Talk:Toy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This page is within the scope of WikiProject Games, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Games 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.
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 has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
To-do list for Toy: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Expand history of toys to include more recent centuries
  • Clean up and annotate references
  • Worldview perspective
  • Add section on popular toys and fads (beanie babies, pet rock, rubix cube, tickle me elmo, scooters) (in other countries too...)
  • Commercialism and marketing
  • Socialization and self-image through toys (see Barbie)
  • Safety hazards - deaths, injuries from toys
  • Notable toymakers (milton bradley, ?)
    • He was a game maker, game companies and board games added to "See also" section. Zephyr103 10:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Fix the Image/text ratio.
Toy was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: July 15, 2006
Toy was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: November 29, 2006

Contents

[edit] Boy/Girl Toys

Does Wikipedia have a list of toys classified by whether they are thought of as being for boys or girls?? This question is useful because I have just created a boy article separate from man to satisfy a user (Notthe9) who doesn't like the re-direct and I added a gender-role section. Georgia guy 22:40, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Don't use trademark symbols

From Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks): "Do not use special symbols such as TM and ® unless they are important to the context." There are no need for them in the list of toys, so I've removed them.

[edit] Grouping toys

I just stumbled on the toys articles and boy is it a jumble of concepts! See Category talk:Toys. Elf | Talk 16:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


List of toys? --Abdull 10:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Maybe... the current list certainly has to be removed. Gflores Talk 06:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I hope this is not the way you usually talk with your fellow human beings. You know, most reasonable people prefer reasonable arguments over apodictic statements. Common Man 15:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I wasn't trying be commanding. I thought it was fairly obvious... the list is excessively long and would be better if it were in a separate article (or at least trimmed down). If you go to WP:FAC, they'll tell you that in a second. Of course, this is my opinion. I'm open to other suggestions, though. Gflores Talk 18:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
They tell me what? I spent several seconds on that page, but I can't see where it says that lists of examples should be removed. Common Man 20:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
... Do you think the list should remain exactly in its current form? Do you think the article is presentable this way? I would like to hear your opinion on this, please. There is not set rule (I don't think) on having lists, but from what I've read on previous FACs, the WP:MOS, and in my personal opinion, there shouldn't be such a large list in the article when it can easily be split off into a separate article. Gflores Talk 21:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
These are detail questions, which come later. First, we need to see if there are any rules which dictate your basic premise: that "the current list certainly has to be removed". You said "If you go to WP:FAC, they'll tell you that in a second." But I don't see it there. Now you're pointing to another page, which takes a bit longer than a second to read. Please point exactly to the rule you are talking about as I'm getting tired of your shifting red herrings. Common Man 22:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I have already apologized for the first remark I made (I had initially thought it was obvious to move it to a separate article, I was wrong and said I was sorry). When I pointed to FAC, I wasn't saying there was a rule there, I was saying there have been suggestions from people to FA candidates about having lists converted to paragraphs (or moved to a separate article). As I have already said, there is no specific rule on this, I don't know why you tell me to point you to the rule I'm talking about, as I've never said there's a rule to begin with. Gflores Talk

How about we start anew? Disregard my first comment, it was unfounded and evidently not unanimous. I'm sorry. There is no rule on having lists in articles. What should we do about the list in the article? My proposal is to create a separate article List of toys and move the list there. Doing so will make the article more presentable (in my opinion) and seeing how there is already a List of toy brands, it seems like a good fit. Comments/suggestions are welcome. :) Gflores Talk 23:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a reasonable idea to consider, as there are plenty of "List of..." articles in wikipedia. But I also wonder, since all of the links here actually have articles to go with them, whether we can dispense with the list entirely, convert it back to simple examples (or a list of TYPES of toys as the top-level bullets indicate ... construction toys, etc.), and in fact rely on Category:Toys to provide the same info so we don't end up with redundant lists? Elf | Talk 00:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Starting anew is is a very good idea! So let's ask ourselves: What do we want to achieve? I agree with you that the list is too long for this article. What else do we want? I see the following options – please feel free to edit the text below. Common Man 00:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] The Teddy

The bear on the top is so cute does anyone know where to get that Teddy?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.238.130.175 (talk • contribs)

Try asking on User talk:209.177.21.6. That person added that image to this and several articles a week or so ago. Or you could try asking User talk:I'm so bored here, as that is the person who took and uploaded the photo. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 14:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of toys?

List of toys page has already been made Zephyr103 10:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

What should we do about the list in the article? My proposal is to create a separate article List of toys and move the list there. Doing so will make the article more presentable (in my opinion) and seeing how there is already a List of toy brands, it seems like a good fit. Comments/suggestions are welcome. :) Gflores Talk 23:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a reasonable idea to consider, as there are plenty of "List of..." articles in wikipedia. But I also wonder, since all of the links here actually have articles to go with them, whether we can dispense with the list entirely, convert it back to simple examples (or a list of TYPES of toys as the top-level bullets indicate ... construction toys, etc.), and in fact rely on Category:Toys to provide the same info so we don't end up with redundant lists? Elf | Talk 00:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Let's ask ourselves: What do we want to achieve? I agree with you that the list is too long for this article. What else do we want? I see the following options – please feel free to edit the text below. Common Man 00:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The second option looks like a good compromise. I had initially thought of creating a section 'Types of toys', but I'm now thinking it might be better as a list. Gflores Talk 03:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, that is also not a bad idea. Maybe there even doesn't have to be a clear distinction. We can start with the list and gradually flesh it out with text where needed.
As to the list itself: I see the following entries as related:
  • Miniaturized items
  • Model building
  • Model collecting
They all are about models as toys. Unfortunately, there currently is no good article on this general topic. Do you think we should (a) move the sublist to the existing article on Scale model; (b) create a new article for models as toys or (c) create new articles for Miniaturized items and Model collecting? Common Man 18:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Complete list in separate page

Pro:

  • toys are sorted into groups at one glance.

Contra:

  • Long (There are currently about 400 article in category:toys and subcats, and it will probably grow a lot.)
  • Redundance with categories.
  • The list is not so easy to maintain. (This is evidenced by the fact that the list, while it obviously had big gaps, changed much less than the first paragraphs with prose, which were completely rewritten in the last half year - see [1].)

[edit] Shorten list here, keep sublists in subarticles

This means, move e.g. the entries from Erector Set to Mome into the Construction set article. In cases where there is no big list yet, or where it is unclear what a group means we could just add one or two examples on the same line as in

Pro:

  • compromise between the current list and no list at all
  • provides a nice entry point for further reading

Contra:

  • We'd have to create articles for groups, such as Drawing toys.

[edit] Intro questions

  • Manchester United -- Is this a football team or ???
  • "The haulage company owned by Eddie Stobart produced model lorries, which now subsidise the business" -- Does "haulage" mean "freight"? Does this sentence mean that toy sales carry a larger business? Is "Eddie Stobart" meaningful, distinctive or famous?
Thanks. Maurreen 04:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
The soccer club. Very popular in England. 129.62.113.183 05:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1.0 core topics COTF

  • Still needs a lot of work, but I can now glance at it without stylistic annoyance. +sj + 23:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Note This article was the Core Topics COTF from April 20 till May 15, 2006, and the article was improved to B-Class. Walkerma 05:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move a see also to disambiguation?

Should "sex toy" be removed from "see also" and put into the disambiguation page? Andjam 12:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

"Sex Toy" is already in the disambiguation page. I agree it should be removed from this article --HTGuru 20:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Failing

The reason that the GA failed for this article is that some sections were all muddled up, needs cleanup, and possibly some expansion. If you improve the article, you can re-nominate it, cheers M inun (Spiderman) 13:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2nd one

Failed for: several citation needed tags, refs are non consistent and a mess. Refs go after punctuation with no space between them. Put them in standard cite web/php format. Find refs for the cite needed tags. Rlevse 03:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Who nominated it for GA? I've been putting a lot of work into it hoping to go for FA in a few months, but I know it's no where near GA status and as far as I can tell, I'm the main one working on it. So, who nominated it? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 15:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)