Talk:Pinball

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pinball is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
December 1, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Image:Twilight_Zone_pinball_thumbnail.jpg This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pinball, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Pinball and Pinball-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1
About archives

Contents

[edit] Flipper

I've scanned a whole bunch of 1976 advertisements from a trade magazine, and in every one of them, what we commonly refer to as a "pinball machine" is consistently referred to as a "flipper." Not one of these ads (even the one featuring Pinball Wizard, Elton John) refers to them as pinball machines. Ad for Bally's Bow And Arrow Flipper. Conversely, there seems to be no mention in this entry about pinball machines being referred to as flippers. What gives? alainsane (talk) 05:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Over the past several weeks, there has been a huge deletion of external links. These have been added by many contibutors over the past few years, then were suddenly deleted. One of the explanations was that the links were "the addition of links akin to spam". I completely disagree with that statement. The links deleted are not spam (I am not really certain what a spam link is). The links are, for the most part, useful and helpful to those who want to find more about pinball than what is offered here.

After returning the links, the changes were deleted with the statement "we are an encyclopedia not a web directory" and referring me to Wikipedia:EL. A good point, and I have spent some time reading the guidelines.

The page opens with "Some external links are welcome, but Wikipedia's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic." This is clearly open to interpretation as to what represents a comprehensive list, vs. "welcome" external links.

It is impossible for this article to include a "comprehensive list" but is the current list overdone.

I believe that the current external links are overdone and should be culled. However, the editors RFerreira and Felix the Hurricane solve this problem by deleting all references in many categories. Deleting all references to repair (there are only five currently) is drastic. In looking at them, I believe the last two are somewhat misplaced or not needed. But if the editors take the time to look at the other three, I believe that they meet the requirement of Wikipedia's "Some external links are welcome".

None of these links fit the requirement of "Sites to be Avoided". Nor are they links to commercial sites nor biographies of living people.

My recommendation is that if you want to edit the links, do so carefully without resorting to wholesale deletion of useful links. Lhammer610 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that this has been addressed by Hu12 and a few other folks, but the number of links are far too excessive and still need additional work in their present state. I am not sure that you do in fact understand the guidelines and policies affecting these changes. Felix the Hurricane (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Repair information

Over the past several years, there has been a great deal of activity and discussions by several people as to what information about pinball repair should be included. At one point, there was a lot of useful information. However, it was decided that since Wikipedia is not a "how to" that most information should be deleted. Instead, it was agreed by several editors, a complete article on pinball needed some information on repair, and that a short reference to repair was appropriate, along with a few useful reference to other websites.

Unfortunately, recently, an editor "Felix the Hurricane" has deleted all references to pinball repair. These references have been returned several times, only to have the same editor remove them.

A reference on Pinball would be incomplete without some information on pinball repair. After all, some contend that the downfall of pinball was related to the high level of maintenance required to keep the games working. Also, people interested in Pinball may decide to purchase a machine. While Wikipedia may not include a long how to article on repair, it can provide information on where to start. Personally, I think the amount contained in this reference on repair is too limited. However, deleting any reference to repair and maintenance is destructive and leaves the article as incomplete.

I invite this editor and other editors to explain their viewpoints here and come to an agreement as to what is appropriate for an article on Pinball machines. Lhammer610 (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

External links are now in line with the External links policy and What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT#REPOSITORY).--Hu12 (talk) 00:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Please support your point. I disagree with your comment that the Wilipedia external links policy requires the wholesale deletion of the links on this page. Lhammer610 (talk) 02:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines such as External links policy, What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Ownership of articles are generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that users should follow. Wikipedia policy is quite clear here: the responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it. Please cite Your reasons for repeatedly reinserting clubs, companies, fansites, webrings and other Links normally to be avoided? Wikipedia is not a repository of links this is an encyclopedia. --Hu12 (talk) 03:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting that you say that "Wikipedia policy is quite clear here" as I see it to be quite flexible. When I read "What should be linked", the policy states "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to ... amount of detail ... or other reasons. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." The three sites that provide information about repair fit this description. The first site has a great amount of detail, far too much for Wikipedia. The next two are supplements as the first site tends to be too technical in nature.

Wikipedia does not set numeric limits, but does provide a general guideline to limit the number of links.

As to all the other links, I honestly don't care if they are deleted. However, none of the ones that I have checked fit the description contained in links to be avoided. I do not pretend to have checked all of the links nor do I claim to have. They should be checked individually. I believe it is destructive for someone to do a wholesale deletion of information that the Wikipedia article does not touch on merely on the pretense that there are too many links, without taking the time to do careful editing. Nowhere in the Wikipedia policy that I have read does it say that I am responsible for including the links, since I am not the person who is proposing to add the links - they were already there. A person such as yourself who deletes the links should do so thoughtfully and defend the reason to do so. So far, you have not supported your reason to delete the links other than you think there are too many. If a link needs to be deleted because it fits the description of a link to be avoided, then please delete it and give the reason for it. Please point out which individual sites meet the description of those to be avoided. Please list the link and what Wikipedia rule it violates.Lhammer610 (talk) 04:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems like we go through this process every few months on this page. It's really quite easy -- the marvin link, as it is regarded in the pinball community as the ultimate repair/tech guide, is helpful to readers who want to learn more on the tech side so we don't have to recreate that content in WP. Links to Pat Lawlor Design or Stern Pinball are significant as they are pretty much the only major designers/builders left in the industry - again, useful to readers looking for more information. Miscellanious club links? You'll have to convince me why we need to keep those but I'm sure there's a reason for it. SpikeJones (talk) 04:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I will take another shot at it. The Marvin website is excellent. However, it lacks any information for a beginner. There is no information, for example, on how to remove the pinballs from a pinball machine, how to remove the playing field glass, how to remove the backglass, how to exchange the rubbers on the playfield, look for blown fuses, etc. The "beginner's article" in Marvin titled "Beginning Pinball Repair" starts with circuit board repair. This is really a beginning to advanced repair (if you have ever done circuit board troubleshooting and soldering, you would agree that this is hardly beginning maintenance). The other two sites are introduction to pinball ownership, which includes what a homeowner who is not technically inclined could and should not do. The second link is from a US perspective. I think the third link is to a European site (although in English). There is some overlap between the two, but neither are complete. I have not been able to find any other information on basic level maintenance neither in Wikipedia nor on the Internet that does not assume a fair level of technical expertise, other than those two sites.

As to the other links on the page, I have not had a chance to really look at them to see if they are justified and meet the Wikipedia's requirements. My restore of links was really limited to restoring all that was deleted, since that was the way they were removed. I would welcome additional discussion as the appropriateness of these links outside of the Repair links.

The last edit removed a link to the Illinois Pinball company, which I thought was rather odd. While Wikipedia has rules against commercial links, there are apparently exceptions. For example, at the Ford wiki site, there are numerous links to the Ford Motor company. That seems reasonable. For the pinball website, it seems reasonable to have links to the pinball manufacturers. Right now, the only manufacturer is Stern. However, Illinois Pinball purchased all of the rights to the Williams (and Bally) games and therefore deserves a mention under today's status of the industry. And just like Ford should have a link on the Ford page, Illinois Pinball should have a link on the pinball page. In no way are any of the other commercial links justified. There should not be any links to pinball resellers or commercial repair facilities.

One other area that concerns me is the deletion of pinball clubs and I have mixed feelings on this. The pinball article is structured in such a way that it almost reads as a tutorial for pinball machines for someone who has never seen one or played one (why else would it go into such excruciating detail on layout and features in a game). If this article is directed towards people who have not played the game, then why not include information on where pinball machines can be found to play (since, unfortunately, they are not common anymore)?Lhammer610 (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: the links - the only one I removed was the one to Illinois Pinball. I had a few reasons; first, it's an external link, but being embedded within the article rather than in the external links section as should be done with external links. Second, if Illinois Pinball is notable enough to have its own article, then I could see having such an external link from within that article - or potentially linked from within the Bally or Williams articles, but not in the Pinball article (following your example, the external link to Ford's website is in the Ford article, not in the Automobile article). The last reason for removing the link was that when I follow it, the first screen I reach is a retail page selling decals, figurines, and various other parts, components, and artwork. This seems to go against multiple part of WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided (items 4, 5, 6, and 15).
For clubs, I haven't edited those, but my concern would be with WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, specifically the statement "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate."
WP:EL does provide one possible compromise for all parties in this discussion. It states that: "Long lists of links are not appropriate: Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links ... Where editors have not reached consensus on an appropriate list of links, a link to a well chosen web directory category could be used until such consensus can be reached. The Open Directory Project is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the {{dmoz}} template." A dmoz directory could be created, then linked from this article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Does this mean that after reviewing the repair links that you think the three proposed here are excessive? If so, why?

As to the reference to the Illinois Pinball Company, I agree that it does not belong in the body and could be included under "Pinball Manufacturers" along with Stern. There certainly could be a separate article on Illinois Pinball Company and hopefully someone will volunteer to write it.Lhammer610 (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

My comments weren't directed to the repair link; I have neither removed nor re-inserted those. My main concern was that they don't belong in the body of the article. I was just suggesting one possible compromise for those involved in the EL discussion that could keep all of the links reachable, while not causing an excessively long EL section within the article itself (a dmoz directory can have sub-directories, for repair, clubs, manufacturers, information, etc). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Heres the template {{Dmoz|Path/To/Category|Category's name}} --Hu12 (talk) 00:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I see that "Felix the Hurricane" continues to do the massive deletions on the Pinball page and has not left a comment here to explain his actions. What happens now? Lhammer610 (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Bring it to the attention of your favorite admin - be sure to explain clearly and fairly what has been going on, and that there have been attempts to communicate on the appropriate talk pages. SpikeJones (talk) 03:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The repair section just fails policy flat out. As for the linking problem, a single link to dmoz would be fine, but as it stood this article was becoming little more than a link farm and that is completely unacceptable. Consider this comment an endorsement to move everything over to dmoz for WP:EL compliancy. RFerreira (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
A quick search at DMOZ turned up pre-existing pinball directories. I think this one would be appropriate here:
{{dmoz|Games/Coin-Op/Pinball|Pinball}}, which displays as:
Pinball at the Open Directory Project
That directory appears to contain most, if not all of the ELs from here, plus more. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Strongly support the use of the DMOZ. Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites, including those which were removed such as clubs, Maintenance and repair companies, fansites, webrings and other Links normally to be avoided. Wikipedia is not a repository of links this is an encyclopedia. Its sad when there are only seven references and 30-40 external links, Clearly this article needs citations and content, not links.--Hu12 (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Barek for the dmoz template code, I think that pretty much resolves the linking issue. RFerreira (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
If this is consensus, I can add it (I'm an Admin).--Hu12 (talk) 22:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I have no issue with dmoz in general, but I want to reiterate for the record that *some* of the links that have continually been removed for no reason (and will probably not make the cut here by someone's reckoning) do deserve to stay here as they offer valuable information as resources. The horse has been beaten here with two admins making a decision for the rest of us here, so I won't go further. But at least there was an appropriate discussion going on to resolve the issue properly, per WP policy. SpikeJones (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Spike, you said "The repair section just fails policy flat out.". Please explain. I cannot find anything on "Links normally to be avoided" that would apply to those repari links. I must be missing something. I have read it several times and nothing there flags those sites. As to the DMOZ, while most of the links are included there, the main problem is that they are not categorized - listed by category. Not a user friendly way of listing the wealth of information available for those interested in pinball.Lhammer610 (talk) 03:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You're not referring to me with the above quote. I believe you meant to address your question to RFerreira. I'm in favor of keeping Marvin linked. SpikeJones (talk) 03:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Spike. You are correct. I readdress the question to RFerreira. In addition, and I guess I should ask this of everyone, why not the other two listing? Please take a moment to see the Marvin3 site. It is excellent except that it does not have information for the beginner. These other two sites provide information for the beginner that the Marvin site lacks.Lhammer610 (talk) 04:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
A link used as a citation, where the url can be demonstrated as a source would probably, not be opposed. I do like the site personaly.--Hu12 (talk) 06:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, so what happens from here? Right now the article is frozen with most of the links removed and no references to repair.Lhammer610 (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

@ Lhammer610: To address your question regarding the "repair" section, the reason that this does not belong is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a how-to maintenance guide (WP:NOT#HOWTO). Based on the large number of links available about this subject, there appear to be plenty of other websites to obtain that sort of information if the reader is interested. Once we're past this, I'd like to discuss what reliable sources are available to support the current material in this article, or if further pruning is necessary. RFerreira (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

And we agree with you, which is why the repair information that is listed in Marvin is not duplicated in WP, as Marvin is a better pinball resource than what could be done here. See, I used the word "resource", as it covers a lot of the technical back-info for anyone who really wants to know the details of how pins work or are built. Glass sizes, wiring guidelines, etc. Of all the pinball-related sites out there, I think we can all agree that there are just a very small handful that deserve to be included in any pinball reference for those looking for more info. Marvin is one of them. SpikeJones (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
And this and other sites can all be accessed via dmoz, I don't really want to begin entertaining which links are more valuable than others as this just brings us back to square one when what we should be focusing on is proper referencing. (Unless I misunderstood the direction you were taking this.) RFerreira (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
If what you're looking for is for the inclusion of some footnotes that as a reference in the article, Marvin is certainly recognized as a valid, knowledgable source. Because of that, we could footnote every technical item in the article that is supported by info in Marvin with ref="marvin", or we can merely list it as an external link. SpikeJones (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, we're all on the same page, if this is a recognized and trusted source which meets our standard for reliable sources then I have no objection to it being cited as such. RFerreira (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, as Marvin does qualify. If you notice, there's not been much disagreement over many of the other links that were removed, as there are some of us who are reasonable WP folks. A few other sites, such as a link to the only remaining Pin manufacturer (stern), and a link to the website for the guy who designed the #1 pin (pat lawlor) would also qualify as being meaningful from an encyclopdic viewpoint at some regard, especially if links to those sites could be justified through the current article content... Thanks for helping make the article a bit cleaner. SpikeJones (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the willingness to include Marvin. It is a great website and resource (disclaimer: I have made contributions to the Marvin website - minor ones). My main discomfort with the site it is pretty much aimed at people who are serious hobbyists and professionals. For example, please take a look at the "Beginning Pinball Repair". Most of that is related to circuit board repair which is something only a small percentage of the people would even attempt. Because of the lack of very basic information at Marvin, I propose the inclusion of the other two references originally listed on the Wiki site.Lhammer610 (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] article still locked for editing?

Resolved.

Would like to add to pinball firsts section:

I'm sure there's more interesting items to pull from that article as well. SpikeJones (talk) 16:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] consensus?

I think that if we have all reached a consensus regarding how-to material and to move to DMOZ that this can be unprotected now. Is everyone in favor? RFerreira (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I thought we had reached consensus in the above talk item, that marvin was staying for sure. I'm not sure what LMHAMMER was proposing with his last comment.
  • the pinball clubs go
  • pinballHQ (as proceeds go to the Pinball Hall of Fame) might be worthwhile to keep.... or be placed on the PHoF wiki page
  • IPDB stays as it is similar to IMDB links on movie-related pages
  • PinballNews will probably stay (or, at the very least, be used as references for news-related items)
  • PHoF should stay... or at least be linked to the PHoF page properly
  • Links to Stern and Pat Lawlor stay, being the last pin manufacturer and major pin designer company left
  • Simulators WILL be questioned by some. PinMAME being the one that people will be most vocal about keeping (the others can go to DMOZ)
  • Online communities can go
  • Other information can go
How's that for a summary? Did I miss anything? SpikeJones (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I was under the impression that the resolution for this was to migrate the links to the Open Directory (DMOZ) and then actually get to work citing the material we're currently publishing and cut back on that which cannot be reliably sourced. I hope I did not misinterpret anyone, but debating what is "worthwhile" in the face of our WP:EL guidelines puts us back in circles. RFerreira (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the DMOZ items I indicated as such (or as "go") above. The series of statements "Because of that, we could footnote every technical item in the article that is supported by info in Marvin with ref="marvin", or we can merely list it as an external link. and Okay, we're all on the same page, if this is a recognized and trusted source which meets our standard for reliable sources then I have no objection to it being cited as such I assumed meant that you recognized that we would have a gazillion citations all pointing to the same article OR we could simplify the citation needs by merely including Marvin as an external link. (I hoped the latter). I then merely went through the existing ELs that I saw back in Jan and offered my opinion based on the "reliable, recognized, trusted" sources statement as to what is, in fact, a valuable link to retain. SpikeJones (talk) 23:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I still am not certain where this leaves the Maintenance question. No complete article of Pinball, which is a complex electromechanical device, can ignore maintenance - it is a crucial part of the pinball story. That is not to say I am proposing a "how to" inclusion. If we are going to include external Maintenance links, then we absolutely need Marvin. I would prefer we add at least one or two other links as Marvin does not include beginner's information - it starts at soldering circuit boards. Is there going to be any mention of Maintenance in the article (without violating "How to") or just external links?
My only comment about using DMOZ as a substitute is it is badly organized grouping all external pinball links into one category. If you want to use DMOZ as a substitute, I can be in favor of that. Does DMOZ allow subcategories (Pinball Clubs, Pinball Publications, Pinball Festivals, etc.) so it can be organized in a similar fashion to the links that used to be on this page?
If Illinois Pinball Company actually starts manufacturing a machine (has been long promised but not delivered) it should be added to Stern. Lawlor is not a manufacturer, but a designer (and likely the most famous of those still active).
I love The Pinball Hall of Fame. However, it is not like the Baseball, Rock & Roll, Football etc. Hall of Fames in that it is a self anointed title. It is privately run, a great place to visit, and does donate its profits to charity. It may be the world's largest collection of pinball machines. Tim is a great guy who deserves credit for what he does. However, does his collection warrant an external link and other large collections open to the public do not?Lhammer610 (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Personally I do not thing that the Pinball Hall of Fame warrants an external link in the pinball article, however it already has an internal link because someone created a Wikipedia article for it. The merits of that article should probably be discussed on its respective discussion page, but I think it is a noteworthy museum even though the "hall of fame" designation is self-anointed as you say. I have done some serious reading across the Wikiprojects and believe that the best place for the maintenance things would be at Wikibooks, which is a "Wikimedia Foundation wiki for the creation of free content textbooks and manuals." The remaining links which are not being cited inline as references (using REF) for whatever reason can and should be ported to Open Directory. I hope I've covered all the bases. Felix the Hurricane (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your comments about the Pinball Hall of Fame" and your comments about maintenance belonging in Wikibooks.
I think if you look at what had been in this article on Pinball, that what was there was not a "how to". I do believe that some comments about pinball maintenance are appropriate for this article as long as they are not "how to". It would be limited to designs and problems of those machines. For example, early EM games kept scoring through a series of lights on the backglass. This required the use of a spinning wheel whose electrical contacts lit up the lights. These contacts required constant cleaning as the full power required to power the lights went through these contacts, etc. Then an introduction to EM spinning scoring wheels. Introduction of microprocessors and the problems and bugs associated with them. EOS switches being replaced by the Williams designs that are normally open and have low current flow. All would reference design and maintenance problems without a "how to fix and maintain it".
Does this idea meet the requirements and limitations of this article? My concern is that this might be better served as a separate Wiki article, because of its length, rather than inclusion into this one.Lhammer610 (talk) 16:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not certain what the consensus was on the topic of maintenance. I still firmly believe that no complete article on pinball can ignore maintenance. Given that we all (seem to) agree that a "how to" is inappropriate, we can and should cover the difficulties in maintaining the different generations of pinball. Pinball maintenance was and continues to be a major issue in the health of this industry. I would be willing to tackle this article (or section), but do not want to put in the hours necessary only to have it "shot down" after posting. Should we create a "Sandbox" on this topic? Please let me know your thoughts. Thank you. Lhammer610 (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll jump in and say that having detailed info on maintenance will be viewed by some as not encyclopedic enough for inclusion (does WP have articles on car repair/maintenance? I do not know). I thought that there was a grudging agreement that a singular link to Marvin as an EL could be allowed for those who wanted to get more info on that particular subject -- and frankly, considering Marvin exists for this purpose, a WP article would probably be lacking in comparison -- although there was a suggestion that it would be prefered for Marvin to be used as a reference in this article rather than as an EL. I recommend looking at articles on other subjects that require maintenance (cars, computers, housing come to mind) and see how they handle the topic first before continuing here. SpikeJones (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I am not communicating well and I apologize. Not pinball maintenance. A history of pinball machines with references to their maintenance problems. Not a "how to". It would not duplicate Marvin in any way. This would be more of an engineering reference similar to what is listed in the Wankel Engine article.
At one point, we had, I thought, a consensus to list some pinball links to maintenance site(s?). There is not an external link to Marvin. I also recommend another site or two since Marvin's information is very advanced and does not include basic repair.
There were comments made on deleting external links reference using DMOZ as a replacment. Yet only a small fraction of the links originally referenced are in the Pinball DMOZ. Plus the DMOZ is poorly organized, lumping all links to pinball into one category. I support removing many of the links that were originally in this article. But the culling has gone overboard and I think many should and could be restored without violating the Wiki rules on external links.Lhammer610 (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. After all the culling of links, Jossi adds the "linkfarm" comment that the pinball article contains excessive links. I suspect he is referring to the links in the "Pinball Firsts" portion? Help here. Lhammer610 (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can someone add a protection template?

{{editprotected}}

Adding a {{pp-dispute}} (or whatnot) shouldn't be too controversial... Zetawoof(ζ) 22:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

Needs more of them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.142.134 (talk) 02:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of milestones in pinball technology vs trivia

[edit] Pinball firsts

 Trivia sections are discouraged under Wikipedia guidelines.
The article could be improved by integrating relevant items and removing inappropriate ones.

Note: Be aware that some items in this list may be disputed by pinball collectors, based on various criteria, including design vs production dates in which games designed with a feature may have had their production delayed until after a later designed game with a similar feature.

  • First pinball machine that was commercially successful: Gottlieb's Baffle Ball (1931)
  • First pinball machine with a tilt mechanism: Williams' Advance (1932)
  • First pinball machine with a bumper: Bally's Bumper (1936)
  • First pinball machine with full-sized backglass: Dux (1937)
  • First pinball machine to use flippers: Humpty Dumpty (1947)
  • First pinball machine to use "jet bumpers" and locate the flippers at lower end of playfield: Williams' Saratoga (1948)
  • First pinball machine without a plunger (launch by pressing either flipper buttons, which ejects the ball from the center drain): Gottlieb's Just 21 (1950)
  • First pinball machine with score wheels: Williams' Army Navy (1953)
  • First pinball machine to use a ramp on playfield: Williams' Nine Sisters] (1953)
  • First pinball machine for four players: Gottlieb's Super Jumbo (1954)
  • First pinball machine with multiball: Bally's Balls-a-Poppin' (1956)
  • First pinball machine to feature a single shot for one million points: Williams' Arrow Head (1957)
  • First pinball machine with a moving target: Williams' Magic Clock (1960)
  • First pinball machine to award an extra ball: Gottlieb's Flipper (1960)
  • First pinball machine to use drop targets: Williams' Vagabond (1962)
  • First pinball machine to feature an up post: Williams' Cabaret (1968)
  • First pinball to be licensed from a movie: Bally's WIZARD (1975)[1]
  • First pinball machine to feature multiple banks of drop targets: Gottlieb's 2001 (1971)
  • First pinball machine to use a microprocessor: Mirco Games' Spirit of 76 (1975)
  • First pinball machine to accept dollars (Susan B. Anthony coin): Bally's Kiss (1978)
  • First pinball machine that spoke (a seven-word vocabulary): Williams' Gorgar (1979)
  • First pinball machine to use a pool ball as the pinball (the largest commercial game ever built): Atari's Hercules (1979)
  • First pinball machine with multi-ball in the solid-state electronics era: Williams' Firepower (1980)
  • First pinball machine with "lane advance" (player control of top rollover lane lights): Williams' Firepower (1980)
  • First pinball machine with two-level playfield: Williams' Black Knight (1980)
  • First pinball machine with Magna-Save (player-controlled magnet to prevent outlane drains): Williams' Black Knight (1980)
  • First pinball machine with reverse playfield: Gottlieb's Black Hole (1981)
  • First pinball machine to combine mechanical pinball with a video game: Gottlieb's Caveman (1982)
  • First pinball machine with a three-level playfield: Gottlieb's Haunted House (1982) ^ 
  • First pinball machine to feature a single shot for one million points in the solid-state electronics era: Williams' Comet (1985)
  • First pinball machine with an alpha-numeric display: Gottlieb's Chicago Cubs: Triple Play (1985)
  • First pinball machine to feature a 360 degree vertical loop on the playfield: Gottlieb/Premier's Gold Wings (1986)
  • First pinball machine to auto-adjust replay scores based on game history: Williams' High Speed (1986)
  • First pinball machine to feature a complete song/soundtrack: Williams' High Speed (1986)
  • First pinball machine with a jackpot that carried over between games: Williams' High Speed (1986)
  • First pinball machine to feature an automatic ball saver F-14 Tomcat (1987)
  • First pinball machine with a video monitor scoring display: Mr. Game's Dakar (1988)
  • First pinball machine to feature a wizard mode (high-scoring mode): Williams' Black Knight 2000 (1989)
  • First pinball machine to feature a shaker motor (shakes whole machine): Williams' Earthshaker! (1989)
  • First pinball machine to feature a known celebrity voice (Cassandra Peterson - Elvira) especially recorded for the machine: Bally's Elvira and the Party Monsters (1989)
  • First pinball machine with a dot matrix scoring display: Data East's Checkpoint (1991)
  • First pinball machine to feature a choice of alternate soundtracks (selected by the player): Data East's Checkpoint (1991)
  • First pinball machine with a cannon-launcher (player "shoots" captured pinball at targets): Williams' Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)
  • First pinball machine with a video mode: Williams' Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)
  • First pinball machine with a built-in dollar bill validator: Data East's Lethal Weapon 3 (1992)
  • First pinball machine to reward for a "death save": Data East's The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle and Friends (1993)
  • First pinball machine to use a non-metallic, ceramic pinball (called a "Powerball"): Bally's Twilight Zone (1993)
  • First pinball machine with a player-controlled mini playfield: Williams' Indiana Jones: The Pinball Adventure (1993)
  • First pinball machine with multiple cannon-launchers: Williams' Star Trek: The Next Generation (1993)
  • First pinball machine to move the scoring display from the backbox into the cabinet: Bally's Cirqus Voltaire (1997)
  • First pinball machine to overlay interactive video onto the mechanical playfield: Bally's Revenge From Mars (1999)


I find it amusing that an article on pinball has drawn such vigorous editing amongst a few (well-meaning, I'm sure) editors, while other articles that delve more into inane pop-cultureitis are not given the same scrutiny. This may be an area where we all agree to disagree, but we should at least attempt to come to a reasonable consensus on the matter of whether the "list of pinball firsts" section is...

  • indeed trivial and not worthy of being mentioned at all
  • a reiteration of material already existant in the text portion of the article, and therefore while duplicated in some areas, exists as an easier-to-read timeline of how pinball has changed mechanically, technologically, and otherwise
  • is no more a trivia section than other similar "first" articles or lists that also exist on WP, but would be better served as an article on its own as opposed to being incorporated here
  • or... other (insert your belief here).

So let the discussion begin. Who's first? SpikeJones (talk) 03:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'll start. Hu12 has previously stated that this section did not qualify for existance because it failed WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. As the definition in that policy states "Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files", all links to the Internet Pinball Database for each of the listed machines was removed. So all claims that the section was improperly linking to an external website is moot (IPDB is similar to IMDB, BCDB, or KLOV... but nobody is removing those links from various other WP pages). As to the discussion topic of it being WP:TRIVIA, I present that the policy states "A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and "unselective" list. However, a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information." And I maintain that the list of pinball firsts, as presented, was not disorganized or unselective, and was a narrow theme presented in a bulleted manner. SpikeJones (talk) 04:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Avoid re-creating lists of miscellaneous facts. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; merely being true or useful does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia.--Hu12 (talk) 04:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Obviously, as the one who added the {{trivia}} tag, I do view it as appropriate to label the section as trivia within this article. However, while I do view it as a trivia section, I wouldn't have any immediate objections to it being in a "list" type secondary article, such as "Timeline of pinball development" or some comparable title - as there is precedent for independent timeline articles such as Timeline of solar cells or Timeline of diving technology, among others. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for joining me here. It's not spam, as it's not presenting any external links. It's not a directory as qualified by any of the bullets listed on that page (price guide? no. Loosely associated topics? no. phonebook entry? no. Sales directory? no). It's not a repository, as previously pointed out in my above post. It's not indiscriminate, as it's narrowly focused and directly related to the topic on hand, as well as being included in part in the text above. I'll grant that it could fall under "statistics", but there are certainly valid arguments that would make it qualify to stay in the article just as there would be against. (an aside - how do you feel about a ride history listing appearing on any number of amusement park articles here?) As for article disruption, a look at one's edit history should help quell that thought, especially as I immediately began a discussion section to talk about the matter, per WP policy on what could be touchy subjects. And the trivia tag is a bit of overkill, as many of the items in the listing do, in fact, exist in the article text itself. Seperating it out is a bit of overkill, but it is one of the suggestions I made above. We'll have to check the article history -- it's possible that the pinball firsts did begin as a separate article but were merged into this one. Breaking it back out would be moving backwards, no? SpikeJones (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
As for "Avoid re-creating lists of miscellaneous facts", just to say it again -- the timeline is supported by text in the "history" section of the article, and places the information into a more readable view (which is allowed, per the same section of the policy you quote, as it delves into the readability of lengthy data lists). SpikeJones (talk) 04:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Moved the section here, for clarity--Hu12 (talk) 04:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
This may qualify as Lists (stand alone lists) - appropriate topics. However as it stands, its just trivia.--Hu12 (talk) 04:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Can you clarify for us the difference in this specific situation between WP:TRIVIA and WP:EMBED, as "Tables of information and short lists can also complete articles" qualifies as appropriate usage, as does "Not all list sections are trivia sections"? SpikeJones (talk) 04:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The differences are quite clear. Have attempts been made to integrate key items into the existing article text?. It has apparently grown to large, and perhaps its time to consider Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). Those guidelines do not make for exemption of official Wikipedia policy. This conflicts with Wikipedia:NOT#DIRECTORY and WP:NOT#STATS. encyclopedia, so many useful things that do not belong in an encyclopedia are excluded, if they become unencyclopedic. A list of all time high scores would be useful trivia, but is not included because WP:NOT#STATS.--Hu12 (talk) 05:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
It's apparently not "quite clear", hence my question for specific clarification in this case, which does not appear to me that you have provided with your above post (other than reiterating your stance). As I've stated, many - but not all - of the items in the list have been integrated into the article text. I've explained why your claim of NOT#Directory fails to me. #Stats, as I've said, has just as many arguments for as it does against. High scores have been posted to this article... and subsequently removed... specifically as it *wasn't* useful trivia. Agreed that guidelines do not _make_ exceptions, but guidelines are not hard-fast rules written in stone, and I've presented fair arguments as to how that list qualifies for inclusion here for every item you have brought up so far. As I stated in my opening sentence, we may end up agreeing to disagree, and now a different editor has taken it upon themselves to merely remove the section entirely without letting the discussion reach consensus first. So apparently all of this is like a cow's opinion, moot. Since you are adamant in your stand on this specific type of WP enforcement, I direct you to the entire stack of amusement park articles that all have trivial timelines of when rides opened at their parks embedded in their articles as your next windmill. If, on the other hand, you feel that those are justified, then I ask you to explain how one article's timeline can stay while others cannot. SpikeJones (talk) 11:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

So, what differentiates a meaningful list from a random collection of facts? I'd say it's when the list reflects or illustrates some notable aspect of the topic. Given this, topics which have, as a central theme, incremental technical advancement are often served well by lists of advances or firsts. Pinball is a perfect example of such a topic. Therefore I don't think this list is trivial or unencyclopedic, I don't think it should be broken off, and I don't think it should be deleted.

Having said all that, the list has some other problems, specifically lack of references and the weasel words that serve to introduce it. These should be the focus of effort here, I think, rather than argument about whether it belongs. Jgm (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I would find the argument that the list illustrates notable aspects of the topic more believable if the section were not laced with "firsts" of gimmicky game mechanics. Entries that are firsts that are shared by most/all modern pinball machines are one thing (such as bumpers, flippers, tilt, etc). The more "trivia"-type entries that cause me to support exporting the list to a secondary "Timeline of" article are entries such as the first "licensed from a movie", "without a plunger", anything that's a repeat but now "in the solid-state electronics era", playfield variants (reverse, two-level, or three-level), etc - there are many more. The list could easilly be cropped by a third, if not half, by limiting the list to only those true historic firsts that define the modern pinball machine - rather than firsts of a gimick that are used on a handful of machines (and are the primary reason I view it as a trivia section, at least in its current form). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Barek's comment, and would also want to thin the list down (hopefully based on some consensus guidelines we could discuss here and, again, the availability of references). But it seems like we should first answer the basic question being proposed as to whether any such list is trivia or not, and as such whether it should stay. Jgm (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Since discussion seems to have stalled I took the steps of removing the trivia tag and starting to cull the list. I mostly took out entries that were for one-off features that did not become commonplace and scoring "milestones" which are essentially meaningless. I left the references-needed tag. Jgm (talk) 04:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I think you did a nice job of editing out the "essentially meaningless" milestones. However, there are a couple that I think belong. Some of these that did not become commonplace are still worthwhile listing. The huge Atari pinball game Hercules, the use of a ceramic pinball in Twilight Zone were not followed with other games, but are still notable. Player controlled mini-playfield has been used in several games, including The Simpson's and Twilight Zone. Multiple banks of drop targets and multi-ball in solid state machines has become commonplace, although I think it does not warrant listing here. The reverse playfield in Black Hole and three level playfield in Haunted House are notable, but may not warrant inclusion. Would it be more appropriate to call this section "Pinball Milestones"? Lhammer610 (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Why this "Former" Featured article candidate Failed and was Not promoted;

Perhaps it's time for some here to rethink their method of contribution, learn from these past errors and start developing an Encyclopedic article worthy of becoming a Featured article.--Hu12 (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Bringing up items from a discussion in 2005 is not exactly timely, considering the wide number of changes that have been made -- including the good-faith efforts to cull what was deemed an offending list down (even though GA guidelines don't explicitly say that lists are verboten). SpikeJones (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Items which have been specifically identified as a detriment to this article since 2005, remain in the same unencyclopedic format. Just because nobody fixed the problem a long time ago does not mean this section should continue to be included. More to the point, pertinent entries should be integrated into the main text of the article, not back into the offending section. --Hu12 (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I point out the above editors' comments about already taking into account the pruning of said list in a good-faith effort to appease the article's detractors from 2005. Still, if you compare the article from when it was suggested to be a GA vs its format now, the existance of a timeline of technological advances is hardly the singular reason the article has difficulty reaching GA. References have been added, surely, but not nearly enough. If the *only* thing holding the article back from being GA is the list, then perhaps you'd have a point to make. Since you feel strongly about making this GA, I suggest that you start working on some of the other suggestions that have not made it into the article in three years, such as adding valid references to support the history discussion (the awful CNN video from last week aside), or perhaps the exploded diagram of the machine. SpikeJones (talk) 23:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)