# Talk:Wing Coaster

The Intamin site lists their product as Wing Rider but the Bolliger & Mabillard just lists it as Wing Coaster. Should this be changed to Wing roller coaster or left as is? I know right now B&M is the prominent manufacturer of this so IMO, this should be changed to Wing roller coaster. --Astros4477 (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems the Wing Rider term has been ditched by both manufacturers. At the time this article was written (one year ago), both Raptor and Furius Baco were referred to as Wing Riders by most (if not all) sources. Now it appears Intamin have dropped the "r" and their model has become WingRide while B&M have moved to Wing Coaster (the latter is the same as you have said). Since Intamin's WingRide is actually a variation of an Accelerator Coaster (see RCDB), would it be unreasonable to remove Furius Baco from the list and make this an article about B&M's Wing Coaster? Themeparkgc  Talk  23:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Intamin hasn't made one for years and it looks like the parks are going with B&M. I will remove Furious Baco and make this soley about B&M's Wing Coaster. Where should I move Furious Baco though? --Astros4477 (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Since you agree I'll perform the changes. Furius Baco is already listed on Accelerator Coaster. Themeparkgc  Talk  04:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 Done Themeparkgc  Talk  05:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you guys know that the Ocean Kingdom Wing Coaster should be officially announced by THIS FRIDAY. Chances are that the coaster will be announced tomorrow as the "What's New In Asia" segment of the IAAPA Asia show will be tomorrow and it makes perfect sense to announce the coaster then. I could be wrong about the announcement tomorrow but it should be announcement by Friday. Just wanted to give you guys a heads up.--Dom497 (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The Swarm image used in the design section of the article is about to get deleted and I found 2 possible replacements for it. Please post here which one is better.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rollercoasterphilosophy/7200652254/ 
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rollercoasterphilosophy/7200407740/ 
I am also working on replacing the current X-Flight picture with one of Wild Eagle.--Dom497 (talk) 19:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the first one would make a better infobox picture, the second one is a great picture too so if there's a way we can include that, I think it would help.--Astros4477 (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
One of these images will need to replace the image of the Swarm because that image is getting deleted tomorrow (fair-use).--Dom497 (talk) 19:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Ya so I think the second one could replace it because it's a picture of the station just like the one that's going to be deleted. I feel the first could replace the current infobox picture, the current one is taken from a distance and it's quality isn't as good.--Astros4477 (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we should include the information from the Sandusky Register about the 2013 Cedar Point Wing Coaster in the articles. It hasn't been confirmed by anybody and right now it's technically rumors. What do you think?--Astros4477 (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

There are markers all around Disaster Transport at Cedar Point, I have a feeling this "rumour" is good as confirmed.--Dom497 (talk) 19:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Ya I know they're all around that area, I was there on Monday. I'm just not sure if it should be included just yet because it hasn't been confirmed.--Astros4477 (talk) 19:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I got an idea. If this coaster doesn't show up within the next 24 hours on RCDB, then it can be removed. Sound good?--Dom497 (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good, I'm actually surprised it hasn't yet.--Astros4477 (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Even though this is probably happening and the Sandusky Register as a whole is a reliable source, I'm leaning towards removing it from the article especially since this could be a problematic statement with the GAN. Themeparkgc  Talk  00:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I say wait till about 4pm EST tomorrow (24 hours after I added the coaster to the article), and see if any other sources have picked up the topic. If nothing pops up, the info can be deleted.--Dom497 (talk) 01:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I just did a search on google about the coaster and boy did a lot of results pop up! I don't think RCDB will add the coaster, but Screamscape might pick up the topic and maybe look more into it providing us with more details. Just my two cents.--Dom497 (talk) 01:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Screamscape will deffently have it. I mentioned on PointBuzz (Cedar Point's main forum) that it hasn't been posted on RCDB and someone replied saying that Duane (I assume the person in charge of RCDB) doesn't usually add a coaster until its been officially confirmed or construction has started. I have started an article for the coaster, feel free to add any information to it. I'll move it to being an actual article when it's confirmed by the park.--Astros4477 (talk) 01:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
You guys make the final decision...I will be busy for the next few weeks with CPT's and exams so I may not be able to come here that often for a while.--Dom497 (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Well I heard this from a reliable source on PointBuzz. They said they talked to Ouimet yesterday and they talked about it and Ouimet said its true. I feel we should add it. There are many reliable sources out there, such as the LA Times that are also reporting it.--Astros4477 (talk) 23:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I say keep the info in the article at this point. Almost every website that covers news from Cedar Point has at least one article about the coaster. Also, any possibly names of the coaster name been mentioned? If so, I could use the name to play around with the cedar point website URL and see if the coaster has its own mini site.--Dom497 (talk) 23:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Not yet, I don't think Cedar Fair has filed anything. I read in one of the articles that Cedar Point will announce it later this summer, I'm sure the name will be leaked by then though. I'm going to move my article on the coaster into being an actual article, what do you think I should name it? I'm thinking CP Alt.Winged as that is the code name for the project.--Astros4477 (talk)
In my opinion, I don't even think you should make it an actually article yet. It is pure speculation right now. For all we know, Cedar Point might be trying to trick us (probably not the case but there is always the chance)! Also, back before Leviathan was announced, it was leaked the week before the announcement that the ride would be named Leviathan and the coaster layout was also leaked. No article about Leviathan was created until the day of the official announcement. If you do decide to make it an article, that's really the only name you can use. Also, the viewer ship of the Wing Coaster article jumped quite some bit yesterday showing that people are looking for answers to the rumour. Maybe Themeparkgc's input would benefit?--Dom497 (talk) 23:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd probably hold off for now. There are a few sources ([1] [2] [3] [4]) in addition to the original but probably not enough yet to go ahead with the article. They all point back to the Sandusky Register. As I said earlier, I'd prefer to have it removed from the Wing Coaster article for now too. By all means work on the draft and build it up using the sources that are available, but similar to Full Throttle it is only a rumour at this stage. By the way, Duane Marden is the owner of RCDB. You'll see his name anywhere you use {{cite RCDB}}. Themeparkgc  Talk  08:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC) Edited template name. Themeparkgc  Talk  02:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey I just wanted to post an update. I'm still not sure it should be included in the Wing Coaster article because I've been hearing this few times, some people think that this coaster will be a 4th dimension roller coaster, hence the Alt. park of the project name. It actually makes some sense if you think about it.--Astros4477 (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Here are my theory's behind the "alt":
1. B&M is making a 4D coaster BUT they don't count it as a new model, its simply a alternate version of the wing coaster model.
2. B&M is making a 4D coaster and counts it as a new model.
3. Cedar Point is getting a WingRider from Intamin.
4. The "alt" is simply to throw everyone off and Cedar Point is indeed getting a Wing Coaster from B&M.
In the end, I think we should get opinions from other editors to decide whether to still include the coaster in the article.--Dom497 (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Who knows, it could also be an alternate design. I'm sure they have more than one design they're considering. I was at the park today and still no signs of construction. When did you start seeing construction on Leviathan?--Astros4477 (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
You have to keep in mind that Leviathan was a massive coaster. Construction started back in early May of 2011. Considering the time it took for the other Wing Coasters to get built, construction at CP should begin soon if those rumours of Disaster Transport and that Space Spiral (I think that's what its called) being removed are true.--Dom497 (talk) 00:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
If you look at the other Wing Coasters you have construction times between 8 and 12 months. I'm still against having it in the article until something a little more than rumours are reported. Themeparkgc  Talk  00:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I took out everything that had to do with the CP coaster from the article.--Dom497 (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
The roller-coaster community is generally pretty good at doing detective work with regards to new projects, and more often than not they wind up either right on the money or darn close. That said, all of that work being reported in forums and fan-sites is original thought and speculation. I took a look at the Sandusky Register article, and while the paper certainly qualifies as a reliable source, even it's speculating at some points. Nothing in the article confirms this is a stock Wing Rider or even a modified Wing Rider (say, with 4th-dimension elements akin to either X2, with its second rail system, or Green Lantern: First Flight, where the seats rotate on their own); the only confirmations we have are that B&M is the designer and that it will be similar to X-Flight and Wild Eagle.
I would honestly leave any discussion on this ride off of this page for the time being; discussions on either Cedar Point's page or on B&M's page are fine, since there's plenty of reliable sourcing linking the two. This almost sounds similar to the dilemma we're having regarding Leviathan ... is it a Mega/Hyper Coaster model that happens to be over 300' tall? Is it the first in a new Giga Coaster model? Even RCDB isn't classifying it yet. I think we're in the same boat here. Remember, too, there is no deadline, and we're not trying to scoop anyone.  --McDoobAU93 18:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with what appears to be the consensus here.  Until we have a press release and/or a reliable source citing Cedar Fair, the new ride is only speculation at this point - no matter how accurate it may be (see WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER).  Even a photo of construction wouldn't be enough, in my opinion, at least not without some kind of official announcement.  My 2 cents...   — GoneIn60 (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion, when constrution starts, and track arrives on site, that is good enough then to be included in the article. If someone could get a hold of the shipping label on one of the track pieces we will know what type of coaster it is (if it is from B&M). In simpler words, the sipping label has a code on it, and there are two letters at the begining telling us what type of coaster it is ("WI" = Wing Coaster, "MC" = Mega Coaster, "IC"= Inverted Coaster, etc.).--Dom497 (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Then you would be using Wikipedia as a "forum" or as a source for "first-hand news reports on breaking stories", both of which go against the Wikipedia standards and guidelines outlined in the links above.  Bottom line is that a reliable source needs to break the story first.  As stated by policy:  "This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves."  — GoneIn60 (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The first parts for the coaster have arrived. Dom, you seem to be familiar with the codes used on the labels. You said MC stood for Mega Coaster and WI stands for Wing Coaster. The label on the parts actually say WI-F. Do you know what that means?--Astros4477 (talk) 04:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is the email I sent to Screamscape a few hours ago. Part of it answers your question:
So, I know that it the past your never wrong (maybe once in a while), but I think you may be off with the Ocean Kingdom wing coaster saying that the green track in ohio is not for China. Here's my nice detailed explanation why:
So first, lets use Leviathan. The track code for the catwalk supports when it was under construction was: MC-K11-012-14. (http://www.cwmania.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pos=-2413) Now, lets only worry about K11. In the history of B&M, twelve Mega/Hyper Coaster's have been manufactured. K being the 11th letter in the alphabet represents that Leviathan was the 11th Mega/Hyper Coaster built by B&M. If you look at the coasters B&M have made, Leviathan is the 11th while Shambala (or however you spell it) was the 12th. So now, lets move to the code for the wing coaster: WI-E00-TE106 (http://www.screamscape.com/html/bm_track_12.htm). The reason why the two codes are different is because the Leviathan one was for the catwalks while the wing coaster one is for the actually track (TE106 = Track Element 106). Cut that code down to E00 and the fact that E is the 5th letter in the alphabet means that this is the 5th Wing Coaster. (Only 4 have been built as of this year). So how do I know that the ohio track is for China? Well, look at this picture from when the coaster was first leaked out (http://themeparkreview.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1183389#p1183389), compare it to the code mentioned above and this is what you get:
WI-E00-TE106 
WI-E11-083/2-122
Cut them down to this: E00 & E11.... and you got a perfect match.
Now using the same logic as above, we can confirm that Cedar Point is getting a Wing Coaster. How? Well, look at this pic (http://s1251.photobucket.com/albums/hh555/cpenthusiast/?action=view&current=IMG_20120717_235849.jpg) and you see that there is the code WI-F. Lets pretend to put this in a full code: WI-F00-000-00. The code matches saying that Cedar Point is getting the 6th Wing Coaster by B&M
--Dom497 (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting. It'll be interesting to see what he posts tomorrow.--Astros4477 (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
If CP isn't giving false clues out, based on todays clue, we could be looking at a Giga Wing Coaster anounced on November 22. Remember, the is clue may be false as CP mentioned to watch out for them before.--Dom497 (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I love reading all the forums that discuss Cedar Point 2013, almost every forum has a different idea haha. I don't know about the Giga Wing Coaster but I think Cedar Point has stated a few times an announcement will be mid August.--Astros4477 (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
And the ride has been officially LEAKED!! http://i1099.photobucket.com/albums/g399/ShippudenMan/gk1.png --Dom497 (talk) 01:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
All right, I'll ask the dumb question ... how do we know it's an "official" leak and that this isn't a fan-generated image, as in something they think it'll be and not really what it is?  --McDoobAU93 03:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Many people on PointBuzz, including the person in charge who is very close with Cedar Point and is a trusted source, actually saw the website. I believe it was up for 10 minutes then it came down.--Astros4477 (talk) 03:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
That's the thing ... does trusted equal reliable, or even verifiable? My concern is that what if this is not an inadvertent leak, but an intentional leak intended for disinformation? We are not a newspaper, so we're not trying to scoop anyone. I'm not going to change anything, and most likely it is right, but Wikipedia is not supposed to be based on "most likely", in my opinion.  --McDoobAU93 03:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying but lots of work is put into making the website and the logo. I know it's not technically official, but all the clues that the park has given match up to the logo and the animation.--Astros4477 (talk) 03:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps, but that's us putting two and two together, something we're not supposed to be doing.  --McDoobAU93 04:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I think it was a bit too soon. I'm all for creating an article ahead of time provided it isn't published in the main space (I did this with Outlaw Run following its leak a couple of weeks back but didn't publish it until it was officially announced). Themeparkgc  Talk  06:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I am proposing the idea to move this article back to Wing roller coaster. Why? Because Intamin's WingRider is very similar the Wing Coaster and after some expansion of this article to include the WingRider in this article, it can be moved. After all, the WingRider is mentioned under the "Similar Rides" section. Anyone agree?--Dom497 (talk) 19:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Intamin has only built one WingRide coaster and per the discussion above, I think it's better off staying the way it is.--Astros4477 (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Astros. Until such a time that Intamin start widely producing their coaster I think the article should stay as is. RCDB lists Furius Baco as an Accelerator Coaster and thus it is listed on the appropriate page. Furius Baco has heaps of things that could be improved about it – maybe that could be something to focus on instead. Themeparkgc  Talk  04:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Time for my second proposal! :) Now that it appears Intamin is stealing B&M's Wing Coaster model name (aka Skyrush) instead of have that redirect at the top of the article, why don't we just make this article about the model as a whole. Though Skrush doesn't use exactly the same trains as B&M, we can create sections (in the design section), one for B&M, one for Intamin.--Dom497 (talk) 20:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

So a bit of background to me adding the hatnote... I was looking at Intamin's website the other day and stubled across their listing of Wing Coaster (Skyrush). They've also got the Wing Rider (Furius Baco). I think at this time, the Wing Coaster article should stay as is. Until Intamin build another one of any of these, I personally think the information about the models can be covered in Skyrush and Furius Baco, respectively. Themeparkgc  Talk  22:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Just another thought, if the consensus is to shift this article to cover all winged roller coasters (as a descriptive term) are we going to include 4th Dimension roller coasters and S&S' Free Fly (as well as their new IAAPA 2012 concept)? Arguably the latter should be included in the similar rides section as it is. Going by Intamin's definition, would we include Dive Coasters, Green Lantern Coaster and any coaster that has seats on the sides of the track as well? Themeparkgc  Talk  06:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

It does not matter if the backward seats are notable or not, the statement needs to be correct. Regardless of notability, mention of backward seating is made in the last paragraph of the history section, so the two sections contradict each other. Currently one Wing Coaster has backward facing seats, therefore, the statement as I have worded it is correct. There is also no indication that this is just temporary. Thorpe is touting this as new for 2013, but nothing on the website has indicated this is a limited engagement.—JlACEer (talk) 18:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopedia articles should only include brief mentions of stunt promotions, such as this. If this was the standard design convention, it would have been backwards upon its debut. Running things backwards is just the latest trend in getting people into the park to experience a "new" attraction, and we should not be party to that.  --McDoobAU93 18:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
If that is the case then perhaps it should be worded that the "standard configuration" is to have the cars locked in place facing forward. I'm sure I am not the only one who will notice that the statement "they are locked in place facing forward in a seated position" is technically not correct, as indicated by the first person who made the edit.—JlACEer (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
The evidence is more likely to point to a coaster enthusiast instead of an encyclopedia editor. I would agree with "standard configuration", followed by mention that some operators have chosen to reverse some rows of their trains.  --McDoobAU93 18:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
The statement, "...they are locked in place typically facing forward in a seated position..." implies that this is the standard configuration. I'm not seeing an issue with the way it's currently worded. Perhaps you can elaborate further on your objection? --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
My concern is the amount of coverage given to a promotional stunt, per WP:UNDUE. This should be mentioned only on the affected rides, and not in the parent article for the coaster type. If we go on this route, we'll need to change a number of roller coaster articles to reflect the occasional desire to run things backwards.  --McDoobAU93 19:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I believe that guideline is to help balance an article that may contain opposing views on a subject. Minority views that are notable should only get a brief mention, while tiny minorities shouldn't be mentioned at all. However, in this situation, it's not an opposing view. The statement is a fact that would be acceptable to everyone. It is true that we are talking about a minority in the sense of only one or two wing coasters out of the entire population. But it's still a fact nonetheless that has no opposition. The guideline shouldn't apply in that respect. That's my take anyway. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Please read this segment of WP:UNDUE:
"An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."
In my opinion, a single coaster with a stunt modification qualifies as "isolated". It is not isolated with regards to the individual coasters that may have this modification made, but it is isolated with regards to the coaster type itself.  --McDoobAU93 20:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I think I have a better understanding of your position now. The Wing Coaster article covers the design in detail, spanning an entire paragraph and carrying into the "Similar rides" section. Here, we are talking about the weight from half a sentence. I'm not sure it should be entirely excluded, but the compromise might be to shorten the statement. For example, we could exclude mentioning the specific coaster by name, so that the statement reads: "although some rides such as The Swarm have seats facing backward". --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
If you take that position, are you prepared to add in that sentence to the Inverted roller coaster section, now that SF Great America's Batman The Ride is running backwards, or to any other coaster type whose owners may similarly try to experiment? This is a single ride making this attempt. The discussion should be limited merely to the rides that make the attempt and not to the overall discussion. For an even bigger example of my point, take a look at Wooden roller coaster ... it's a mess, when the number of exceptional designs, one-offs and desires of enthusiasts to include their notable rides are overpowering the discussion.  --McDoobAU93 20:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
The blast radius here is a lot smaller. Introducing multiple variables changes the discussion, in my opinion. Instead of half a sentence, you are now talking about a paragraph or more in your example. But I can also understand your desire to avoid setting the precedent that it is acceptable. If we look at the entire sentence, it reads:
However, unlike 4th Dimension roller coasters, cars on a Wing Coaster train do not spin — they are locked in place typically facing forward in a seated position, although some rides, such as The Swarm, have seats facing backward.".
Let's just simplify it to:
However, unlike 4th Dimension roller coasters, cars on a Wing Coaster train do not spin — they are locked in place.
This would negate the need to mention forward, backward, or any other future variation that a park comes up with to promote their product. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I like that idea very much, actually. You've got my support for it.  --McDoobAU93 22:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Agreed.—JlACEer (talk) 16:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Heide Park will be getting a Wing Coaster in 2014....they just haven't announced it yet. I'll probably forgot so I'm leaving a note here just in case I forget so someone else can add the info once they confirm it.--Dom497 (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

RCDB has confirmed it. I have added it to the article. Themeparkgc  Talk  06:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I have moved this page back from Wing coaster to Wing Coaster because "Wing Coaster" seems to be the proper name of the model made by B&M, as opposed to a lowercase-"c" generic coaster type. I do think an RFC or requested move should be filed if we want to move this to the lowercase version. However, this is far above my pay grade, so someone else should start it if they are so inclined. epicgenius (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)