Talk:Dragon Challenge

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Dragon Challenge. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Dragon Challenge at the Reference desk.

	Dragon Challenge has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 15, 2013 Good article nominee Listed

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Amusement Parks: Universal Parks & Resorts / Roller Coasters Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Amusement Parks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Amusement parks on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Amusement ParksWikipedia:WikiProject Amusement ParksTemplate:WikiProject Amusement Parksamusement park articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Universal Destinations & Experiences task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by Roller Coasters task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Novels: Harry Potter Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Harry Potter task force (assessed as Low-importance).

As was added recently, Dragon Challenge is currently running the two rides separately, without the dueling action, in light of a pair of incidents in which riders were injured by flying objects during the run. However, the addition was made in such a way that it (1) gave

Update: The dueling is gone, per the source from the Orlando Sentinel which has been added to the article in the appropriate places. Normally I would move the incident to the Incidents at Universal parks article, but as these have produced such a significant change in the attraction, it seems best to leave it here. I'm certainly open to changing exactly how this is listed, so feel free to make adjustments. As Screamscape put it when publishing this story (complete with the source used here), "R.I.P. Dueling Dragons - Thy Fate Was Chosen." --McDoobAU93 14:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Dragon Challenge/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wizardman (talk · contribs) 03:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this article shortly. Wizardman 03:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the issues I found:

• The Universal Studios external link isn't working. Either the page moved or the site was being worked on.

Link fixed. Themeparkgc  Talk  06:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "After a renovation period, the attraction soft-opened as Dragon Challenge on March 18, 2010," maybe im an idiot, but what does soft-opened mean?

I have added a link to help explain this. Themeparkgc  Talk  06:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Any reception or reviews besides the awards?

I'll put the article on hold and pass when fixed. Wizardman 02:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, will pass if you can follow up on my last point. If there's nothing it's fine, just want to make sure you looked at least. Wizardman 23:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning to add reviews today but I got busy with downloading some Adobe stuff. I have found one review and will add it tomorrow. If themparkgc feels like doing it, a note to him, there's a review from Jerry Thompson.--Dom497 (talk) 23:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworked the awards section to become a reception section and added info from the review Dom mentioned above. Outside that review there isn't too much that could be included in this section. Themeparkgc  Talk  02:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That little bit actually helps a great deal, gives me a better idea of what the coaster was like on top of the design. Everything checks out now so I'll pass the article. Wizardman 16:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dom497 reverted my September 14 edits claiming "These refs aren't reliable."
The reverted included:

• Editing prose which had nothing to do with ref's.
• Removing 'soft opening' since ride was open to entire public – so not a soft opening.
• Adding ref's from themeparkinsider.com, orlandoparksnews.com, and attractionsmagazine.com - which Dom497 had a problem with - even though I added them to counter the themeparktourist.com which is no more reliable then sites I provided – if none of these sites are reliable, then all the info should be removed as not sourced by a reliable source. (btw themeparkinsider.com is currently used on twice as many Wikipedia pages than themeparktourist.com)

Comments/opinions? Thanks, Kirin13 (talk) 01:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kirin13: I guess I'll be the first to say that you probably think getting public attention is the way for you "win"....I offered to solve this issue between us two and clearly you don't want to go down that path. Oh well. Also, a soft opening only means that the ride was open for limited periods of time, NOT limited audience. Also, Themeparktourist has a better reputation that themeparkinsider. Regarding the prose I "edited", I told you the grammar wasn't the best and I've asked you to re-word.

Now here is my biggest concern, you added more unreliable refs just because there are already unreliable refs (in your opinion) in the article. That is HORRIBLE wikipedia editing. When you think it is ok to make a article worse, that gets on my nerves.--Dom497 (talk) 01:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is using the talk page a bad thing? When I started writing, there was no message on my talk page. I only saw your message after I posted. But apparently, now I'm the bad guy because I use the talk page.

Where did you see "limited periods of time" – I didn't see that in any news articles to indicate ride had limited availability. Also, looking at the linked

soft opening

, it says "limited audience". Not sure how you're defining things.

Once again, I don't see your grammar issues since I barely added/edited any words. If you see issues, feel free to correct. Most the issues I see, are things in the article that were there a long time before my edits.

Where is the info that one site is more reliable than the other? Using Wikipedia's search themeparkinsider.com is more frequently used than themeparktourist.com. At the moment, I don't see any reason that info from themeparktourist.com should be treated as fact while info from any other site should be removed at sight, like you're arguing. If all this info is unreliable, then remove. Generally, I prefer, for topics not covered by mass-media, to use lesser-known (and most likely less-reliable sources) than removing the info all together. But, I guess, to you, that's "is HORRIBLE wikipedia editing." Kirin13 (talk) 01:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the amusement park industry, soft-openings mean limited periods of time. When you hear that only media outlets or other select people are allowed (enthusiasts or not), that is called a "media day/event". Regarding my "horrible" editing comment, this article is a GA (if you don't know what that is, let me know and I'll explain). It was reviewed by a user who has years and years of experience here and Theme Park Tourist is fine. When you start adding unreliable sources because you think there are already unreliable sources in the article, that's my problem. (In other words, you added the refs because there were believed there were already "similar" refs....round circle, making the article go below the GA standard.)--Dom497 (talk) 01:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@

Soft opening

as it was wikilinked refers to "limited audience". Even accepting your definition, what was for a "limited periods of time"? (Was it open for limited hours each day? limited time frame? if so, what was the hours/time frame?) Where is the source saying this ride was open for a "limited periods"? None of the links I've seen, say that.

If "a user who has years and years of experience here" said "Theme Park Tourist is fine", then I believe similar sites are fine and reliable as well – unless you have evidence/info to show that these other sites are less reliable. Multiple lesser known sources are better than one lesser known source. So when no major sources are available, I prefer to gather multiple lesser sources - unless I know these lesser sources are unreliable.

In your revision, you changed the lead to say "coasters no longer duel." Yet it's never explained what it means for coasters to "duel". Either the earlier text needs to be edited to explain that being "dispatched simultaneously, providing three near-miss encounters" gave the coaster its dueling name, or more generic text (like "no longer launch simultaneously" which is understood by a ordinary reader) should be used.

Also, in the same revision you said ride opened on March 18, but this date is different in every article I've seen. Also, all these articles are

WP:CBALL since all came before the coasters were reopened. I still don't understand what you mean by "soft-opened" since from what I've read, ride was fully opened. Also, some of the articles state the ride remained as "Dueling Dragons" when it reopened (until the main Harry Potter opening). (Btw: the source you're arguing for, themeparktourist.com, says ride won't be renamed until Harry Potter opening. Another source, attractionsmagazine.com, clearly says ride is "still be called Dueling Dragons".) Wayback Machine shows the Universal's website calling the ride "Dueling Dragons" in April. Kirin13 (talk) 02:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

If there is one thing to keep in mind, its that the "Soft launch" article is cited by completely unreliable sources (I hope we can both agree that the two sources there are the equivalent of Yahoo Answers).--Dom497 (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That article shouldn't exist given its sources or lack thereof. Considering the wikilink was added to this article to get it past GA review, tells this term isn't well defined for an average reader (or an average GA reviewer). Let's take wiktionary definition instead. I can see how it would apply if this was a new ride. However, this ride wasn't new, it didn't change, nor was it renamed (at that time). It reopened after a three-week maintenance, more or less the same. Kirin13 (talk) 00:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...a soft-opening doesn't necessarily mean a ride has to be new. I know it was closed for only 3 weeks, but TECHNICALLY, the ride was re-themed, providing a slightly different guest experience (the queue are) which does make the experience new. I know, I'm stretching the definition....but IMO, I would say leave it.--Dom497 (talk) 01:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the ride is defunct, should we revert the title of the article to its original name? Malcolmmwa (talk) 21:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]