Talk:Project 305

Speed

According to the RCDB page:

“ When the Intimidator 305 opened it claimed a top speed of 94 mph. Changes made to the ride in the first few months of operation limit it's speed to 79.5 mph. ”

I do recognise that the ride once reached the speed of 94 mph but, in its current operations, the ride can only reach 79.5 mph. Rather than just reverting my edit, please post a comment here as to the reasoning behind why the page should state 94 mph. An infobox should display the statistics that are displayed on the RCDB page because it is a reliable source used for articles across the world. Themeparkgc (talk) 06:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Meepitymeep94, I see you have reverted my edits on two occasions. I have removed all references referring to the speed. RCDB lists 79.5mph not 94mph so therefore it cannot be referenced. I still stand by my comments above but I feel I will get nowhere just changing it back to 79.5mph. If you can find a current reliable source stating that the speed is still 90mph, then reference it. Themeparkgc (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it should be listed at 79.5 due to that being listed on RCDB's page and has been stated the speed has been slowed down by trim brakes in different articles that can be found online. I have changed it once again back to 79.5 and put back in the statement about the trim brakes being added, although I wasn't sure what section it would fit best in or if there should be a new section added for it. If you want, you can let me know your opinion about where this should be put into the article, but I figured it should be included somewhere because it states why the speed is lower and helps to strengthen the page. F!ERCE (talk) 00:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the speed back to 90 after this was posted on RCDB:

“ When the Intimidator 305 opened it advertised a top speed of 94 mph. Changes made to the ride in the first few months reduced this and now "in excess of 90 miles per hour" is the advertised speed. This site previously listed the speed at 79.5 mph based on information from a very reliable source. This source has however since stated the 79.5 mph was a typo and 89.5 mph was the intended speed.

By way of comparison, the Millennium Force at Cedar Point has a 300' drop -- the same as the Intimidator 305. The Millennium Force advertises a top speed of 93 mph. This would mean the additional braking added to the Intimidator 305's first drop reduce the speed by no more than 3 mph -- enthusiasts who have ridden the ride before and after find this hard to believe. Another comment made is that the Intimidator 305 initially went in excess of the intended 94 mph speed. This too is hard to believe as mathematically an object in freefall in a frictionless environment can only achieve 94.7 mph after a 300' drop.

There are clearly some shenanigans going on here, but by who and by how much has yet to be determined.

”

Themeparkgc  Talk  23:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Intimidator 305/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dom497 (talk · contribs) 00:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Though this section has passed, please see last comment.--Dom497 (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   See comment section below for items to improve/fix.--Dom497 (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Pass!--Dom497 (talk) 19:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Ref 16: The letters load, but not what they mean which is a problem. Perhaps another ref could be found?

• Did you mean a different ref? Ref 16 is the POV.--Astros4477 (talk) 02:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Ref 15 is the POV. 16 is titled "Track Layout" and does not load completely.--Dom497 (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

•  Done--Astros4477 (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• "a short message is played, "Gentleman, start your engines!" is repeated in the layout at trains and theme sections. This quote only needs to be mentioned once.

•  Fixed--Astros4477 (talk) 02:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• "In early July 2010, the ride received a unique new restraint design." Why did it receive new unique restraints?

• Because most of the Intamin restraints like that aren't padded.--Astros4477 (talk) 02:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• "Some rides that used typical Intamin over-the-shoulder restraints include Maverick at Cedar Point and Storm Runner at Hersheypark." Source?

•  Done--Astros4477 (talk) 02:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• "Intimidator 305 features yellow supports with blaze red track." Blaze red track? Unless you can find a source to support it, just say red.

•  Done--Astros4477 (talk) 02:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• "The massive lift-hill structure..." Does not represent a neutral point of view.\

•  Fixed--Astros4477 (talk) 02:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• "...which allows for longer spans with fewer supports, particularly on crest curves." Without a source, this is considered Original Research.

• I have seen this in a news article or video before. I'll leave it up while you add more comments and I'll see if I can find it.--Astros4477 (talk) 02:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• I have removed the statement.--Astros4477 (talk) 19:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• Ref 5 isn't working.

•  Fixed--Astros4477 (talk) 02:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• "...former land occupied by the Monorail." What monorail (don't need to go into too much detail)

• There was a Wild Animal Safari Monorail that closed in 1993.--Astros4477 (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Again, I know that. But why not include it in the article? In my opinion, just using the word Monorail is too general.--Dom497 (talk) 00:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• Changed the wording of the sentence and added a link to the appropriate section in the main article. See diff. Themeparkgc  Talk  00:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• Ref 18 is a bit mixed up in terms of its name and publisher.

•  Fixed--Astros4477 (talk) 19:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• "Intimidator 305 won the Golden Ticket Award for "Best New Roller Coaster in 2010" by Amusement Today" could be put into a table to go with the rest of the section.

• I don't like having a table for one entry. I think it looks bad. Tables should be meant for multiple entries and I just don't see the point in having a table for one entry. And I know there's only one entry in the Best roller coaster poll table but that'll be expanded when the 2011 rankings come out.--Astros4477 (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The article will be on hold for 7 days.--Dom497 (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I have fixed everything.--Astros4477 (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Not quite. The part about how fewer supports are used still doesn't have a ref. Also, take a look at my comment about the Monorail (that comment is just my opinion).--Dom497 (talk) 00:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed the statement on the track and info on the monorail was added.--Astros4477 (talk) 19:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I have passed the article.--Dom497 (talk) 19:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Intimidator 305. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100214080303/http://rcdb.com/4520.htm?dt=126&d=310 to http://www.rcdb.com/4520.htm?dt=126&d=310

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Intimidator 305. 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/20111219172157/http://coaster-net.com/news/1334-renovated-intimidator-305-and-fireworks-shows-announced-at-kings-dominion/ to http://www.coaster-net.com/news/1334-renovated-intimidator-305-and-fireworks-shows-announced-at-kings-dominion/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 08:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Intimidator 305. 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/20140202095453/http://www.metroweekly.com/elsewhere/2013/09/award-winning-coaster-reopens-in-time-for-gay-night-at-kings-dominion.html to http://www.metroweekly.com/elsewhere/2013/09/award-winning-coaster-reopens-in-time-for-gay-night-at-kings-dominion.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 19:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Intimidator 305's speed

Intimidator 305 is 5,100 ft (1,554 m) long, 305 ft (93 m) tall, has a first drop of 300 ft (91 m) at 85 degrees, has a top speed of about 94 mph (151 km/h), and has a ride time of three minutes. I believe that Intimidator 305 goes 90 mph (145 km/h). Who is right? 208.59.132.152 (talk) 00:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Project 305 name change

I think the page move was premature. Are there any verifiable sources that indicate that I-305 is actually getting a name change? It looks to me like there are some changes coming and those changes are currently known as Project 305, but that it is nothing more than a project. It seems like a very unlikely name for a coaster. Other than a page on KD's website, are there verifiable sources that the coaster is getting renamed to "Project"?—JlACEer (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the move was probably premature. "Project 305" appears to be a temporary placeholder, as this source demonstrates, which states that the ride is "undergoing a transformation" that is not yet complete. The article name should be changed back until we know for sure what the updated signage and name will be. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• FYI that there was a side discussion occurring at User talk:OvertonAlex#Project 305. I've asked the editor to add future comments to this thread. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I replied over there at the same time as you did. I even got an edit conflict.—JlACEer (talk) 15:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Project 305 is the new name 2600:1009:B157:9B87:754C:DA84:28C3:3B51 (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a source that you can reference?—JlACEer (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

As far as we know, "Project 305" is only a temporary codename given to the ride in the meantime. If you have a source that says otherwise, please provide one. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The park has opened with Project 305 signage in place, and the name Project 305 is used in all official documents from the park (map, accessibility guide, etc.). @GoneIn60 is incorrect. 160.19.10.113 (talk) 02:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Don't get too wrapped up on "wrong" and "right". This is about not jumping to conclusions. Wikipedia doesn't need to be up-to-the-minute breaking with its news, and instead takes a more relaxed approached to make sure the appropriate long-term changes are captured.

With that said, it does appear that the signage just before you enter the ride queue has been updated with Project 305, and that it will operate for the foreseeable future under that name. However, it's important to note that the theming of the area is not yet complete. There are also reports that the Project 305 label is covering up a cheetah or leopard print background, indicating it may eventually be getting a jungle theme to match the nearby Jungle X-pedition section of the park. My advice is to wait a bit longer for more information to be released by the park, or even better, until the main ride page says the transformation is over. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The name Project 305 is used in at least the following official instances: ride entrance sign, ride safety guide sign, official accessibility guide, official height and safety guide, park map, website listing, app listing, Fast Lane ride listings, FunPix photo location listings. Even if the animal print background hints at a future name change, the name now is Project 305. To continue to use that name as the article title would be inaccurate, and to wait a “a bit longer” is arbitrary and unsubstantiated. If the name does eventually change again, there is no reason that later name change cannot also be captured by another change to the article title. 160.19.10.113 (talk) 21:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Point of clarification: to continue to use Intimidator 305 as the article title now would be inaccurate. 160.19.10.113 (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's worth considering changing the name of the article in the short term if the ride will operate as Project 305 for at least one season. I think that may be long enough to warrant an article name change for now, especially for a major coaster such as this one. However, don't read too deeply into all those items receiving the name change as an indication this is permanent or meant to be long-term. Legally, the ride must have a name properly documented in order to operate, which is why it has been updated in all of the locations you've specified (in what could still be a temporary placeholder of a name).

While it would still be worthwhile to wait for more information to be released from the park, it could be months before we get anything. The sign at the ride, and the fact that it is operating this season is enough for me to move forward. JlACEer, any additional thoughts before we move forward with renaming? --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The fact that the season has begun and the coaster is now operating with that name seems enough to warrant a page name change.—JlACEer (talk) 02:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)