Talk:Slingshot

Comments

This needs cleaning up, there seems to be alot of point form near the end. I'm sure it could be condensed.

Also, how about some history of the slingshot as a weapon, ie where and when was it developed, how was it used?

the sling shot is illegal in australia but is leagal in the untited states

Certain types of slingshots are illegal in parts of the United States. It's difficult to say what is legal and isn't, because this is determined as state law and not federal law. For example, New York State prohibits slingshots with an arm brace, but other states don't. --Glacialfury 21:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The discussion on attaching the pocket with a dowel and cotter clear is not clear to me. Needs a better description or picture.

As well, there seems to be a Slovenian equivalent to the Slingshot article (locate it as "frača"), however, it is not listed within the languages bar on the left. That's my only nit pick. --Ryan Cordell (Guest) 19:03, 28 April 2009 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.212.235.197 (talk)

Crossbow-slingshot

I have also seen a type a slingshot which was made like a crossbow with a long boom. I saw this on a picture taken by Guido Sterkendries. Might have been with pygmy population, not exactly sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.244.192.17 (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

reference is ad

At the end there's a reference to a website, which looks a lot like an advertorial and hasn't anything to do with the history, accept that they exist since 1954.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.101.38 (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Terminology

My understanding is that this device is a 'slingshot' in North America but universally a 'catapault' in the UK. Unless someone thinks I'm wrong we should probably make that explicit. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm British, and it's never called a slingshot here, to the extent that I wasn't sure what "slingshot" meant when I first encountered it with this meaning. "Catapult" and nothing else in the UK. 86.154.9.177 (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the slingshot in the way it is described here (and not as a US word), so it is certainly called a slingshot here in Britain, even if not by you. However the OED does also list in its definition of catapult that, as well as the primary examples of such devices, it is also used (chiefly Brit.) instead of slingshot, so Okay, I'll take out the word "incorrectly". 86.9.117.51 (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Larger?

Slingshots are not confined to hand-held y-shaped weapons. Larger versions, which consist just of the elastics and pouch exist to be held by a person at each end, with a third person launching, or else tied to two stationary objects (poles, etc.) These are also slingshots, are they not? Or do they have their own term? The article shouldn't limit to only small handheld Y-shaped ones TheHYPO (talk) 05:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible error in this article

Russian word "rogatina" (рогатина) is a name for a heavy spear with a very strong shaft (pole) used against horses in mediaeval warfare and for hunting purposes, mostly to hunt bears, up to the twentieth century. Such a weapon usually had some crossing below the head to avoid the hit animal sliding closer to hunter and being able to damage him. See appropriate article in Russian section of Wikipedia (http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0). Check the sources of the article once more, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.113.122.85 (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. And there was surely no vulcanized rubber in the early middle ages.

Actualy, you misunderstood the whole case. What was written in the book that in Russia the Rogatina was the ancient father og Rogatka, which is true because when the Rogatka was invented in Russia it used the idea of Rogatina. And that whole paragraph is from that book! Kostan1 (talk) 14:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge ancient artillery to this article

Ancient artillery looks like a school project or something and overlaps considerably with this article. Any thoughts? PDCook (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I nominated Ancient artillery for AfD. PDCook (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Name and legality

It is odd that the article seems to have been previously written with complete disregard for the fact that in many places catapult is the primary term, not slingshot. I have made a small addition to the article that reflects this usage, as previously no acknowledgment was given to its alternate name, which is frankly rather arrogant when it is undeniably the most used term in places such as Britain, where I live.

Also, I feel that a section regarding the legality of catapults is necessary; it is unclear to many people what the law is, and an addition stating whether or not they are classed as weapons in various jurisdictions couldn't go amiss. Liamoliver (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The name issue is dealt with in the lede to the article and discussed above. DIscussing the legality would become rather lengthy and complex, as this varies with jurisdiction as well as the exact type of device, and probably changes over time. Wschart (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I think legality might be doable. If you check the page Blowgun they have a fairly simple layout we might be able to use. It would probably be a bit more lengthy than that but it seems like important information. I'll look into a central source and how convoluted the laws are.Bcasaund (talk) 19:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite

I removed everything that was not referenced (which was almost everything) and rewrote the article with references. Almost everything got worked into the "History" section, which goes back to the earliest reference I could find (1860) and covers many construction elements that evolved over time. I think a section on legality would be good; it wouldn't have to cover every jurisdiction, it would just have to note that slingshots are regulated, and give various examples (they cannot be shipped to a number of US states, other states and a number of countries outlaw only wrist-braced models, etc.). I'd also like to have a section on the dangers of slingshots, such as snapping bands, broken forks, and that system that Daisy recently recalled due to band failure injuries. scot (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Spam

FYI...

Main pages: Links normally to be avoided and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

"Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed".

Dominant hand, holding the projectile or the weapon??

Article states: The other ends of the strips lead back to a pocket which holds the projectile. The pocket is grasped by the dominant hand and drawn back to the desired extent to provide power for the projectile. .seems to me that most people do it the other way. Experts would maybe hold the projectile in the hand on the side of the dominant eye, I don't know, but people shooting for the first time, in my experience, hold the weapon, not the projectile, in the dominant hand.84.197.180.127 (talk) 08:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Wrist-Rocket Trademark

Hey, suppose I have to announce a conflict of interest. I'm a relative of the owner of Saunders Archery which owns the trademark Wrist-Rocket. I'm using Frisbee as a reference for making changes up top in the names to protect our brand.

It gets a little murky towards the bottom of history. The company Trumark was manufacturing for us but we ended up with the trademark so I'd like to clarify it but I'm not sure how.

Anyway, I have interest in improving the page in general. This is the first page I've worked on so please feel free to give me some input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcasaund (talk • contribs) 20:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Out of curiosity, could this particular phrase, given its origin and age, be in a similar state as "Xerox" or "Kleenex", where it became a generic term? I understand protecting a trademark or copyright, its importance to a company, and at least a few of the many rules surrounding maintenance and protection of those properties, but I have to wonder if the term itself has not become generic over the intervening years; notably, it appears to be in fairly heavy use throughout the Star Wars universe IP. besieged^talk 21:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Great question. From what I understand it hasn't though it is under risk from misuse, which is why Saunders still has an active trademark registered and an interest in protecting it. Xerox and Kleenex aren't truly generic terms which is why if you Wikipedia them Kleenex and Xerox it talks of their trademark and is a separate page from facial tissue. An example of a trademark lost would be aspirin or zipper.

I thought Frisbee was the closest example since the company that holds the name is different than the product. Wham-O holds the trademark and it's at risk, though I think it's actually at far more risk that Wrist-Rocket.

The entire trademark thing is interesting, before this I didn't know it could even be lost from misuse. Let me know if you have any more input or questions.Bcasaund (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, it is a huge question with a video game project I'm involved in: permit me a little story, if I may, that might help illuminate the picture a little better.

In the 80's, a company named FASA, creators of the table-top game Battletech, thought they were buying the rights to use designs from several Japanese/Asian manga series (so the story goes), but found out the hard way (via lawsuit) later that they had not, even after many publications containing these images, which became known as the "Unseen". Fast forward to ~2009, when a descendent of FASA, called Smith & Tinker, announced a reboot of the series, and released a video showcasing their intent to make a new Mechwarrior game, which just so happened to include the iconic Warhammer design that originated in Macross. To this point, S&T had been in contract negotiations with Harmony Gold USA for rights to use Unseen designs, however as of the release of the video, HG USA immediately issued a Cease & Desist order to S&T over the use of the Warhammer in their video: the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the Battletech fan-base was a mighty thing to behold, crying foul and unfair.

However, it was obvious to this observer why the C&D was issued: if HG USA had not chosen to protect its IP vigorously, then S&T could have continued development, and then if HG USA did not present terms they liked, they could have stalled negotiations while maintaining the appearance of "good faith", and then at release, they could have backed out and then published with the "Unseen" designs included. During the resulting lawsuit, they would have then been able to make a solid argument for abandonment of copyright on HG USA's part, where they would have been able to demonstrate their earlier use of the design in the demo video, which HG USA would have clearly known about. If they had not issued a C&D, it could have easily been used in that pretext against them, since the law requires an IP holder to take certain at least minimal steps and effort in due diligence to ensure their IP is not misused or abandoned to the public domain.

I only asked myself re: this issue because it does seem that Wrist-Rocket has--in some small way, at least--entered the common parlance, and while I'm sure the wikipedia would be generally happy to comply with all reasonable or legal requests, it occurred to me you might see some resistance from general news media and the internet if too strident an effort (though perhaps no more or less than the law requires for you to protect your IP) is made to ensure the Wrist-Rocket trademark is used only and explicitly in reference to your products, as an earlier search turned up at least a couple of blogs, etc., that use this term generically.

Well noted on Xerox and Kleenex. I remember the start of these legal battles as far back as the 80's or 90's, and recalled that the trademarks had been eroded, but as you correctly state, these two companies have managed to not quite lose the battle, though I have to wonder, at what cost and benefit to themselves and their image? In my not so humble opinion, the genericide of "Photoshop" to "photoshop" hasn't harmed Adobe in the least (and in fact has probably benefited them, since everyone knows what Photoshop is, but nobody ever refers to "GiMPing an image"), and thus Photoshop has become a defacto household name in image manipulation that the average user might look to first for that need (not withstanding the exorbitant and often discouraging price point of said software).

Anyway, just some thoughts on the issue, hope it helps in your future endeavors. Speaking for myself, I'd have no problem with the article being edited to read something like "and occasionally known as a "Wrist-Rocket", though this is a brand name referring to a specific make of sling-shot," or something else similar, though I'd hate to lose the reference altogether. besieged^talk 20:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

That is too cool, I actually used to play Battletech AND Warhammer when I was younger (I think I still have my old Battletech boxed set). Maybe we can talk through a more direct channel about what you're doing since it'd probably be best if this chat section doesn't get too off topic.

Anyway, I completely agree with you on the level of aggression, the last thing Saunders would want is backlash from the internet or Wikipedia community. The wording is difficult, it's a balance between clearly indicating that we don't encourage it's generic use without being too verbose and having legalities detract from actual page content. As far as the internet community at large, that's something we have no intention to police our concern is more directed vendors selling a different product as a Wrist-Rocket (Similar to your IP example). Gets harder and harder with tiny vendors and ebay popping up. Though, Ebay is kind of a lost cause with even Apple knock offs fairly well proliferating. Bcasaund (talk) 18:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I'd not worry about backlash from the wikipedia community, really: it should, in theory, be neutral anyway, I only mentioned an attempt to keep some sort of reference (in whatever wording would work for you all) in the interests of history and accuracy, but in general wikipedians aren't a huge concern in that regard, since most of us are just trying to do what is right, I think. As for the larger internet community, that would be where I might draw a line at aggressive market preservation, since as you seem to know or have inferred, it would be a losing effort and quite a time- and money-sink. However, pursuing IP maintenance against other corporations seeking to leverage or infringe on your trademark is totally justifiable: eBay is unquestionably a lost cause though, as you say.

If you'd care to pursue a dialog outside of the Wikipedia, the easiest contact method I can give you is to look me up on the forums for one of my video-game projects (the only one currently released), ala MechWarrior: Living Legends and send me (CHHs Siege) a message there: http://forum.mechlivinglegends.net/index.php?action=profile;u=2874 besieged^talk 19:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)