From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Toys (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Toys, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of toys on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conflict of interest concerns[edit]

FYI, this article is one of many edited by paid editors associated with Intrapromote, a professional search engine optimization. For more information see:

Editors working on behalf of Fisher-Price (among many other corporate clients}}:

and numerous IPs, only a few of whom we've listed.
--A. B. (talk) 14:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Based on what evidence? If you've got issues about specific points of fact, then fix them in the article instead of trying to make others do your work for you. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
"What evidence?" Hmmm.... about the links in my two edit summaries and the 3 links above that I posted?
Baseball Bugs, there are over 90 articles to be reviewed that I've identified so far; see User talk: So far I've spent 10+ hours on this and still going through edit histories edit by edit. I'm just not very fast and I have a life off-Wikipedia. I keep identifying more articles and more IPs as well.
If the COI tag offends you, then just leave the tag off that article and I'll cross this one off my list.

--A. B. (talk) 18:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I originally removed the COI from this article, due to the lack of a corresponding Talk page discussion. The discussion is now here and the COI tag seems appropriate while the issue is investigated and a course of action is selected. Updates can be gained from the aforementioned COI noticeboard. I think A. B. made a great catch. Eli lilly 01:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not "offended" by the tag, I just want to see something that specifically indicates that this article is a COI, without having to read a megillah to learn what the specific issue is. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

And I reverted it again. You can't just make a broad claim and expect the public to go along with it. What is the specific issue with this specific article? That's all I ask for someone to identify. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
From what I have read on the COI page and in A. B.'s discussion, it is a policy violation to edit a wikipedia article when you have a financial involvement in the content that you are editing. It seems like the appropriate thing to do will be to look at the history of the edits that those questionable users made to this article and ensure that those edits are appropriate. I'd imagine that this can be done with or without the COI tag in place, in the case of this specific article the content does seem objective. Perhaps the whole point of the COI tag has already been met, we were alerted and reviewed the article and didn't find anything in this case. Eli lilly 11:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me put it this way: I'm sure you're immersed in this project and are very familiar with it. I am not, and don't necessarily want to be. Please try to state, in 2 or 3 sentences, the answers to these questions:

  • Who, specifically, is the source of the alleged conflict of interest in this specific article; and when did they post it?
  • How do you know they work for the toy company in question?

Give me straightforward answers to those questions, and I'll leave the article to you. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ViewMasterLogo.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:ViewMasterLogo.jpg 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 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 18:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Model E[edit]

The article states that the Model E was introduced in 1955. This must be incorrect as I have a 3 reel set of 'Robin Hood' which is dated 1954 which includes the model E viewer (with 3 reels behind). An earlier 1953 set shows the older viewer which suggests the model E was introduced in 1953 or 1954 (though I know not which). I have the older model and available evidence suggests it may have been purchased in 1954, but isn't conclusive. (talk) 17:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It is quite posible that the model E was in development when Robin Hood was released. Sawyer's (sic) may well have decided to put the new viewer on the Robin Hood reel set even though it wasn't yet available to the general public. I was given a Viewmaster viewer and the set of Robin Hood discs in 1954. I was given a model C viewer. I still have both items to this day (and lots more reels besides). (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

View Master Projector[edit]

In the early 1960's as well as a camera, it was also possible to purchase a home projector which would project the right and left images through vertically and horizontally polarised lenses, the resulting image being viewed through similarly polarised viewing glasses, thus rendering a 3D image. This was exactly the technology used by many current 3D movies such as "Avatar". --MichaelGG (talk) 09:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought the projector only showed one of the two images. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
That's my understanding too, Baseball Bugs. Our family was very excited, until we found out that the projected image wasn't stereo. But I could have got it wrong, I was quite young. (talk) 03:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
The first entry in this section is correct. View-Master has been around a long time and they made a number of different projectors. The only type most of us have ever seen was one-eyed and projected only one of the images, but as stated in the article entry for 1952 the Stereomatic 500, as its name ought to strongly imply, projected in 3-D, polarized method. Generally similar to the contemporary Realist format 3-D slide projectors and similarly expensive when new, despite their rarity a nicely reconditioned 500 can be had for that many dollars today, a fraction of the original price after adjusting for inflation. I recently corrected someone's rashly appended comment stating that projection was in 2-D. Just do a bit of Googling for "Stereomatic 500" and verification will soon appear. The interesting instruction manual could be downloaded free a few years ago and may still be available. AVarchaeologist (talk) 07:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Recent reversion of section[edit]

I reverted a series of ~50 edits by (presumably) one anonymous editor. It was a list of kid movies but it was unsourced, made no effort to explain why they were in the article, was titled by a poorly worded section header. Moreover if it was a list of View Master Discs made, then it was only including recent VM disks. Even if this is the case it would be better on a new List of View Master disks article. -- KelleyCook (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


What do you call the cheap, 35p plastic camera toys with the little viewmaster-esque disks in them? I can't find them using terms like 'viewmaster (style) camera toy' etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Delaminated Reels[edit]

Does anyone know how to relaminate Viewmaster reels that have become delaminated? (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Presumably you mean the paper disk has come apart? (Problems with the film itself would not be readily fixable.) What you want here is a flexible glue that does not produce fumes that will discolor the film. Search online for archival library book repair glue. (talk) 03:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Reels and disks[edit]

View-Master's packets, pamphlets and advertising have always referred to them as View-Master "reels", not "disks". Perhaps V-M wanted to associate their product with the reels of Kodachrome home movie film affluent travelers used to bring home the sights seen in distant lands. I have always called them reels, the world around me has always called them reels, and the links in the references section only mention reels, never "disks". So why are they "disks" throughout the body of the article?

Sufficiently annoyed and perplexed, I finally waded into the history and found that a 23 December 2008 edit gratuitously changed "reel" to "disk" in eighteen places, an act uninformatively encompassed by the edit summary as a change to "vocabulary". Perhaps the editor was unfamiliar with the subject and the longstanding V-M terminology and thought "reel" was simply some earlier editor's clueless misnomer. Perhaps the unconventional use of the word annoyed him on purely linguistic grounds, as plainly the object in question is not literally a reel.

If no reasoned objections appear below in the near future, back to the official term "reel" everything will soon return, and if anyone cares to beat me to the task, thanks for saving me the trouble. AVarchaeologist (talk) 09:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The deed has been done, the universe set aright, the long nightmare now only a fading memory. AVarchaeologist (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

They're reels in sourcies (and in my experience). So for whatever its worth, I agree with this fix. - jc37 19:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced Material[edit]

Below information was tagged for needing sourcing in 2011. Feel free to re-add it to the article with appropriate references. DonIago (talk) 14:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The current article fails to explains how ViewMaster went from GAF control to Fisher-Price control, without this information. This leaves a glaring gap in who was doing what when. I am just not sure where to source this information. Nutster (talk) 11:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
You might try asking for resources at the project page listed at the top. I don't know whether they can help out, but if they can't we won't be any worse off than we already are. DonIago (talk) 13:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)