Talk:Thunderbolt siren

Archives

Heavy Rewrite

I have rewritten this article so it actually makes sense. Removed trivial nonsense, and requesting real photos of the Thunderbolts with minor detail differences (logo, paint job, etc.) ASAP. I have also nominated the article for semi protection against unregistered users, as I'm tired of seeing IP users pop up and ruin the article over and over again. Also, if you're going to edit the article as it is, please ensure you know what's you're talking about before editing it. --JustInn014 (talk) 22:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checked the RfPP page and the request was declined. That said, I have this article on my watchlist and will be looking out for (potentially) non-constructive edits. ^GB86 08:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see we had at least one IP user spam it. I am surprised the request was declined. On a side note, can you think up any more ways to improve the article? I'm just about out of ideas, aside from more gallery photos. --JustInn014 (talk) 06:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rewriting the article to meet guidelines is a good way to start, such as removing any unnecessary information like information on just the logo or other trivial information, and providing better information backed up by 3rd-party sources. All the IP spammed edits have been removed already and said user has been notified. ^GB86 02:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed images of privately owned siren due to the fact that they clutter up the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theman130 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Civil defense highlight

Perhaps the opening sentence should be phrased "The Thunderbolt siren is a civil defense siren that was once manufactured in the United States by Federal Signal Corporation." After all, it was predominantly employed for civil defense and therefore operated in accordance with the guidelines of FEMA. I seem to recall that is even how it was marketed in the brochures by Federal Signal (altho I will have to check on that point). Just a suggestion. --RKrause (talk) 07:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Got a source for that?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed chart

I've removed the trivia chart.[1] If sources can be found showing this is reliable and notable info then some form of the chart can be reinstated.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Federal Signal Corporation

The various models of this companies sirens have no significant notability and therefore do not deserve a dedicated article. — Keithbob • Talk • 14:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Thunderbolt was a popular siren model of American civil defense for multiple decades. While a huge success for Federal Signal it shouldn't stand alone.

Perhaps other models they produce (including the 2001) could have their information combined.

I do not see any independent notability for the siren but it is important information to keep. A section under the manufacturer is best way to go. -- GB fan 12:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check the previous version, or only the "rewritten" version that JoJoes has been trying to force in? I can agree that it's borderline at best; just want to make sure you were checking the stable version, not the "new" one. rdfox 76 (talk) 13:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The version does not make any difference, but I have read through both versions. I do not see any independent notability for this siren. -- GB fan 17:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to "force" it; I am merely trying to help you guys by trying to make the article better. By you guys refusing my help instead of saying something nice like "thanks for trying, but we think we can handle it" or something similar, you have only made the situation worse for all of us. I will no longer be editing the article, because all you do is change my version or make it into garbage. The old version is fine, but look at the problems. My updated version is slightly better, if not the same. Slightly better is better than the same or worse. Also, when/if the article gets merged, don't come crying to me for help, because I probably won't give you any. (Not that you would want help anyways, but still.) Also, stop messing with my 3T22 article. It is fine as is. JoJoes123 (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since there were no objections, I have merged the contents and changed this to a redirect. -- GB fan 23:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NEW ARTICLE

I have completely re-written this article and made a new page for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Signal_Thunderbolt -JoJoes123 (2/14/15) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoJoes123 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I have proposed the new article for deletion under Wikipedia procedures and policies, for multiple reasons, including that the new article is completely unsourced and reads more like a siren fan website's description of the 1000 series. Please don't take this the wrong way, but I think your article would be better suited for a specialty wiki (like the one at ARS, for example) than it is for en.wiki. rdfox 76 (talk) 07:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that the point of the article? I think a siren fan would describe it better than some stranger. It should be a compliment that it sounds like a siren fan's article (which it is; I'm one of them). And also, my source is my brain and world history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoJoes123 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We do not make two articles about the same thing. If you feel this article needs to be rewritten, rewrite, do not create a new article about the same subject. I have reverted the new one back to the redirect that it started out as and removed the duplicate off the disambiguation page. -- GB fan 21:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you do rewrite this article, you brain is not proper sourcing. You need to put actual reliable sources into the article that support the information. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not fan pages, the page should not read like a fan page. -- GB fan 21:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I've reverted both the move and the rewrite (which was just overwriting the previous version with the new article that was posted on the 14th) to remain compliant with en-wiki policies, and with the Wikipedia Manual of Style as regards article titles. Please, familiarize yourself with the MOS and WP policies before making further changes; these sorts of sweeping changes need to be discussed and must be compliant with policy to avoid the article being targeted for elimination entirely. rdfox 76 (talk) 06:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC) Why not just keep the re-written version? There are no problems anyone has told me about, and the current one has many problems, so why not make it better? I don't see the need to revert it back, as the old version has issues, but the new version does not, so why change it? JoJoes123 (talk) 07:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First off, JoJoes, please use the threaded discussion feature to reply to other people's messages. Just place a colon at the start of the first line of each paragraph, and the software will indent it so that it's easier to see who's saying what. If you're replying to an indented comment (like, say, this one), add one more colon than that comment has, to indent it one notch further.

Secondly, the new version includes external links that may violate Wiki's external links policy; it has a section on "Cities with Thunderbolts" that is both less than comprehensive and unnecessary, thus possibly violating WP:FANCRUFT (a horrible name, I admit) and Wikipedia's policy of not being a collection of statistics (point #3); and it fails to cite any reliable sources for any of its stated facts. While the current article may have problems, it has had questionable ELs and the unnecessary statistical/database cruft section removed (back in 2010!), and does at least cite two RSes for two of its facts. Despite this, it is still already up for merger with the Federal Signal article, with policy-based arguments in favor of doing so. Rewriting it to add the ELs and cruft back in while eliminating the RSes will only increase the odds that it will be merged away. rdfox 76 (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re-Written

Since the new page has been changed, I have edited the article to make it better. JoJoes123 (talk) 02:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]