Talk:Super Soaker

message: Shouldnt it say that most if not all of these guns loosened over time and leaked water on the user?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.158.199 (talk) 08:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This page seems biased to me, and a lot of the information is incorrect. I've edited this page several times, but someone keeps changing it back to the original, incorrect statements. It's practically an advertisement for Hasbro, and I'm kind of suspicious Hasbro is the one who keeps changing it back. For example, they keep comparing water guns to real guns and nerf guns. Since water guns are nothing like other guns, there shouldn't be any comparisons, except possibly to other water guns. Also, they don't mention anything about how water war enthusiasts are unimpressed with the most recent guns, and have resorted to other companies, such as Buzz Bee Toys. I have been studying everything about water guns for several years, and know what I'm talking about.
Martianshark (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Biased?

message: "...allowing them to shoot water with greater power, range, and accuracy than conventional squirt guns." What does "greater power/range etc" mean? 5m? 10m? 100m? There is no actual numbers on this page. --Janto 10:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  super soaker range 

message: A lot of the imformation on this page about the mechanics of water guns could be applied to many brands of water guns. Super Soaker is the best, but it's not the only good one. Perhaps a more generic article about water guns in general could be created.
12-15
I agree. There is a whole set of water blasters distinct from squirt guns. All lot of the technical information in this article could be transferred to a more generic article. Then we could break it down by brands, then by series, then by models. Ultor Solis 00:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Generic 

message: How can something be "originally invented" ... as opposed to "unoriginally invented" ??? Redundancy bugs me... But I don't know enough about Super Soakers to edit anything else in this article... Philosopher Torin 06:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't read the article, but it probably means "first invented". It is, in fact, possible to invent something that has already been invented, provided you don't cheat. [- Andrew Nagy] 68.44.13.236 23:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar 

message: You're kidding me, right? Krupo 06:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "the online soaker communities" 

message: Please save the really gory details for supersoakerfans.com.  A comprehensive catalog of the technical specifications of every Super Soaker ever made is not encyclopedic. PatrickFisher 10:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  BTW, I have the SS 100, SS 200, XP 15 and CPS 2500, myself, and fond memories.  But this is an encyclopedia. PatrickFisher 11:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revised for brevity. 

message: These aren't model ranges, but rather models from the SoakerTag Elite and SoakerTag lines respectively. I don't believe they belong in that list - does anyone else have an opinion on this? If not, I'll probably remove them. Andrew Spinner 08:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oozinator and Artic Shock

message: Does anyone have info on these being banned? About 10 years ago, schools and even cities banned these; it was the "our kids are in jeopardy" craze of the time. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 10:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember our swimming pool banning them. Grisly stories of "some kid" getting hit in the eye and the eye popping out. Pure rubbish, no doubt, but almost all of the fads had a legend like that associated with them at some point. Remember Teddy Ruxpin's hair-chewing scalping action? Or how Slap bracelets were supposedly  shivs in disguise? Then there were Blue star tattoos... -Fuzzy (talk) 01:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

text: That was because the kids with them had infinitely more fun than those without or those whose parents didn't want to shell out for the latest thing. I ended up having to wear a riot face shield for water gun fights because aiming for the eyes was the standard tactic. I think the only way it could've been made more painful and humiliating was if they'd filled them with grapefruit juice. So yeah, the "some kid" story is completely believable to me in this case.--70.240.101.87 (talk) 12:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banned 

message: I felt kind of bad deleting it since it looks like the (anonymous) editer really did care about the subject, but everything in the edit was POV and lacked citations. Now, if data could be cited showing that the changes in the product line have changed the popularity in given demographics... -Fuzzy (talk) 12:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits regarding popularity of product line 

message: "This enables the user to unleash a large gob of water over a range of ~2 meters, depleting both water and pressure in about as many seconds." - about as many seconds as what?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.210.84.88 (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As many seconds as meters. English. 174.35.247.117 (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modifications -> Aperture Removal 

message: Johnson is the only one cited in the Super Soaker's invention, yet the patent is held by both he and fellow inventor Bruce D'Andrade. It was D'Andrade who tooled the entire mechanism for the Super Soaker and was commissioned alongside Johnson, yet Johnson takes all of the credit in this article and many outside (much more biased) articles. This information is publicly accessible by researching patent US5074437 (http://www.google.com/patents/US5074437). I have re-added this information to the article. D'Andrade's name is even already sourced in the source given, yet his name was previously omitted for some reason. 174.35.247.117 (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The patent you linked is a refinement of the existing Super Soaker. The original Super Soaker patent was filed by Johnson only.--Frmorrison (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lonnie Johnson given too much credit