modify it to put the problems in past tense; if there's still problems then modify it for that.
• "last to officially open to the public (on August 18, 2011)" already noted several times, so text in parentheses not really needed. If you really want to keep it at least remove the parentheses.
• "and does not light up like the other WindSeeker's" no apostrophe on Windseekers
• "On 24 August 2011, Carowinds officially announced that they would be opening a WindSeeker by Spring 2012." This is already noted earlier in the section, so only needs to be in there once.

The myriad of issues I'm seeing, combined with the stability issues (the new one being announced seems to have modified some text) give me great pause. We're making progress, but I can't guarantee it staying a GA unless I start finding fewer problems the further I get into it. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Um, Carowinds just annonced that they are getting a windseeker for the 2012 season... and i removed the times.--Dom497 (talk) 03:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I cant see reducing the amount of info about the Carowinds clues as then the rest of the paragraph wouldn't make sense... unless you want to take out what the clues said.--Dom497 (talk) 13:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The clues don't seem overly useful to me, but if you want to keep them then I won't fight it. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear}

Here's wave three of comments:

• "WindSeeker could have been injured as all of the swings" remove italics from all.
• "On June 14, 2011, some riders on Cedar Point's WindSeeker could have been injured as all of the swings" If there were no reported injuries, then that's speculation unless the source specifically says that: reword to "On June 14, 2011 on Cedar Point's WindSeeker, the swings.." also add comma after directions.
• "Click on the picture to see the full size of the image." this isn't needed in the captions, as it's a given for the site.
• "The 301-foot (92 m)-tall center tower is made up of 8 parts" and "On the top of the 8th tower piece"; spell out eight.
• I don't believe break-down is hyphenated. Fix those few instances.
• "in-case" no hyphen
• "the swings speed instantly begins to slow down." swing's
• "rather than the white, blue, and green colours of the towers," colors; WindSeeker's an American ride (notwithstanding the one in Canada), so make use American English is used throughout.
• "Brian Krosnick pointed out that due to the location of the ride" This can just say Krosnick since the full name was noted earlier.
• "The full review can be seen here.[50]" This can be removed, people can just click the ref to get to it. Same for the other one.

Everything should be good after these comments are addressed, and I'll finally be able to consider this GA-worthy once they're fixed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Finished!!!--Dom497 (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

WindSeeker #6???

This (to me) is an extreme long-shot from being true, but Screamscape posted a message about 1 month ago stating that King's Dominion could be getting a WindSeeker 2012. With no information / teasers from the park... who even knows if the park is getting something for 2012!!!--Dom497 (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Any Cedar Fair park could be a target for a WindSeeker in the future. Until they are confirmed by the park or reported in the media, we can't include it. Themeparkgc  Talk  02:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I hope King's Dominion gets one, and also Great America. Giggett (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Kings Dominion WindSeeker (#6)

I DISCOVERED A MAJOR LEAK JUST A FEW MINUTES AGO. THE RIDE IS UNOFFICIAL YET OFFICIAL!!!

http://www.kingsdominion.com/rides-attractions/ride-detail.cfm/ride_alias/WindSeeker/ride_category/Thrill-Rides

--Dom497 (talk) 02:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow. I say that's as good as confirmed. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The ride has now been officially announced.--Dom497 (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

General public commentary

"Members of the general public have also applauded the addition."

Not sure whether the press release is the best source. We don't know if these people are unbiased, let alone whether they're really real. Perhaps cite the rating on multiple of the coaster sites that lets users rate? This would be similar to how movie articles cite RottenTomatoes ratings, but with the public's votes. Maybe? -- Zanimum (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree.--Dom497 (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Carowinds WindSeeker (#5)

It has been officially announced that a fifth WindSeeker will be built at Carowinds. If anyone has info about the ride, feel free to add it to the article.--Dom497 (talk) 15:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Please use any or as many sources from this Google News search to support your additions. Themeparkgc  Talk  22:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I been hearing rumors that Carowinds WindSeeker may be more expensive rather than the $5 million price tag the other 4 got. If this is true and Carowinds WindSeeker will cost more. Will this mean that it will be different from the other 4? And I don't mean Knott's type of different. I mean REALLY different, as in taller different or a better design. Giggett (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes that is true. The Carowinds version will cost 1.5 million more than the other four. I emailed crowinds to find out why, but they never responded. I remember reading in a news article on the Internet that mentioned that the location of WindSeeker will require part of the lake at the park to be filled up. Another reason why it could be more expensive is because additions to the ride (dampers etc.) may add to the total cost. I don't belive that there will be any major differences in the Carowinds version of WindSeeker as the POV shows nothing different.--Dom497 (talk) 12:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, probably it's just inflation. Cuz it is one year later. Cuz it's what they say: that a burger may cost $5.00 in 2010, but $6.50 in 2011. Giggett (talk) 16:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Screamscape Reference Issues

Apart of the way Hart Lance (the owner of the site) operates Screamscape, once info from the site becomes "old" or out-of-date, he deletes it permanently. When this happens, some references on this article (from Screamscape) will not work and become "dead links". Please do not delete these references and only replace them if you find another working reference with similar info. Although they may not work today, they did work in the past. Thanks!!!--Dom497 (talk) 12:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, some been saying that Screamscape is not a reliable source, but they still seemed reliable to me. I guess this is why :P Giggett (talk) 17:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I've archived the two remaining Screamscape sources using WP:WEBCITE. If you include any further Screamscape references, follow the instructions to archive it; or just let me know and I can archive it. Themeparkgc  Talk  21:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Halloween Haunt WindSeeker Lighting

It has been brought to my attention that apparently WindSeeker's lighting package has changed for Halloween Haunt at Canada's Wonderland. Apparently, during the night, WindSeeker's tower is only lit up in red and the lights on the gondolas are completely off. I can't really add this info to the article yet because it would qualify for original research. I have asked some other sources to confirm this in the mean time. Also, can anyone else possibly confirm if the lighting has changed on all the other WindSeeker's for the event...better yet with a reliable source? Thanks!!!--Dom497 (talk) 13:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

IIRC, Kings Island's version has the lights on the gondola turned on but the tower lights off. However, that's based only on my own recollection of being there 2+1⁄2 weeks ago, and my memories may be faulty; they're not reliable in my personal life, never mind Wikipedia. :P Anybody else out there have better confirmation? jcgoble3 (talk) 19:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Drove by Wonderland yesterday and the lights were indeed on. Looks like my friend lied... oh well.--Dom497 (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Ride Features Topic

If anyone has any information about the features of the ride at any of the parks, please add them to the article. Please also make sure you have some sort of resource with your edit. It would be great to mostly confirm that all the parks have the same features so we could take out the four sub-topics and create one paragraph with the information. Thanks!--Dom497 (talk) 20:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Carowinds Tower LED's?

I was taking a look at this picture (see link below) and it was hard to see if Carowinds tower will have LED floodlights on it. I was comparing it to other pictures from other WindSeeker's and from what I saw, it doesn't look like there are any LED's. Can someone verify it before its added to the article please?

Link: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150629905193599&set=a.10150386249553599.376753.91085023598&type=3&theater --Dom497 (talk) 03:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd leave it out for now; the ride is still under construction, and thus it may be the case that they simply haven't been installed yet. Give it some time; I'd recommend that you wait until the ride actually opens, and if it does turn out that it has no LEDs, then source it to something more current than a photo taken during construction. jcgoble3 (talk) 03:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I highly doubt that its the fact that the LED's haven't been installed yet as it has been reported that Kings Dominion's model is already being lit up during the night. Plus, the lights were all pre-installed with the other 3 WindSeeker last year.--Dom497 (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You have a point. I suppose it could be added, but please first try to find a photo in a secondary source that shows it before you use the Facebook photo. I'm trying to make an effort to reduce the number of primary sources in the article, and if we can find a secondary source, it would be best to use it instead. jcgoble3 (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, photos make poor sources. Too much room for interpretation. --Stfg (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I feel it needs to wait to be added, we can't be making assumptions that they would be up by now if they were going to use them. Wait till we know for sure.--Astros4477 (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Get it straight people...I'm not going to add the fact in the article yet!--Dom497 (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

While reviewing sources, I came across the original press release, which clearly states it will have the LED spotlights. Obviously, they just haven't been installed yet. jcgoble3 (talk) 23:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

If thats the case then my only thought is that the grey things within the circles that I drew have to do with the LED's: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/198/24585690.png/ --Dom497 (talk) 00:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks like Carowinds will be using a new type of LED system. You can see it in [picture] as the lights are one and they are different from the other WindSeeker. I'm thinking that Kings Dominion will be using the lights as well too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dom497 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Construction Table

I think the construction table is great and important towards the article. What can be done to bring it back? Adding specific sources for each update? --Astros4477 (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The basic problem with it, and the reason why I removed it, is that most of it can only be referenced to primary and/or self-published sources, of which this article has too many already (as pointed out by Stfg above). You're not going to find secondary sources that list every detail of construction progress; at most, they might report when construction is complete, but newspapers aren't going to waste space announcing every step in construction. I'm going to be cracking down on primary sources from here on, and the table was probably the worst offender in the whole article, hence why I removed it. jcgoble3 (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Lets make this article FA!!!!

Ok, so the article is at GA right now but why not at least TRY to make it FA. I know it failed once but what's wrong with trying again? I'll be more active for the next few weeks so I can help bringing the article to the next level:

It is—

(a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;

(b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;

(c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;

(d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and

(e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.

It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of—

(a) a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;

(b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents; and

(c) consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes () or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended. The use of citation templates is not required.

Media. It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.

Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

We can also use this link to improve the article.

--Dom497 (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

There are also a number of suggestions in the archived peer review that should be looked over first. I'm slowly working through everything, but I'm a textbook WikiSloth, so I only work on it when I feel like it. I do want to get it to FA, but there's quite a bit of stuff to do first, namely what's left of Stfg's issues above and what's left from the peer review, before we can think about FAC again. Personally, I'd wait until Kings Dominion's and Carowinds's WindSeekers open before taking it FAC, so the article is as stable as possible. jcgoble3 (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I must agree with Jcgoble3. There are a few issues to resolve and he is doing a great job of working through them. FAC will have a better chance after. "Softly softly catchee monkey", I think. --Stfg (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

GOCE copy edit, February 2012

Terms readers may not know

An encyclopedia article will be read by people who have no background knowledge, so it's important we don't refer to things they may not have heard of without introducing them. So, am I right in assuming that Jet Scream, Ocean Motion, Sky Cabin and El Dorado are rides? Also, they and WindSeeker are sometimes italicised in the article and sometimes not, and we need to make this consistent for FAC. I prefer not to italicise them, as I see nothing in WP:MOS to mandate it, but what do you think?

We also need to have some explanation of "Fast Lane". There is an article Fast Lane, but it's about the toll collection system for roads and car parks. The disambiguation page Fast lane (lower case l) doesn't help either. Lastly, FNs 24, 29 and 31 don't help. They don't mention "Fast Lane" as such. The titles given in the references are not the titles of the pages. In fact these look too much like mere promotional links. --Stfg (talk) 11:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll make a Fast Lane section on the Cedar Fair article and add a link to that. It doesn't need it's own page, other fast pass systems dont have their own. --Astros4477 (talk) 14:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

That would be great, thanks. Can you confirm that the things I mentioned in the first paragraph are rides? --Stfg (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Sky Cabin is an obersvation tower but yes the other three are rides.--Astros4477 (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

FN27 failed verification

"Before plans to move the Knott's Berry Farm version of the ride and keep Sky Cabin were made, the ride was to have the same colour scheme as the other WindSeeker's. Also, instead of there being the red "UFO" on the top of the tower, original concept designs show that a large purple "K" was to be placed on the top of the ride.^[27]" The source talks about the decision on location and the delayed debut, but it says nothing about the same colour scheme as the others, and although the picture shows the big K, the source says nothing about the original concept designs. Hence tagged. By the way, this reference is given inline, although in general you are using list-defined references. --Stfg (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

This mentions the color change; would it be acceptable? Likewise, this labels a picture of the large purple "K" topper as "concept art". Would that be sufficient? As for the inline/list references, I'll standardize that to list-based eventually, but my priority right now is the bigger issues you've brought up. jcgoble3 (talk) 19:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The first one convinces me, yes. The second one is only a picture caption and I think "concept art" means something different from "the original concept designs". For me, the latter phrase conjures up artwork produced by the designers to illustrate and gain approval for the concept before doing the detailed technical designs. If so, I think the second source doesn't help much. Also, as a general point, picture captions often contain a lot of subjective interpretation, so I would mistrust them even in sources where the actual text would be reliable. --Stfg (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I've added the first source to the article and will keep searching for something else to back up the "K" topper. jcgoble3 (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Themeparkgc took care of this with a new source and a slight rewording a few days ago. jcgoble3 (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see it. --Stfg (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Structure section

• "Contradiction-inline" because the 8 parts can't be identical if the base one is different from the other seven :)
• I found "The swings themselves are made up of a number of parts. Most of the parts go towards the structure of the swing.^{[clarification needed]}" I've deleted the second (queried) sentence because it seems to me that the parts of anything must make up its structure. If I've missed the point here, apologies, and please put in something.
• "In the middle of the structure there are a number of mechanical wheels that allow the swings to rotate as it makes it way up and down the tower. The swings are brought up and down by a number of cables that are attached from the swing structure to 4 different sets of yellow wheels each attached to a different section of the steel platform at the top of the tower.^[45]" But FN45 (ref name=Structure/) is merely a gallery in Facebook. At the very least, you need to link to any individual photo that verifies your point. But really, I don't see how mere photos of the on-site assembly process can verify the stated purpose and dynamic mechanism of these parts.
• Gallery: At upper left of both pictures, "countries" should by "country's", as it's the flag of one country. Also, there's too much grey padding around both pictures, but especially the one on the left. And look what happens to the captions if you set View > Text size=Largest in your browser. --Stfg (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've axed the word "identical", which resolves the contradiction.
• Your second point is accurate.
• As to the third point, I tried a Google search for "windseeker structure" to get a source for the purpose/mechanism, and didn't find anything in the first three pages of results. I'm well aware that I generally suck at formulating search queries, so can you help me out here with better ideas?
• Dom will have to take care of the spelling issues, as I lack the ability to edit pictures. The grey padding has been reduced on the right-hand picture, but what's left is part of the gallery template and can't be removed without significantly modifying the template (which could have undesirable effects elsewhere) or changing to an entirely different solution, which I'm not sure what's available. Any ideas? jcgoble3 (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Instead of the {{Gallery}} template, how about {{Multiple image}}, as in the "Differences in Knott's Berry Farm version" section, or {{double image}}, as in Battle of Vukovar#Occupation, restoration and reconstruction? The caption could read something like "Breakdown (left) and close-up (right) of WindSeeker's structure at Kings Island." I'm not great with google either, but will have a look in the morning (UK time). --Stfg (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I went with {{double image}} so that should be resolved. Thanks in advance for your help with Google. One last quick note: can you please strike out any concerns of yours that you feel have been addressed? There's a lot of them here, and it would be a lot easier to tell what's left at a quick glance. :) jcgoble3 (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Good idea. --Stfg (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I've recreated the first structure image and corrected the countries/country's issue. Let me know if I should recreate the other one in the same style. Themeparkgc  Talk  23:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably best to recreate the other one as well for consistency (note that both images had the same countries/country's error). The new one does look a lot better; thanks. jcgoble3 (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Done Themeparkgc  Talk  07:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. jcgoble3 (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Ya I got to admit that Themeparkgc's version of the pictures look A LOT better then mine...--Dom497 (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm at a loss as to what to do about the structure description. Unless we can find a source for it, it may have to be removed as unreliable, and I honestly don't think we're going to find a source. What do you think, Stfg? jcgoble3 (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly difficult. Sorry I didn't get round to Googling earlier, as promised. I've just tried "Windseeker mechanism" with no better results -- just forums and a wind turbine like they use in wind farms. Mondial's own web site have this leaflet and this details page, which would certainly be RS and perhaps better than nothing. When the article originally mentioned "concept art", I imagined that one of you might have had access to project documentation, but it's unlikely that this would be in the public domain. The only other thing I can suggest is that you could ask Mondial and/or Cedar Fair whether they have anything not over-technical in the public domain or that they might be prepared to put, for example, on their web sites. It can't hurt to ask, I guess. --Stfg (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I did find those pages on Mondial's website, but they're basically useless, as they describe multiple models of varying size, most of which don't exist yet, and they also don't give any of the specifics we're looking for, just general stuff. I wouldn't have the slightest clue how to even go about contacting Mondial or Cedar Fair. I'll think this one over over the weekend, but I may end up just gutting that section. jcgoble3 (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, I agree. If you want to try contacting them, the leaflet (first URL above) gives contact details for Mondial, and this page gives those for Cedar Fair (I'd use the Marketing Department -- 2nd from top -- for the latter). But I'm not optimistic about this. --Stfg (talk) 10:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Peter Pan disambiguation in "Ride features"

Peter Pan isn't a disambiguation page, but it's about the character himself, so it's the wrong link here. It must be one of the films, but which? The choice is at Peter Pan (disambiguation). --Stfg (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and Flight of the Valkyries is an annual metal festival. Is that what they play, or is it Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries, which is commonly used in popular contexts for this kind of thing? --Stfg (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Peter Pan is not supported by any of the sources given, and I couldn't find a source for it on the first three pages of a Google search for "windseeker music", so it's simply been removed. As for Valkyries, the source (currently FN39) says Flight of the Valkyries. I suspect he meant Ride, which would make more sense, but we have to go with what the source says. jcgoble3 (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Thanks for double-checking. --Stfg (talk) 22:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Differences in Knott's Berry Farm version

I've placed failed verification on FN53 (ref name=westcoaster). The page title is not "Knott's Bamboo Queue". The only words near the photo are "The queue is basically finished". Bamboo, fake or otherwise, is not mentioned. OK, it looks like bamboo from the picture, but so what? The translucent covers at the other "three" parks aren't mentioned either. This is another case of original research based on a photo, and inventing a different and misleading page title like this is unacceptable. --Stfg (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't find a source for it after ten minutes or so of searching, so it's been removed. jcgoble3 (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Recommendations

As of today, 05 February 2012, I think the article stands no chance at FAC just yet. Two issues primarily need addressing:

• The poor sources and poor use of them. I'm disappointed with the number of primary sources, with the use of pictures, with the over-interpretation of the sources given (for another example, Scherer in FN60 does not point out that the ride "is unable to operate in high winds", he just points out that it closes in high winds), and especially with the presentation of sources with false titles that describe the writer's interpretation of a picture and unjustifiably appear to support a claim. Recommendation 1 is to comb thoroughly through all the citations, correcting the titles and any other details and checking that they really support all the claims cited to them.
• Recommendation 2 is to try to improve the placement of images throughout the article, bearing in mind that different readers use different text size settings in their browsers. I would be very surprised, especially, if the gallery were to pass FAC. It doesn't appear to demonstrate anything, but seems to be no more than a collection of (admittedly rather good) piccies.

Best wishes and good luck. --Stfg (talk) 18:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedit. I'll begin looking into these issues over the next week or two. jcgoble3 (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It's coming along nicely. When you have the citations in the state you want them, please let me know, and I'll do a second c/e pass and check citations too. On image placement, most if not all are on the right, whereas MOS:IMAGES (5th bullet) wants them staggered left and right (and I have seen FAC reviews pick up on this). --Stfg (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Played around with the images a bit. A non-free image that failed WP:NFCC#8 has been removed, and another pair has been shifted to the left. Strict alternation isn't going to happen because of the second paragraph at WP:IMAGES#Location. I'm going to review citations next and then go through the suggestions in the old peer review over the next week or so (hopefully not longer) before I turn it back to you for another pass. jcgoble3 (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll be ready for that. I think image placement is well done. --Stfg (talk) 10:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Since the removal of the gallery, this article has no image of the ride operating whatsoever. I've tried experimenting putting one in the infobox but I feel it just makes it too long. Does anybody have any suggestions? Themeparkgc  Talk  22:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

We could put a picture of it operating in the spot that the test dummies picture is. Every ride uses test dummies and you can see the test dummies in the ride structure section. I feel the artcile deffently needs one of it operating --Astros4477 (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

May I ask why so many images have been removed? I understand why the gallery its self was removed but at least keep ONE of the pics of the ride operating!--Dom497 (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, I was thinking just to show the ride operating, why don't we just replace the on-ride canadas wonderland pic with one of the two full WindSeekers pictures taken when the ride was in operation (the first two pics in the deleted gallery). I don't want to make the change now just in case it gets reverted. Anyone agree with me?--Dom497 (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I like the idea of having the first two pictures of the galley to show it at two different parks --Astros4477 (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

When taking a look at the article, if we were to replace the on-ride pic with the one from cedar point, there would be no pics of the wonderland one. Thats why I'm thinking of going with CW...the article will then show at least one picutre from each park with a operating WindSeeker (in other words, not Kings Dominion and Carowinds).--Dom497 (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's my idea, I would like to replace the close up of the test dummies at Kings Island (I stated that above) and the on-ride view at CW and replace them of a photo of them operating at CW and KBF. I feel there needs to be a full view of the KBF version so readers can see the difference of the colors. I'll try to upload one.--Astros4477 (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Good idea!--Dom497 (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Bear in mind, one of the recommendations of the archived peer review was to "include an image of the ride itself in the infobox - there is a parameter to do so and I like File:Canada's Wonderland WindSeeker.jpg best of the images in the article for a lead image". Themeparkgc  Talk  22:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow...a picture taken with a s*** blackberry is worthy enough to be put in the infobox!!! Never though someone would say that my pic is the best out of all within the article!--Dom497 (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

If anyone is interested in putting in an image in the infobox I think I created a way to prevent it from being too tall. In this sandbox I have created examples of two versions of the infobox for the WindSeeker article. On the left is an infobox similar to the current one, but on the right I have created one with collapsible sections for each park. Please let me know what you think and whether this should be implemented. Themeparkgc  Talk  02:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I like that idea. jcgoble3 (talk) 02:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I like that idea too. If more parks get a WindSeeker next year that'll help the infobox not being too long. The only thing I have to comment on is that we should really try to get a picture of the Knotts version. I could not find one apropiate for Wikipedia anywhere. I'd like to get a picture of that up. Also if we can get a full structure photo in the infobox, that would be better. That would be better than the CW in your sandbox where some of it is hidden behind trees. --Astros4477 (talk) 02:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I've implemented the changes to the infobox template. If anyone wants to pick a suitable picture and add it to the infobox feel free. Just add the parameter small=yes at the same time and it should collapse. Themeparkgc  Talk  03:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the picture about Knott's, I can asked WestCoaster to lend me one of the pictures to use in the article. He said I can use any of the picture I would like under a certain license so we can go ahead and add one right now from WestCoaster! The third picture would be great! Agree?--Dom497 (talk) 16:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks good, but ideally try to get a non-watermarked version from him per WP:WATERMARK. If you can get non-watermarked versions of the other two WestCoaster photos in the article, that would be good as well. On another note, I swear I'm going to get back to reviewing sources here soon; apologies for my laziness. jcgoble3 (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll give it a shot!--Dom497 (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Any update on the picture of the Knott's version?--Astros4477 (talk) 14:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

He never responded. I sent out another message to him today. At the same time, I'm thinking that back in August when I was asked him for the two Knott's pictures, he said I can use ANY pictures I want. I'm not exactly sure if that means we can just go ahead and add another image now. Here are the messages I sent back in August:

Dom497: Hello, my name (online) is Dom497. I often edit the WindSeeker article on Wikipedia containing the most up-to-date info about the ride. I have noticed that there are quite some difference's in the Knott's version of the ride than the others and was wondering if you could give me permission to use some of the Knott's WindSeeker photos you have posted on Wikipedia. If you give me permission to use some of the photos, please send me back a message stating that I can use your photos (please provide some detail). Please also (only if you give me permission) chose one of the two licenses below to use on Wikipedia as those are the only two Wikipedia accepts.

The 2 licenses are: - Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 - Creative Commons Attribution 3.0

Even if you do not give me permission, please send a message back stating your final decision.

Thank-you!

Reply from Jim Disney: You may use the images under the CCA 3.0 license.

As I said above, when I sent the original message, I asked if I can use some of the Knott's WindSeeker photos and not specific ones...so I don't know if he gave me permission to use which ever ones I wanted when ever I wanted. Am i making sense?--Dom497 (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the impression I get is that your allowed to use any of the WindSeeker photos because like you said, you didnt ask about specific ones, you just asked if you could use some of his WindSeeker photos on Wikipedia. He also said you may use them and didn't specify which ones exactly so I think it's ok to use any of them. --Astros4477 (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll upload it but someone can figure out where to place it in the article. I'll post here when the image is uploaded.--Dom497 (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is the image...it just has to pass OTRS: File:Knott's WindSeeker In Action.jpg --Dom497 (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)