Talk:The Incredible Hulk Coaster

White Space
Is there anything that can be done to fix the page? There may be positive aspects of the new infobox, but it seems to have made the article text not start until quite a way down the page. Irongargoyle 03:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is two infobooxes. I cleaned it up a little, but am still not happy with the layout.  Anyone else know how to make it look better? --Rehcsif 03:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Fixed.--Vulk 20:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Better picture
I've got a higher resolution picture of this rollercoaster, here. Should I replace the one already used? It's entirely fair use, taken on my own camera. Skorpus McGee 23:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of video link
I feel that the link to the YouTube video of the on-ride POV should be removed. At the ride's boarding area in IOA, there are multiple warning signs which have "no photography or videotaping" on them, which clearly makes the video against Universal Studios' park policy. I am not sure how Wikipedia policy handles this though, just wanted to know what you guys think.--Snowman Guy (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think any POV that is professionally filmed with the park's permission, like those done by www.themeparkreview.com, should be included as an external link. Regardless of whether it is done professionally or not, I think a POV video could/should be referenced when it comes to describing a ride layout or some of the elements. In this particular case, only one reference is provided for the whole article so I think the POV could help reference the "Ride" section. Themeparkgc (talk) 09:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Man or woman?
The article states: "On September 23, 2003, a 34-year-old man from Jensen Beach, Florida suffered a heart attack while riding the Incredible Hulk coaster". However, Incidents at Universal parks reads "On September 23, 2003, a 34-year-old woman from Jensen Beach, Florida suffered a heart attack while riding the Incredible Hulk coaster." Both articles started with the female form (initially containing the name, Leslie Killer), but this one has been changed recently without giving a source for the change. --YMS (talk) 16:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done The reference to the incident has been removed from this page per long-standing consensus to not list specific incidents in the articles (with limited exceptions), instead providing links to the summary articles for each theme park company. The summary at Incidents at Universal parks is correct, and I've updated the link to make sure it connects properly. Further, the cited source does not indicate if the victim died. If someone has access to another article indicating that the victim did indeed die, please provide it there. -- McDoob  AU  93  16:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Upgrades
There is a section that talks about Upgrades and how there are now strobes. When the ride opened in 1999 it opened with them. However over the years they have just fallen into disrepair. It's not an upgrade, it's bringing it back up to par. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.90.193.136 (talk) 17:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Distinguishing between the 1999 and 2016 ride
As you all know, this ride is currently closed for refurbishment... except that this refurbishment is effectively replacing the ride. RCDB, for instance, considers the ride to have been removed (http://rcdb.com/557.htm). The track is gone and was seen in a scrapyard, the supports are gone, and the footers seem to be getting modified. It is clear that this is more than a simple refurbishment- it's going to be a whole new ride, and I think we know enough to say that. Therefore, I propose that we rename this article to "The Incredible Hulk (1999 roller coaster)," change the status of the ride to "Closed," and create a new article for the 2016 ride (perhaps once we know more about what the new ride will be like- Universal is being very secretive). --SchindHaughton (talk) 05:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Lets just wait until we see the new coaster first, if the layout is the same, then no change, if its different then it will be a new page. CDRL102 (talk) 00:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Non-free images
The infobox had an image that was posted to Commons that was lifted from a Universal Orlando blog. Therefore, the image is copyrighted and thus doesn't belong on Commons. Also, while the image is promotional and could be considered fair-use, that would apply if the ride was still under construction. Now that it's open, free images are preferred unless there is no way to illustrate the subject without a fair-use image. It looks like most of the non-free images came from the same user, so I'll reach out to them with feedback. -- McDoob AU93  13:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Beijing "clone"
I think there should be a new article for the upcoming Beijing version. Though the track is a clone, it seems to be themed to Transformers instead, so would be a completely different coaster. epicgenius (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC) I am currently adding the list of attractions to the UniBeijing page. Came here to say the same thing. It is the exact same rollercoaster as Hulk just painted differently with different theming surrounding it. Should it be added to this article or be a new one? Technodisney (talk) 05:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Make a new article. There is a precedent for this with other coasters such as Raptor (Cedar Point) and The Monster (Walygator Parc).— JlACEer ( talk ) 13:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. A separate article in this case would be fine, especially at major theme parks operated by Disney and Universal. In addition to theme variations, they build very different histories quickly, and the amount of coverage they receive justify separating them out. Where you typically would combine similar models would be generic, vanilla coasters like Invertigo (roller coaster). Even if the themes are different, there's just not much coverage outside of their press release, opening, and closure. Best to combine into one article in those situations. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)