3 replies to this topic

[David]

Firstly, to avoid any confusion, I'm refering here to articles about current and former businesses (such as Wessex, Standard etc), and current and former consumer fireworks. I am NOT refering to wikipedia pages about chemicals or specific methods of manufacture, formulas and the like.


But yeah, Wikipedia is very poor in regard to fireworks.

Many former businesses are not mentioned at all, for example. Most of the old firework firms don't have pages at all, and they certainly deserve them, given that they are of historical notability. They are certainly of as much relevance as, for example, WWE wrestlers who often have massive pages.

I think this is simply because no-one has spent the time writing the pages for the firework firms.

With regard to current companies, there is of course the danger of it being abused and used as an advert.

Take for example this very limited, and far too brief, article for Standard given that they were major British company and household name for such a long time.

Compare, for example, to the page for Ro Sham Bo

Then with fireworks, we get stuff that is of dubious veracity Such as Roman Candle Who says that the maximum bore size is 30mm? What definition are they using etc?


But yeah, its one of those things that woudl just take a bit of time and effort, so if you do have knowledge of an old company, it would be useful if you have them a page.

Edited by David, 29 April 2009 - 01:52 PM.

[pyroman89]

One thing that bothers me the most is the picture of the guy holding the roman candle.

[cooperman435]

Where does it say that 30mm is a maximum?

[David]

Where does it say that 30mm is a maximum?

Its been changed -which is, of course, the whole point of wikipedia!

However, changes (and information that isn't referenced) are of course of debatable veracity.

Point is anyone can edit a page, and alter it to anything (unless obvious vandalism) and it is likely to stay.

Edited by David, 03 May 2009 - 04:47 AM.