Talk:Cold War playground equipment

Further reading / external links removed

Neither of the entries in the Further reading section, in my opinion, are sufficiently broad to serve as the next step in researching the topic. Additionally, the first entry is blatantly WP:COI according to the edit summary on 29 July 2018. Listing the removed works here for continuity.

"Gorman, A.C. Gravity's playground: dreams of spaceflight and the rocket park in Australian culture. In Darran Jordan and Rocco Bosco, eds. Defining the Fringe of Contemporary Australian Archaeology. Pyramidiots, Paranoia and the Paranormal. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing (2018) pp. 92-107." ISBN 9781527510739 (I think)

"Orchowski, Lauren. Rocket Science, 2010. A collection of Cold War-era rocketship playgrounds photographed throughout North America from 2004 to 2010." https://www.laurenorchowski.com/rocket-science

DontCallMeLateForDinner (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Title

"Cold War playground equipment was intended to foster children's curiosity and excitement about the Space Race. It was installed during the Cold War in both communist and capitalist countries."

Wouldn't it be more suitable to title this "Space Race playground equipment", as the equipment seems to be themed around the Space Race, not the Cold War more generally? Are there sources for this terminology? TSP (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Recent changes to article

@Catsmoke: With this edit you wrote "to reinforce the important role of scientific progress in communist ideology." This was the source cited. Where in that source does it mention "scientific progress"? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: I was not communicating information that I had found in the cited source, I was merely rephrasing what the text of the article already said, in the state in which I found it, for the sake of improving its style. The text that I changed was not in the format of a direct quote, nor was my revision formatted as a direct quote. Thus, a synonymous improvement of language seemed proper and good. Double-checking the validity of the information was not my purpose, and I did not do so. —catsmoke ^talk 21:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: You changed the text from one specifically supported by the source cited, to one that was not. Wikipedia does not accept original research. Unless you have a source to support the specific change, could you please revert your edit? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Catsmoke: You also changed the wording "Playground equipment...tended to follow repetitive designs and patterns", to "Playground equipment...used standard patterns and designs". The source cited states: "there was a tendency for these to follow repetitive patterns and designs." Which of these most accurately reflects to content cited? Magnolia677 (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Request regarding recent edit revision

@Magnolia677: you have reverted a recent edit of mine, on this article. Part of your reasoning was to employ a template which I had removed. The use of that template in that format in that context has two problems: first, it inserts an abbreviation into the text, which violates Wikipedia's Manual of Style (according to the MOS/Dates and numbers: "in prose, unit names should be given in full"); second, it prevents the hyphenation of the compound adjective "26-foot-tall" and therefore the template ought not to be used there. I tried to change the variables in the template, to result in acceptable text, but I found no solution. In this situation, to revert my edit for the sake of preserving a template is not a good decision. If you feel that the use of that template is indispensable, please modify the work so that the resulting text meets the criteria of eliminating the abbreviation from the flow of the text, and preserving the hyphenation of the compound adjective. In addition to that particular point, I protest that for the sake of changing one small thing, you have reverted a great deal of other things, which had taken me much time and effort to contribute to this encyclopedia. Your reversion's note characterizes my changes to the article as "trivial" and this is inaccurate, as my edit had greatly improved the piece. (That is a subjective assessment, but an impartial judge would agree with it.) After you have corrected the problems introduced by the use of the template, I further respectfully request that you restore the remainder of my edits, which were erased by your wholesale revision of my work. (I have no desire to instigate an edit war. I shall wait for at least 96 hours for a response from you, before I take any unilateral action.) Thank you. —catsmoke ^talk 21:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC)