Talk:Rube Goldberg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.

Contents

[edit] Max Maxfield

To whoever is "managing" this page, may I suggest an external link to the "Heath Robinson Rube Goldberg (HRRG) Mixed Technology Computer" project at http://www.diycalculator.com/sp-hrrgcomp.shtml. The idea is to create a computer out of a mixture of implementation technologies, including relays, vacuum tubes, transistors, simple integrated circuits, pneumatic logic, magnetic logic, and so forth. I think both Heath Robinson and Rube Goldberg would really appreciate this project.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Memyselfmax (talk • contribs) 20:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

In current version (2006-04-28) this page has broken unicode characters. In old versions those are Ok. I do not know how to fix that.

If someone fixes that please remove this message. Thank you.

Have added a link to the project in the Wiki on Goldberg machines, where it's more appropriate than in this one, which is biographical. SBHarris 20:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] From the article

surely this should read "usable but unuseful"???

My answer:

No, I actually meant what what I wrote. The Chindōgu typically have a useful purpose (see the article), but they are so embarrassing or the like that that makes them unusable. -- Cimon Avaro on a Pogo Stick

[edit] David Borst

I have removed the reference to "David Borst" from the article for two reasons:

  1. I can find nothing linking this name with Rube Goldberg either on the web or in any of the paper references I have on hand;
  2. The "David Borst" redirect has been deleted several times as a probable hoax (one editor went so far as to make him first Postmaster General of the U.S.)

A citation would be quite helpful. - Hephaestos|§ 16:11, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Again, that is fine, it's not a matter of disbelief so much as a matter of "where is this research? how reliable is it? who did it?" A book name, please (or a website, although I've looked for a website and found nothing). - Hephaestos|§ 18:58, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Removed

Modern researchers [who?] have examined other political cartoons [which?] of this time period, and have found certain similarities between the works of Rube Goldberg, and those of David Borst [who is David Borst? How is he known? Does he rate an article in an encyclopedia?]. It's not yet proven, but it is possible that Goldberg used Borst as a pseudonym to publish his most controversial [controversial in what way?] political cartoons.

Hephaestos|§ 01:00, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudonym

It's a published study from the University of California, Berkeley that has examined other political cartoons published in the same time period. David Borst is not a person himself, he's a made up pseudonym for Rube Goldberg. They were controversial because sometimes political cartoons can get controversial and upset certian people. He didn't want his name on them, so he used a pseudonym.

I appreciate your taking the time to explain, and it sounds interesting, but unfortunately we still won't be able to use it right now. - Hephaestos|§ 02:19, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
If you type "David Borst" and "Rube Goldberg" into Google Search, the only page that has both names in it is this page: Wikipedia Talk: Rube Goldberg. --User:Alvinrune 00:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism is very important

The person making edits from IP: 163.153.236.3 needs to be banned. Mrfridays 16:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


Gamaliel is making newspapers and ficticious names into wikipedia links that don't exist. It merely serves to clutter the page and make it confusing for users. There are none such of these links. It's vandalism.

23:56, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wikifying potential subjects of as of yet unwritten articles is not vandalism. In my opinion, they're all perfectly deserving of an article; this is how a wiki works. You could always create an account and log in, after which you'll be able to tweak your preferences so that red links appear whatever colour you wish.
However, it does say somewhere that Wikipedia is not just a collection of links.Nat2 15:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Please note however that allegations of vandalism should not be made lightly; see Wikipedia:Civility. Calling someone "stupid" in an edit summary is also uncalled for, and violates Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Try to lighten up, eh? -- Hadal 04:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


I never called anyone stupid. I just called them retarded. If this Gamaliel person wants to make those subjects into articles, then I can see them being made links to them, but until that point in time, it is just more confusing for potential readers. -- 01:08, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It may be a bit of overkill, but it is useful. It is very likely, for instance, that over time all those newspapers will have articles of their own, plus some of the characters. Sure, you could justifiably de-link a few of them on the grounds that they'll never happen, but there are already many articles on newspapers, many articles on individual characters, etc. When you have a red link, one of the things you can do is go to it, then click on "What Links Here". For instance, if you go to New York Journal, you'll find there are already four other articles linking to it. You could start an article on the New York Journal itself simply by grabbing some of the information from those pages that refer to it. That, as the edit summary says, is the way Wikipedia grows. It is the opposite of vandalism for Gamaliel to put them in. They should stay.Ortolan88 04:41, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The "retard" remark came from an anonymous user whose edits [1] seem somewhat similar to yours [2]. - dcljr 05:33, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

For what its worth I got this lovely message on my talk page: "You ruined the entire Rube Goldberg page on this website you ignorant lutefisk. What do you think you are doing? You made every single thing a link that there is no link directing to anywhere else. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? NOW I HAVE TO SPEND ALL MY TIME FIXING IT YOU STUPID SON OF A BITCH!" [3] What fun.

I put the links there for the precisely the reason that Ortolan88 states. I feel that everything I linked to would make a good article and I plan on filling in some of those links myself in the very near future. In reference to the edit summary "There is no chance that there could be a page on Mike and Ike, Boob McNutt, Professor Lucifer Gorgonzola Butts, or others," I obviously disagree. At the top of my immediate to do list are articles on a couple of Goldberg's individual strips, including the very ones mentioned in that edit summary. (You can see from my user page I've created many comic strip articles.) I'd also like to get into creating articles on now-defunct newspapers, though this is a long term thing as I'm still searching for appropriate reference works on the subject I can study.

I can understand removing red links to things that will probably never become articles, but having red links to articles that will probably exist in the future is how wikipedia is designed. If you think there is a flaw in the design of wikipedia which might confuse readers, then Village Pump is the place to start a campaign for a change, not here. Gamaliel 17:10, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I guess we're all still waiting for those articles on Mike and Ike, Boob McNutt, Professor Lucifer Gorgonzola Butts, and others that were "ON TOP" of your "IMMEDIATE TO DO LIST" almost 7 months ago. I'd hate to be at the bottom of your to do list. - Anonymous, 19:49, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
You caught me. I'll have to leave Wikipedia in shame because I never finished my Boob McNutt article. Damn you for exposing my secret. Gamaliel 01:14, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


I think the point is that you shouldn't have made it a link in the first place. It's quite obvious that you weren't going to make a Boob McNutt article because there really isn't an article to be written. - Anonymous, 13:26, 8 July 2005 (UTC)
Welcome to month nine of this ridiculous argument. Gamaliel 8 July 2005 17:33 (UTC)
Behold, the Boob McNutt article. Perhaps you can move on with your life now. Gamaliel 8 July 2005 17:56 (UTC)


What a great article!!!!! Congrats!!!! Good luck with the Mike and Ike, Foolish Questions, Lala Palooza, The Weekly Meeting of the Tuesday Women's Club, Professor Lucifer Gorgonzola Butts, and the others that were AT THE TOP OF YOUR LIST and NEEDED to be made into articles. It was your IMMEDIATE TO DO LIST!!!!!!!!!!!!! GOOD LUCK!!! - Anonymous, 16 July 2005 23:42 (UTC)


Good luck- Nat2|§
Ooooops, looks like you forgot to log out this time Equilibrium. Gamaliel 04:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
I didn't forget anything, I just don't know how exactly to put in my username. I do want to wish you good luck with your endeavors on your IMMEDIATE TO DO LIST!!! So again, I wish you good luck! - Equilibrium
You can sign your posts with four tildes. The tilde is the little squiggly thing which is probably on the upper left hand side of your keyboard. Remember to type it four times. Gamaliel 15:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
By four tidles you mean 67.163.18.191 03:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC), right? Nat2
Huh? Nat2
Thank you, now good luck. :) - Equilibrium 18:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, still waiting Gamaliel. Hope there wasn't anything too critical on that immediate to-do list that's been 2 years in the making... - Equilibrium 14:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] He is one of the most famous cartoonists in history

" He is one of the most famous cartoonists in history". Is this NPOV? Alan Liefting 6 July 2005 21:47 (UTC)

probably... --User:Alvinrune 00:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Depends on your definition of fame. I don't know of any other cartoonists whose name has entered the common vernacular in reference to creations similar to their cartoons. Perhaps this isn't fame so much as familiarity though. --Anon80
Well I haven't heard of him, I expect what is meant is he is famous in the USA. Markb 12:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Heath Robinson is often used in the uk to describe convoluted affairs. For an example of his work see http://www.pr.gov.br/batebyte/edicoes/2003/bb137/imagens/torto2.gif. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.69.32.147 (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] "Jake is gay"?

While I suppose it's possible that there is an award for cartoonists called the "Jake is gay," this was odd enough that I figured I'd draw attention to it as a possible prank.

I'm not at all a regular editor, so I'm not sure of the appropriate steps to take--but I just wanted to raise the subject.

--JMD

[edit] Text removed

In The City of Lost Children, similar machines abound, including a famous set piece in which a little girl's teardrop triggers a chain of events that ultimately causes a shipwreck. The films Amélie and A Very Long Engagement expand this theme further, moving from the physiological to the metaphysical. As noted by Philadelphia City Paper's Sam Wood, fate itself operates as a Rube Goldberg device, "an endless chain of tricky coincidences whose final result is utterly beyond prediction."

I have removed the following text from the article, because it doesn't reference a Rube Goldberg device, instead it talks about a domino effect which was not inspired in the machines, but rather in old folklore tales, like the Drop of Honey tale which is featured on The Book of One Thousand and One Nights. I don't remember any other Rube Goldberg machine in Lost Children, so if there's another, that one could be inserted instead. DrJones 16:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Who Butchered This Page?

The last time I checked this page about a week ago, it was about twice as long as it is now. I can understand deleting the occasional bit of erroneous info, but this was wholesale butchery. Admittedly, many of the paragraphs were not about Rube Goldberg himself, but of Rube Goldberg gadgets made by other people--instead of deletions, they should have been put on their own page under the heading 'Rube Goldberg Gadgets'. Or, they should have been left alone. Seems to be that it's better to err on the side of having too much information than having too little. I'm a newbie at Wikipedia; can anybody offer information on how to restore the full version of this page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.174.243.242 (talk • contribs).

You can find old versions of the article in the page history under the history tab. You can click on one and edit it, which will restore that version. If you do this please explain what you are doing in the edit summary and take care not to undo positive changes that have been made to the article. Gamaliel 02:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, Gamaliel. I guess 'butchered' was a bit too strong, but it seems like there was a lot of interesting info that's now missing. I don't know if I want to restore the stuff myself until my Wikipedia skills are stronger, but hopefully somebody can do it while keeping the positive stuff that's been added since then.

[edit] link address

the web link to the 'official' we page i just got here from a google search and it has the first item as www.rube_goldberg.com

the site is down so I can't verify it at the moment .... anyone to check it after the weekend ?

As far as I know, underscores (_) aren't permitted in the DNS, so the chances of www.rube_goldberg.com working are really really low.

[edit] Text with issues

First of all, this artical should not have to be protected.

Anyway, there is only one sentence in this block of three that should be there:

"The fact that something so wacky is happening can only be topped by it happening in a suspenseful manner. A Rube Goldberg machine usually has at least ten steps. One story about Rube Goldberg is that while sleep-walking barefoot in a cactus field, he screamed out an idea about a self-operating napkin."

I think it should read:

"A Rube Goldberg machine usually has at least ten steps."

If someone who can edit the artical could edit this for me, that would be helpfull. Akako|☎11:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pitagora Souchi or Suicchi or both?

In the text are references to a japanese translation of the Goldberg machines and a japanese tv show showing such machines with different names. I don't speak japanese or know the show (except for this: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6176491654107670145), but does anyone know if Suicchi and Souchi shouldn't be spelt the same?

Those two things are separate. The Japanese tv-program is called Pythagorean Switch (ピタゴラスイッチ Pitagora Suicchi) and it shows many different Pythagorean Apparatuses (ピタゴラ装置 Pitagora Souchi) as subsegments. See Pitagora Suicchi for additional information.
By the way: Am I the only one who has troubles viewing those Japanese names (ピタゴラスイッチ and ピタゴラ装置) in the main article? I see only a row of question marks.
Talamus 06:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
See Help:Japanese. Besides, I'm now working on regularizing the spelling of the program to PythagoraSwitch. --Fukumoto 10:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If not a separate article, at least separate sections?

The section listing appearances of Goldberg-style machines is getting longer than most articles. One way to break this down might be to separate TV from movie references ... Lawikitejana 22:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{cleanup-spam}} Removed

I did not find that any of the links in this section were spammy in nature. If anybody has any specific complaints on the links given, let's discuss them here. --Roninbk t c # 00:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concerning the robe goldenberg machine section

I am suggesting a cleanup of that section due to the repetition of several entries (whipped..., jackass, refrences to the breakfast making machine in Pee-wee's big adventure, etc.) Typer525 Talk 01:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for New Pages

I suggest that there should be two new pages: Rube Goldberg Machine and List of Rube Goldberg Machines in Popular Culture --Jickyincognito 09:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Verify Link

Having read the conditions of adding links - I thought that it would not be a problem adding a link to a video which we created in the style of the Rube Goldberg machine. This link had been deleted and a message left saying that it should be mentioned in the discussion section to gain verification.

We had a link to this video under this article for about a year (from 2005 when we created the video), our university web hosting was stopped when we graduated and so I have only just re-hosted the video and was putting a link back onto this article. The video is hosted on: www.baynhamtyers.com/thecontraption.html and does not contain any advertising. Please can someone verify...

[edit] Who Keeps Removing Links?

The link to my kinetic-art page, which is VERY relevant to Rube Goldberg, keeps getting omitted by somebody even though it's been part of the Rube Goldberg article for over a year. Is this caused by some internal Wiki person, or some outside individual?

Adding links to your own website is strongly discouraged, especially if the site is commercial in nature. If you are selling products or promoting yourself on the website it is probably not an appropriate link. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 23:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rube Goldberg machine article

There really should be an article on the machines themselves. Discussions of the various competitions, many pictures of interesting ones, etc. I certainly think it could meet the standard for Wikipedia. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 14:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

A seperate article for the Machines would be great! No question the topic merits seperate treatment and has lots of potential. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 16:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Artwork?

Are there any still frames of an original Rube Goldberg machine?

[edit] Gametap link

The article seems biased, namely when the company "gametap" is brought in to accompany the machines in video games sections. The link to gametap should be removed.

At the very least, it should link to our existing Gametap article, rather than a web site, and I've changed that. I have no view on whether that should stay. Notinasnaid 12:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

Removed the information about Rube Goldberg machines and left a summary. There is a page about this topic already, so additional material should be placed there unless it is needed in the summary. The article had become too unbalanced. Major Bloodnok 18:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

I don't think this article needs protection; protection is usually reserved for very heavily vandalized articles or those with extraordinarily controversial topics. I think this page should be unprotected. This is an example of over-protection. --DavidShankBone 02:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Why was it protected in the first place? maarten 15:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/u/b/Talk%7ERube_Goldberg_0e9e.html"