Talk:Ball-jointed doll

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the opening sentence, the phrase "anatomically correct" is generally understood to mean specifically that the genitals are depicted. The BJD term is not really meant to imply that so I will replace that phrase with "fully articulated". -- 71.141.23.168 00:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• Well, many BJD are "anatomically correct" (genital depiction), which is what I was implying, in a subtle way. Calicore 15:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

How large are these dolls? Nik42 04:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Typical scale is 1:3, so about 2ft tall. Other common scales are 1:4 and 1:6 ("fashion doll", same scale as Barbie). - David Gerard 12:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

1:6 dolls are not counted generally as BJD unless cast from resin however - the 1:6 scale dolls made by Obitsu and Volks are considered to be fashion dolls, for example. 62.56.78.25 12:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, some of them are teensy - the size of Barbie baby sister Kelly/Shelley dolls, or even tinier. Lindleyle 17:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free images

Images on Wikipedia are supposed to be free content where at all possible; removing free-content images for copyrighted "fair use" ones is completely against the mission of the project - which is "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment." As clarified by the Foundation here, that does not say "share freely unless the unfree content is better." - David Gerard 12:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2nd Picture

I don't think it's a good example of a BJD at all. D: I'm sure his owner is glad to see him here... but the upnose shot + resin mismatch + iffy composition makes me wince to think this is the front put forward on Wikipedia. Does anyone have a nicer image they would like to contribute, or any suggestions of who to ask for a photo? I'm thinking of asking Brightfires from Den of Angels, personally; her dolls are all beautiful, and her photography even moreso. Alanahikarichan 15:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Separate articles for each company?

I don't think separate articles are warranted here, as many of the companies may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies. I suggest moving this to a list of manufacturers. The "See Also" section should just include links to articles of companies that are notable. HeirloomGardener 16:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)