Talk:Toy balloon
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Merge[edit]
Should this merge with balloon? Srl 08:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- OPPOSE. balloon is about all shapes and sizes of balloons, including weather balloons, and those that are large enough to carry people. Jon 18:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- OPPOSE. Toy balloons are important enough to warrant a separate article, and articles exist for balloon (vehicle), [[water balloon], balloon rocket, and angioplasty. Perhaps the balloon article could link here. dmyersturnbull ⇒ talk 09:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Expected lifetime before failure would be useful[edit]
The toy ballons I grew up with failed within 24 hours. By contrast, today's greeting balloons seem to last much longer. (It's been over a month since my last birthday, and the foil balloon I received is still floating on the ceiling.) I've not included this in the main article since a more scientfic study should be cited. Jon 18:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Shorting out power lines[edit]
This happened to the commuter rail in Oslo two days ago (source [1]), would it be of interest to mention this in the article? --GalFisk 09:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- No, it should not be mentioned in this encyclopedia article, and the link does not even work any more. —Centrx→talk • 00:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Mylar or nylon[edit]
The article on boPET (mylar) states that contrary to common beliefs, foil baloons are made from aluminium coated nylon and not mylar. This article claims the contrary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.103.239.144 (talk • contribs)
- Is either claim cited? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Why is this orphaned?[edit]
I don’t think the orphaned tag is appropriate: it contains at least 30 links. I’m removing it; if anyone disagrees, re-add it and preferably explain why. dmyersturnbull ⇒ talk 09:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Balloon-blowing kits?[edit]
I don't know if they're still made, but when I was a little'un you could buy a toy comprising a tube of a polymer solution and a little blowpipe. If you dipped one end of the pipe into the solution and then blew through the other, the polymer would inflate and the solvent evaporate. With a little dexterity, you could twist off the inflated bubble and have a home-made balloon that would stay inflated for quite a while.
Are they mentionworthy here? --Kay Dekker (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Biodegradability[edit]
The article mentions modern balloons biodegrade quicker than oak leaves. Most are not familiar with the speed which oak leaves degrade. A clearer way of referencing their biodegradability should be considered. Maybe something like "faster than oak leaves which degrade in X years in temperate climates".BenPlotke (talk) 05:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Emily Ratajkowski image[edit]
See the discussion regarding the deleted File:Emily Ratajkowski with party balloons for 2013 GQ Türkiye photo shoot tight.png at Talk:Balloon/Archives/2016#Emily_Ratajkowski_image.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Proposed reinsertion[edit]
Attention Floquenbeam, Velella, I am One of Many, GRuban, and User:7&6=thirteen who have discussed Emily Ratajkowski image and video use in various forums over the last day or two. Four uses of the image in balloon related articles have been removed. Since File:Balloonsanimals.jpg is already at use in Balloon and California Balloon Law, I propose readding File:Emily Ratajkowski with party balloons for 2013 GQ Türkiye photo shoot tight.png to this article. I would accept revisions to the WP:CAPTION "model Emily Ratajkowski doing a handbra with foil balloons for the 2013 GQ Türkiye photo shoot". However, I think the caption accurately describes the image. Keep in mind that this article now has no image in the Foil balloon section. Although Commons:Commons:Category:Foil toy balloons has many foil balloons, Ratajkowski is arguably the most notable subject associated with any of the balloons in the category. This gives us a chance to create and interwiki link to her from another subject rather than use a non-notable depcition of foil balloons. I don't think we should reuse File:Balloonsanimals.jpg here, since it is a sub article of the main balloon article. I think retaining one of four uses is fair.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- I absolutely oppose this. I really do not think it is appropriate to add a picture of a half naked model to any article about balloons, and am not willing to settle for 1/4 as "fair". As I said elsewhere, a case could be made in a few of the other dozen or so articles you added these images to, but I cannot fathom adding it to any of the 4 balloon articles (nor the confetti article). --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- To avoid a disjointed conversation, I'll just note that I've commented in more detail at Talk:Balloon. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, Tony; I wouldn't be weighing in here on my own, but you asked for me by name. I'm afraid I agree with Floq 2 paras above, word for word. Wikipedia being not censored means we will absolutely put in even very explicit images in articles where they are appropriate and necessary. But I just can't see the argument that someone looking for information about balloons can't get a complete understanding of the subject without a picture of a mostly naked woman. Congratulations on being able to see her sculpturally, but I don't think many of our readers will. --GRuban (talk) 00:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- I am absolutely at one with [User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] . If I had said it myself it might have come across as vituperative. Wikipedia is not censored but equally images must support and increase the encyclopaedic value of the article. Most (all?) of the recent swathe of additions not only failed to add anything of value but they are also demeaning to the majority of women yet without any encyclopaedic justification. The videos are of very poor quality and in some cases the relevance to the article is difficult to fathom. Velella Velella Talk 07:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think I need to defend most of the additions outside of the balloon related imagery. Look at Lip liner, hair rollers, pop out cake and hair spray. However, I understand your point regarding balloons here. As you may have seen at Talk:Balloon, I am going to be nominating Emily Ratajkowski at FAC within the next week in hopes of getting it promoted to FA in time for a 25th birthday WP:TFA. During discussions at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive3, GRuban discovered the creative commons-licensed source file that availed many high quality video resources of a supermodel for WP. I have been trying to incorporate the content in relevant articles. I apologize at my aggressive use of the source video in balloon-related content. It has been quite useful in many articles over the last few days. If you know any good copyeditors, Ms. Ratajkowski's article might benefit from one.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- I am absolutely at one with [User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] . If I had said it myself it might have come across as vituperative. Wikipedia is not censored but equally images must support and increase the encyclopaedic value of the article. Most (all?) of the recent swathe of additions not only failed to add anything of value but they are also demeaning to the majority of women yet without any encyclopaedic justification. The videos are of very poor quality and in some cases the relevance to the article is difficult to fathom. Velella Velella Talk 07:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, Tony; I wouldn't be weighing in here on my own, but you asked for me by name. I'm afraid I agree with Floq 2 paras above, word for word. Wikipedia being not censored means we will absolutely put in even very explicit images in articles where they are appropriate and necessary. But I just can't see the argument that someone looking for information about balloons can't get a complete understanding of the subject without a picture of a mostly naked woman. Congratulations on being able to see her sculpturally, but I don't think many of our readers will. --GRuban (talk) 00:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- To avoid a disjointed conversation, I'll just note that I've commented in more detail at Talk:Balloon. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hey folks. I am no longer watching this page. If there is further discussion I should be aware of ping me.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Copyright violations?[edit]
I was a little suspicious about a recent addition so I ran Earwig's Copyvio Detector on this article. It did not flag the content I was worried about but what it did find was far worse.
Three whole paragraphs, comprising the majority of the History section, closely match content on https://balloonhq.com/faq/history/ . That text is not original to them. They attribute it to The Book of Firsts by Patrick Robertson, Bramhall House, NY, 1978. We do acknowledge this as a source but, even so, we can't be copying big chunks and passing it off as our own content.
The second paragraph of the lede also seems to match https://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/13/garden/balloons-made-of-latex-pose-choking-hazard.html far too closely to be a coincidence.
Does anybody want to rewrite this stuff or shall we just remove it entirely? DanielRigal (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- We can't leave this indefinitely. I have removed the plagiarised material and some other material that also seemed to be copied. The score on the Copyvio Detector is down to 21% now, which is much better. The trouble is that this leaves us with big holes in the History section. If anybody cares to build that up again, without pasting other people's stuff, then please go for it. DanielRigal (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)