Talk:Dueling Dragons

Closing

Why will it be closed? Source that please. --Kfrogers 03:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Tips

Is this section really necessary? Its more personal opinion rather than information.

I agree. It's not encyclopedic at all. 129.234.4.76 12:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Too many pointless, valueless quotes and very little information on the roller coaster. robertjohnsonrj 20:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Opinion

One of the best roller coasters I have ever been on.

Duration

Including the climbing hill and the little section after the brakes are applied, Fire and Ice each last 1.5–2 minutes, not 2:25.—thegreentrilby 01:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The rides themselves each last only 48 seconds (without the lift hill and the end chain section or whatever it's called).

Repetition of Facts in Trivia Section

Simply, we have entries in the Trivia section which merely repeat what is stated in the layout section. Should we delete the repetition? Hyde244 17:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

One of the Wikipedia style guides specifically says that trivia sections should be avoided entirely where possible - i.e. collecting "trivia" and lumping a disorganised list of facts together at the end of the article is to be avoided. Instead, such facts should be worked into the body of the document to add useful information in a relevant way. So we should be trying to include the contents of the trivia section into the main sections, if not already done, and then delete the trivia section entirely. For starters, definitely delete the repeated facts from the trivia section. Rmkf1982 | Talk 19:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction

There are two parts in this article that say there is a zero-g roll on the roller coaster and one that says that this is "the only Bolliger & Mabillard inverted coaster that does not include a Zero-g roll" (stressed by me). Could someone explain this, because it seems to be a contradiction.
83.131.68.246 20:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That's easy. Ice has a Zero-G roll. Fire does not. Timetrial3141592 02:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I made it a little bit clearer now. --ALE! 11:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Image and article layout

How's about we have the discussion here instead of reverting each other's edits? I don't think the gallery is the way to go it breaks up the article too much. Rmkf1982 ^Talk 13:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the text looks ridiculous squished in between images, and I don't understand how it breaks up the article. The infobox is already taking up much of the right side, and its not like the images match up with any of the text how it was previously set up. Maybe if the logo could fit in the infobox over the image like in Disneyland for instance. --blm07 14:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I've tried getting the logo to appear above the other photo in the info box but it doesn't seem to be possible - i think the info box template is preventing it. How about as a first step, swapping the logo and the entrance photo i.e. we put the logo into the info box.? then worry about the other ones Rmkf1982 ^Talk 14:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I take that back - i've got the logo and the photo in together. What do you think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rmkf1982 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Well, that works, if only there was a way to make it smaller. What about the rest of the pictures? --blm07 16:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I've tried shrinking it by setting the image size the way you normally would but it seems to be the infobox controlling the size. Bit of a pain if you ask me. So - do we try match the rest of the images up to portions of the text? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rmkf1982 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

I've moved all of the trivia into the article so it is now starting to resemble a Wikipedia article. --blm07 17:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Good job it looks better now. I took out one fact that related to noise levels on some other roller coaster that wasn't really relevant to Dueling Dragons.

There's also two quotes - Oh my God what am I doing on this? and Where is your God now? that I'm pretty sure someone just made up. They appeared all of a sudden without citation and i've been to island for days at a time on three occasions and never heard these two lines. I'd suggest removing them altogether unless someone comes up with a citation. Which admittedly may be hard to do given the nature of what we're talking about Rmkf1982 ^Talk 17:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice job blm07 it looks much better now.Rmkf1982 ^Talk 19:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This may not be the popular method of displaying images, but I think it looks and works better than the gallery option. --blm07 19:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Defunct?

Why does the image caption say "the now defunct entrance" whereas the rest of the article says nothing about the ride being defunct?--173.6.52.75 (talk) 17:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Dragon Challenge

Now that Universal has announced the attraction's future new name, it's important to note that, as of right now, the name of the attraction is still "Dueling Dragons." One editor, operating in good faith, has already attempted to move the name to "Dragon Challenge." As Universal itself is still calling the attraction "Dueling Dragons," that is what the article name should be.

As it currently stands, "Dragon Challenge" redirects here, as it should. I have taken much of the new information and incorporated it into a new section that will, as we go forward, detail the changes to the attraction. I found a source for the new future names for each track ("Hungarian Horntail" and "Chinese Fireball") but I can't find one indicating which name is for which existing track. If you have one that is reliable (i.e., not a fan-blog), please include it.

PLEASE do not move the article to "Dragon Challenge" ... when the attraction closes for its final conversion, then we can make the move. This has already been done for Flight of the Hippogriff, which is reasonable here because the former Flying Unicorn has been closed for a while, and will only reopen as Hippogriff, while Dueling Dragons remains operational today.

--McDoobAU93 (talk) 16:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)