Talk:Inflatable structure

External Links

Do you think it would be worthwhile to include links to any of the significant web directories that allow users to find rental companies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hakuri (talk • contribs) 15:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed

I removed the reference to "bouncy bounce," because that is not a valid name for a moonwalk.

Merge

I merged "Bouncy castle" and "Moonwalk (bounce house)" here since this is a neutral, generic name. If someone wants to move the article to a different name, at least there's only one article to deal with now. I didn't include any of the external links from those two articles since they all seemed commercial. Tocharianne 04:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A note about my external links:

The BIHA, PTA etc in external links are all links to associations, i.e voluntary standards bodies.

They are not manufacturers or suppliers, although they do have online lists of memebers.

I think it would be helpful for the UK public, wishing to hire a castle to know that a standards organisation exists, such as PIPA and BIHA. This is similar to Corgi for gas appliances etc.

So i dont see the need to remove info about Associatoins rather than suppliers. Chulcoop 22:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could some wiki experts please tidy up my contributions re: formatting etc.

Thank you.

I am trying to spend my time adding info, others can do the formatting, afterall i am not paid to do this.

Chulcoop 22:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Title change ?

"Inflatable structure" ought not be restricted to the bouncy play structures. Structure is a broad engineering term Inflatable structure properly umbrellas air beam, air platforms, inflatable structures in the aircraft universe, inflatable structures in the space spectrum, inflatable structures in fthe furniture and housing and shelter arena. An inflatable structure is just that, some structure that is inflatable. The focus in this article so far is regarding a line of commercial products that focus on selling play and entertainment items, just one genre within inflatable structure fact. How might the title be best opened for what are inflatable structure items beyond the present focus? Joefaust (talk) 06:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. How about renaming this article to either "Inflatable play structures" or "Inflatable amusement structures"? Qwfp (talk) 16:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that we've a split between name and scope. How should we fix it though? Get some more content in here about indoor tennis under inflatable domes?

If we rename, the new name should probably have "bouncy" in it. "Play structures" would still include the self-supported domes that are the ones we're trying to distinguish from. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History section

I've removed this section. It was challenged at WP:EAR by 81.101.120.132 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). The only source was a self-published and the section served as a history of a single production company. Danger (talk) 02:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored it. It's a credible claim for pre-dating the WP:EAR claim by twenty years. Whilst limited to one WP:SPS, that's still more weight than the vague British claim at WP:EAR could muster. That seemed to be more about bashing America than it was about giving any facts - it couldn't even say what year this British invention appeared. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:V, challenged material must be verified by reliable sources. The SPS does not even make the claim that the Space Walk was the first inflatable structure (in the sense that this article is using). The remainder of the history section is the history of a single company and can easily be read as promotional; Wikipedia ought not favor one manufacturer of inflatable structures over all others. Danger (talk) 02:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "favouring" if that one company was the innovator, and we can support this claim.

I didn't restore this content because of the claim within it, and we might yet remove the content again if it's indeed unsupportable, but because the British claim at WP:EAR was so vague itself. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]