Talk:Pinsetter

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 21 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Snethaleth.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Whoa...

Is it just me, or is this line: "Other centers will only load the pinsetter with 19 pins. Having only 19 pins in the machine will cause fewer "stops" this is normally done by centers who don't take care of their property like they should." really charged? Suggesting a rewrite. Glandrid (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Rope-based pinsetters

Should rope-based pinsetters be included (such as those from http://www.bowlingbau.com/pinsetter_eng.html) 94.1.210.2 (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

History

I wish only to add to the 'history' of the life of a 'pinboy' during WW II. My experience: In 1942, manpower was scarce, and so, in the Los Angeles area, mostly high school boys of 15 or 16 years of age could find work at almost any bowling alley for evenings and make very good money. While most full time jobs for low skilled workers paid 35 to 65 cents per hour, a good pin setter could work 3 to 4 hours and make anywhere from 5 to 8 dollars, counting tips. The key to the good money was to be fast, not knock over standing pins and have them all set in order by the time the ball reached the bowler. For myself, and most of my friends, if you had a date set for the weekend, all you had to do was go to almost any bowling alley, get hired and you would make enough money to do almost anything a teen aged boy would want to do with a girlfriend. Dance, movie, dinner, or even go bowling,whatever. Most alleys would pay about 50 cents an hour, but if you were good, many bowlers would tip you from fifty cents to a dollar per game. For me, it was sure date money whenever I wanted it. ≈≈≈ Rick V. ≈≈≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.31.149.222 (talk • contribs) 26 October 2016 (UTC)

External links

There are sixteen entries in the "External links". Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.

• ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
• LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
• WP:ELMIN: Minimize the number of links.
• WP:ELCITE: ...access dates are not appropriate in the external links section. Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section. --Trimmed links. -- Otr500 (talk) 22:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

All those deaths!

The list of deaths is...interesting. But I'm thinking the gory details are something people can just click on the sources for. "Head crushed"! "Head and neck pinned"! "Died from asphyxia"! "Neck caught between X and Y...unresponsive dangling inside the pinsetter". The whole "description" column is unnecessary, I think. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 22:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the description section is definitely necessary; a mere listing of people and places and pinsetter models isn't illustrative to the reader. I don't think they're particularly gory. As long as they're not sensationalistic, I think the descriptions in general should stay. I do, however, think some of the descriptions have too much wordy detail that's not particularly relevant to pinsetters per se, and that some descriptions could be shortened a bit. —RCraig09 (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I guess it's not really the goriness, just the excessive detail. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 23:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

It's also missing a lot of context. Is 18 deaths across 65 years high, low or about average for people who work with heavy machinery? Are these all the recorded deaths in that time, or just the ones that the IP user was able to find news reports for? (It does seem surprising that we've got more in the 21st century than the 20th.)

I think the average reader would get more from a simple paragraph that just stated the figure, gave some sourced context for how high that was and what the reasons might be for that, and said whether pinsetting machines have gotten safer or more dangerous since the 1950s. Belbury (talk) 11:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree it would be valuable to find a reliable source summarizing the history and/or statistics of pinsetter safety, but I also think the table is valuable (moreso if descriptions were made more concise :-). —RCraig09 (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Listing 18 individual death headlines seems like WP:NOTSTATS, when we don't currently know if that's a big or small number, or how representative it is; Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing. Belbury (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

OSHA lists 8 or so pin setter deaths since 1984. But we'd need some secondary source discussion summarizing the safety or lack thereof of pinsetter machines. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)