Talk:Zip-line

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Merger proposal

These two articles are about the same thing I think they should be merged. The Flying fox (cablecar) article seems to (mistakenly) be more focused on childrens playgrounds, but Australians use the term "Flying fox" for everything covered in the Zip-line article. --Ozhiker 12:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep - they look the same. No one in the Uk will know what a flying fox is though. Sophia 15:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

In North America the term "flying fox" is generally used, if at all, as a children's toy operated at low heights and speeds with little or no safety equipment required. The term "zip-line" however is viewed more as an outdoor adventure activity operated at high speeds and sometimes at considerable hights and covering much longer distances. "Zip-lines" require safety gear such as harnesses, helmets and, depending on design, thick leather gloves for braking. These pages could be combined but distinctions between the "toy" and "serious equipment" should be made in the newly combined article. Khaufle 03:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I object. The proposal was put up and decision made in a period of five days. Much longer time should be provided for such a change. I object on the basis that Zip line is US Centric (as is much of WP) and shifting this article reinforces this. I request that the merge discussion be had before it is merged without agreement. Maustrauser 01:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was a month and five days --Ozhiker 09:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Merged doesn't mean it will be changed to Flying fox. Zip-line is the term used for a wire that is high enough to require safety equipment in the UK too so it would seem that this should be the parent article and Flying Fox as a "toy" version should redirect here. Sophia 09:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The merged article made specific note that in Austraila & New Zealand "Flying Fox" can also refer to the professional grade equipment. Also, the original article "Flying fox (cable car)" redirects to this page so that someone searching for that term will find it. According to Wikipedia stadards a waiting period over a month in duration and without any objections (or almost no feedback whatsoever) is sufficient before merging articles. The article was merged in such a way as to not distort the facts in either article.Khaufle 00:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologise on the time frame front, I can't count. I still point out that WP is becoming so US Centric that anything that has it's own name or cultural identity is subsumed under an American title. The argument could be made that zip-line should be redirected to Flying Fox, but I stand a snow ball's chance in hell of winning that argument. There are 300 million US residents and 25 million Australians and New Zealanders and so it is clear which cultural demand will win out. Why merge them at all? Why not have the Australian & NZ Flying Fox and the US and British Zip-line and each article could refer to each other article? Maustrauser 10:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm an Australian, and I agree that the name zip-lne is US centric, but when I arrived at the zip-line article from another page (Cable car), my first thought was "thats a flying fox, how come the article doesn't say that it is a flying fox?". After skimming the article, I noticed that there was a separate article for a flying fox, which only partly covered what I would call a flying fox (it only considered toy/playground applcations). Thats why I suggested the merge. Although it is US-centric, I'd prefer to have one page that covers everything as long as it is clear that "Zip line" is not the only name used. --Ozhiker 19:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

So shall we merge zip-line with flying fox? Maustrauser 00:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)