Talk:Hasbro

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Rhode Island, a WikiProject related to the state of Rhode Island.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
Toys Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Toys, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Toys on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This article is part of WikiProject Board and table games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to board games and tabletop games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Tiger Electronics

Isn't Tiger electronics part of the Japanese toy company, Takara? Maybe Hasbro just has the US distribution rights for some (or all) of Tiger's US imports.

No, but it might be the other way around. Tiger was founded as a US-based firm, and acquired by Hasbro. I wouldn't be surprised if Takara has the Japanese distribution rights. Tiger was known for their handheld games, and attempted a portable video game system in the late 1990s. They also developed Furby. I have one game of theirs that I won in a contest: Laser Tennis - it uses reflective paddles to 'bounce' a beam of light back and forth across a tabletop or floor. --JohnDBuell 03:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American vs. United States

Heegoop objects to the use of the term "American" for "someone or something from the United States" because, apparently, it is ambiguous. American can also mean from South or North America. When I initially changed the wikilink from United States to American, s/he changed it back to United States and left me a note on my talk page telling me that the term was wrong. Completely on their own, Firebug changed it back to American and left a note on Heegoop's Talk page.

In an effort to prevert an edit war, if you feel we must change the opening reference from American to United States, discuss it here first so we can come to a consensus. — Frecklefoot | Talk 03:41, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

  • The reason I took it to Heegoop's talk page, rather than this one, is that Heegoop had unilaterally performed this stylistic change on many different articles with no attempt to first seek consensus. He claimed that this was justified by Alternative words for American. Of course, this is an article, not a stylesheet. The stylesheet doesn't speak to this issue directly, but the stylesheet itself uses "American" as synonomous for "someone from the United States". Our job is to use the English language as it exists. And in the current English language, "American" virtually always is the commonly used method of referring to someone from the United States, not from another nation in North or South America. Firebug 19:39, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. "American" is commonly accepted as "from the United States." It's not perfect, but it's how it's used. I only pointed out that you had reverted it without me prompting you to. Heegoop, no one here agrees with your continuous revision of the wording. If you keep doing it without any attempt at discussing it, I think the only thing we can do is ban you. — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:04, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

American is used for meaning "of the U.S.", but it could also mean "of the Americas." Therefore, this whole thing is pointless. (from a random US person)

[edit] American vs. United States, again

A user who calls him/herself No Account has gone about and started making changes similar to what Heegoop originally did. I think, therefore, that No Account is a sockpuppet for Heegoop. Based on the above discussion, I'm reverting their changes to the original one which used the darstardly word—*gasp*—"American". No Account, if you feel the change is justified, please discuss here first. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:45, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, Heegoop went ahead and changed the wording again without discussing it. I don't want to engage in an edit war here. Anyone want to help me out here? :-S — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:12, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

(From a random South American reader): I'm sorry to disagree with Frecklefoot and agree with Heegoop, but I do believe the term United States is better than American. I'm from South America and I do not have anything to do with United States. Btw, here (and I mean in the whole South America) United States is not commonly known as "America", so this generalization is incorrect.

[edit] Origin of name

From Mr. Potato Head:

This was not successful and Lerner bought back the rights to textile manufacturers Henry and Merrill Hassenfeld, who did business as the Hassenfeld Brothers, later to be shortened to Hasbro.

Hasbro = Hassenfeld Brothers? --Abdull 13:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I copied over some of the content of that article to this one. It makes for a nice expansion for the History section. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:30, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Western Publishing

What about Western Publishing Company? Are they a subsidiary? 24.54.208.177 04:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Their article says they were acquired by Hasbro. So I doubt they are even a brand anymore. — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:11, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hasbro Interactive

Someone may want to mention that Hasbro bought up a few other video/computer game makers in the late 1990s to attempt to build up HI. This included MicroProse, which had existed since the early 1980s, and many of the home-gaming assets of Atari. When the division folded, all of the above was sold off to Infogrames, which later renamed itself into Atari in most markets (but I think still retains the Infogrames name in its home market of France). --JohnDBuell 03:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Good points, but all this info is already in the Hasbro Interactive article and has been for at least several years (way back when I wrote it :-). — Frecklefoot | Talk 03:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I noticed that as soon as I read it. You might want to update the section though to say that HI's assets went to Infogrames in 2001, instead of just being dissolved in 1999. --JohnDBuell 12:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean--it already says the assets went to Infogrames. But make any comments about the Hasbro Interactive on that article's talk page. — Frecklefoot | Talk 13:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
No, I was referring to the following quotation at the bottom of this article's page: "Hasbro began a short-lived computer and video game development and publishing venture called Hasbro Interactive in the 1990s, but disbanded it in late 1999. Now Hasbro develops video games based on its brands through third-party developers and licensing strategies." It wasn't disbanded, and it wasn't 1999. It was sold off, and it was in 2001. :) --JohnDBuell 01:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hospital

I wondered if anybody knew or thought it relevant that Hasbro founded a children's hospital here in RI...it's truly wonderful and called the Hasbro Children's Hospital. I don't actually know to what extent it was funded by the hasbro company, but assume it must have been substantial to have provided the name.

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Hasbro.svg

Image:Hasbro.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Largest brand name

The article states that Magic: The Gathering is Hasbros largest brand. What evidence is there to support that claim? Particuarly compared to LPS (Littlest Pet Shop), Monoply, MLP (My Little Pony), and others. While I agree Magic is the largest brand currently supported by Wizards, I feel stating that it's Hasbros largest brand is incorrect. Daapatemysoul 20:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Any assertion such as that needs a ref. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 19:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Zok"

I have a game entitled "Zok" that was made by Hassenfeld Brothers in 1966. I have the map and the cards, but not the box or instructions. I was wondering if anyone has heard of this game, and can give me information on it.Firewithinfreak (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Info on the edition by Hasbro can be found here (boardgamegeek.com). — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead Pain "Controversy"?

There's a newly added section (which took Authority2008 an aweful large number of edits to make) talking about lead paint being found in Cranium Cadoo, part of a line which Hasbro acquired earlier this year. Since the recall was announced (17 January 2008) before the deal closed (25 January 2008), could it be argued that Hasbro's hands were clean in this case? Either way, I don't know why this would be considered a controversy, as the products containing lead paint weren't made under Hasbro's oversight anyhow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petronivs (talk • contribs) 19:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)