Talk:Little People
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Images?
I think a photograph would be a great addition to this entry. Even with the text description, Little People would be instantly recognizable with an added image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Navstar (talk • contribs)
- Something like Image:FP Little People with US quarters.jpg? --Damian Yerrick (☎) 20:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- Scratch that. Per clarifications of Commons policy, we'll have to wait 95 years for a good picture now. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 12:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sources?
Someone (or some bots) have gone crazy for sources (on a ton of pages for Authors, toys, toy companies, etc). How do you have a "Source" for or have an official "Reference" for a toy, a book, a toy company? Antmusic 23:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- WP:V. Where did you find each piece of information that you added to the article? --Damian Yerrick (☎) 06:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- I usually add things that are in my personal collection... do I say, "per box in my collection" ???
- No original research please. Are there collectors' guides that you can cite, either in print or on the web? --Damian Yerrick (☎) 18:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- One of the "Sources" thing says that has to be "other then websites." Looking at original Fisher Price boxes and manuals wouldn't be original research, it is on a published box and manual direct from the manufacturer (I am sure there is a published master list, but I have no idea where Fisher Price keeps it or if the public has access to it). There are a ton of articles on here that have information that isn't published though. By the way, what is the point of a community Encyclopedia where anyone can add information (especially on brand new things that have never been written about before), if you have to only add information that is already available? That makes this sound like they only accept semi-plagiarized articles (previously published only?), but we will get away with saying that it is not plagarism by using "quotes" or re-wording it (which can really mess with the accuracy). That doesn't seem right. I know that accuracy is very important, but I have read some pretty inaccurate articles in magazines, books, and online (and I see those get requoted and have to wince). Oh well. Rules are rules.
- "original Fisher Price boxes and manuals" that have been distributed to the public are primary sources that can be cited per the self-published source policy. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 11:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- One of the "Sources" thing says that has to be "other then websites." Looking at original Fisher Price boxes and manuals wouldn't be original research, it is on a published box and manual direct from the manufacturer (I am sure there is a published master list, but I have no idea where Fisher Price keeps it or if the public has access to it). There are a ton of articles on here that have information that isn't published though. By the way, what is the point of a community Encyclopedia where anyone can add information (especially on brand new things that have never been written about before), if you have to only add information that is already available? That makes this sound like they only accept semi-plagiarized articles (previously published only?), but we will get away with saying that it is not plagarism by using "quotes" or re-wording it (which can really mess with the accuracy). That doesn't seem right. I know that accuracy is very important, but I have read some pretty inaccurate articles in magazines, books, and online (and I see those get requoted and have to wince). Oh well. Rules are rules.
- No original research please. Are there collectors' guides that you can cite, either in print or on the web? --Damian Yerrick (☎) 18:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- I usually add things that are in my personal collection... do I say, "per box in my collection" ???
[edit] Non-free images
BetacommandBot added rationale warnings to this talk page. I removed them once I had handled them all, as they looked redundant. As of today, each non-free image's description page in the article as of today has at least some sort of fair use rationale. I wonder what the anonymous user who added {{non-free}} was thinking about, or why the rationales might be invalid. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 01:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think it makes sense that if anyone owns any of the toys in question, they should photograph them (much like I did for the current lineup of articulated people) and add those images instead of the copyrighted publicity images supplied previously. Additionally, there should be two new sub-sections for the "fuzzy" series and the "posable" series in the new product line. HokieRNB 14:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- A non-free photo of a non-free sculpture is not "replaceable" in the sense of English Wikipedia's image use policy: a photo of the same sculpture created by a Wikipedian will be just as non-free. The sculpture will not become free until long after you die. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 13:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- I won't argue with your logic regarding whether a photograph of a toy is non-free, but there are two separate issues at stake. The first is whether the subject of the image is copyrighted. The second is whether the photograph itself is copyrighted. We would probably have a better case for "Fair Use" if the photograph was not taken by a professional who is getting paid its use in advertising. Elpiseos 13:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
