# Talk:Leviathan (Canada's Wonderland)

DReifGalaxyM31 added "Giga" in the lead to describe Leviathan. I simply moved it around to give it context, and mentioned it in the body of the article as well. This was partly reverted under the basis it didn't belong, that a previous discussion had already decided its fate. However, after reading it, I'm not convinced that there was ever any closure in the debate – there was at least 2 for, 2 against, and 1 neutral. Here's a link to that discussion:  Leviathan IS A GIGA
I was indifferent at first, but being reverted like that got me thinking (which is dangerous!). The Toronto Star (link noted by Dom497) and Los Angeles Times (ref#4 already in the article) describe the Leviathan as a "Giga" coaster. It's not being used to describe the "model", but instead a "class" of coasters that seems to have become an industry definition. Enthusiasts may disagree with one another on whether or not the term is really accepted, but there's no denying that it's being used and reported. These are just two sources, and there are undoubtedly more. The argument that city newspapers are rarely a good source when it comes to amusement rides needs to be backed by some kind of proof. "Rarely" is a heavy word and implies most of the time. I highly doubt that's true. 
From where I stand at the moment, both sources in question are used throughout Wikipedia as reliable sources, and to doubt their credibility here on the basis of opinion is not enough. The matter would need to be settled by clear consensus, facts, and possibly the RSN. Until then, citing them should be allowed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that revision yesterday that started this was made by someone who simply likes to make edits, and is not a regular contributor to amusement park-related pages. As much I despise the word 'Giga' you do make a good point that it has been picked up and used by "reliable" sources. I've even used the LA Times as a reference on occasion. I think we all know however, that newspapers often get their information from the Internet and since a handful of Internet enthusiasts have used the term, so have the newspapers. I do know the the industry trade magazines and the industry in general avoid the term, as do most knowledgeable enthusiasts, but I really can't offer any proof. You can cite two articles that use the term, but how do I cite dozens of industry trade publications that don't? I'm not going to keep changing this page every time someone pops in the word Giga. At this point in time I concede.—JlACEer (talk) 15:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
@GoneIn60: You have to take into consideration that newspaper writers are clueless about roller coasters. They've made so many ridiculous errors in the past; some which were actually very funny. Also, Canada's Wonderland has never used the word "giga" in anything related to Leviathan. Now, I going to bring up an entire new issue but isn't this article wrong then? Finally, just one more example, Six Flags has never used the word "strata" which in my mind kinda says that giga and strata are terms created by Cedar Fair only for the sole purpose of marketing (Intamin does not have a strata model) and therefore really isn't a type of roller coaster but rather a brand. (Basically, there is no such thing as giga-class and strata-class). @Themeparkgc: Any thing I'm missing/wrong about?--Dom497 (talk) 14:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I think we should build up a stable of reliable sources that precisely describe what these classifications are, rather than focusing on individual examples reported in copy-statistics-direct-from-the-press-release media. These classifications really come back to Cedar Point's marketing department. Here's an extract from an Amusement Business article from 2003 by Tim O'Brien, "New Cedar Point coaster world's tallest, fastest":

Note the last paragraph in particular. Strata-coaster was self-coined by the park. Why? Because since 1997 there have been rides taller than 300ft/400ft out there, namely Tower of Terror II and Superman: Escape from Krypton. By making these classifications for roller coasters over X height that form a complete circuit, they have facilitated the ability for more world-first claims, and thus gain more interest in the media and from potential visitors. The same issue occured with the hybrid classification coined by Six Flags; that ended with all mentions on Wikipedia being removed. Now I'm not suggesting it may come to that in the end with this situation, but I feel we need sources to support more than ride "X is a _____coaster" for inclusion here. Themeparkgc  Talk  00:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
@Dom497: Yes, reporters can be wrong at times, regardless of what they're writing about. That's why we should seek multiple, independent sources to help to lower the chances of that being the case. We should also keep in mind that these terms do not necessarily need first-party approval to be accepted across an industry. In pop culture, for example, there are a lot of buzz words and crazy ideas that have become mainstream due to the power of social media and the internet, which has given ordinary people (as a collective group) the power to inject new concepts directly into the mainstream consciousness. Once something is well-known, it's there to stay and becomes acceptable in an encyclopedia through references. I tend to think of the amusement industry in the same light. The press, enthusiasts, ordinary people – they all have the ability to influence new ideas, concepts, and definitions. "Hyper", "giga", and "strata" may have started out as marketing hype by one or two entities, but the terms have been since been embraced and used often. Maybe not by first parties, but definitely by the consumer, which plays just as much of an important part in shaping the industry. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
@Themeparkgc: I totally understand where you're coming from. Proper research on these terms may indeed raise questions regarding their place of origin. However, Wikipedia doesn't require us to delve that deep into such issues. We rely on reputable sources to do that research, and while it's reasonable to want to avoid relying on just one or two sources, I don't think that's going to be an issue here. In the first few minutes of an extensive search, it became apparent that several if not dozens of highly reputable sources exist, and that's in addition to what has already been mentioned. A Chicago Sun-Times publication says giga is "defined as one with a first drop of at least 300 feet". A 2010 publication from Time states that a strata coaster "is a complete circuit coaster reaching more than 400 ft. (128 m) high". Is it possible these outlets first saw the terms on Wikipedia? Sure it is, but I also have confidence that these reporters asked someone within the industry for verification before publishing it. I mentioned this in the previous reply, but the problem with denying these terms today, is that they've already been embraced, even if it's for the wrong reasons. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
@JlACEer: You bring up an interesting point. I would find that surprising if in fact trade publications, even to this day, are not using these terms freely now. The problem, of course, is that we are now up to 4 reputable sources that have, and I'm certain there are a lot more. Unless we can find sources that explicitly say the terms are being incorrectly used, I don't see how we can ban them. Furthermore, "silence" on the issue from these trade publications doesn't necessarily mean "denial". --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
And I'm sure you can come up with a lot more. A large portion of the people in the U.S. use the word ain't and you can probably reference it with numerous "reputable" sources  but that still does not make it correct. I think it is very unlikely that any publication is going to go so far as to say that another publication is using a certain term like giga or strata incorrectly. That is pretty much the reason why I've given up trying to correct this page. I can't offer the kind of proof you are looking for. When I do a Google search on the term giga coaster I get back a frightening number of returns — mostly from fan sites, but the shear number is amazing. Personally I think very few of them know what they are talking about, particularly when I see those sites riddled with numerous other errors. I do know that when I go to the IAAPA Expo in a few weeks, I won't hear anyone at the B&M booth discussing giga coasters, but at this point, trying to convince the enthusiast world that there is no such thing as a B&M or Morgan giga coaster seems like a hopeless cause.—JlACEer (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia really needs a "like" button. I agree with JlACer 100%.--Dom497 (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Just to be clear, the issue isn't about a roller coaster "model". If it was, then I'd expect B&M or any other manufacturer involved to support that label before I'd include it here. This is about a roller coaster "class", something whipped up by the other end of the spectrum - fans, enthusiasts, etc. We don't have an official authority on the subject that can say, "Nope, sorry, "giga" is a made up class of roller coasters...stop using it...No soup for you!"
You'd also have a hard time showing that the word ain't is correct, even if it is found in reliable sources. That's because you'd have an overwhelming number of sources that show how it's incorrect. You actually just highlighted my point with that example! --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I'll reiterate that I'm okay with the current edit. Listing it as a class seems the best way to include the term and will likely prevent future casual editors from adding "Leviathan is a Giga Coaster" to the first line, as our last editor did. I think you made your point, and I agree that the term is not going to go away.—JlACEer (talk) 14:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Leviathan (roller coaster). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.canadaswonderland.com/2012/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110925210901/http://leviathan.canadaswonderland.com/public/ride/ to http://leviathan.canadaswonderland.com/public/ride/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Leviathan (roller coaster). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425114044/http://leviathan.canadaswonderland.com/public/latest/blog/2011/9/15/Ready_For_Steel.cfm to http://leviathan.canadaswonderland.com/public/latest/blog/2011/9/15/Ready_For_Steel.cfm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111016130204/http://leviathan.canadaswonderland.com/public/latest/blog/2011/9/26/Tracking_Along.cfm to http://leviathan.canadaswonderland.com/public/latest/blog/2011/9/26/Tracking_Along.cfm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111126071102/http://leviathan.canadaswonderland.com/public/latest/blog/2011/11/25/Milestones_at_306_Feet.cfm to http://leviathan.canadaswonderland.com/public/latest/blog/2011/11/25/Milestones_at_306_Feet.cfm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111206084249/http://leviathan.canadaswonderland.com/public/latest/ to http://leviathan.canadaswonderland.com/public/latest/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

History
Not from a WP:Reliable source (blog):
In early August 2011, it was discovered that the ride would be manufactured by Bolliger & Mabillard after parts began to arrive on site.<ref name=RCDB>{{Cite RCDB|coaster_name=Leviathan|location=Canada's Wonderland|rcdb_number=10108|accessdate=18 August 2011}}</ref><ref name="NPN supports arrive">{{cite web|first=Mike|title=Aqua Supports Add To The Canada's Wonderland 2012 Mystery|url=http://newsplusnotes.blogspot.com/2011/08/aqua-supports-add-to-canadas-wonderland.html|publisher=NewsPlusNotes|accessdate=18 August 2011|date=9 August 2011}}</ref>
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Baffle gab1978 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)