Talk:Action figure

This page is sorley lacking in content, I updated it and added a few new paragraphs now it is somewhat better. I don't understand why the action figure guide link I added was removed, I think it would be a great help for people browsing this page. i can think of at least 6 more good ones to. The 2 links currently there are kinda useless on the subject.

Psst, that's not an action figure of Zarbon, it's an art statue. You can see how there's no articulation.

nope, it's definitely an action figure. I have that one and the arms move up and down as well as the legs rotating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.48.178 (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have erased that Zarbon figure multiple times. I'm sure many would agree that there are action figures to show on the page that better represent the history and/or definition of an action figure. A random DBZ figure makes little sense to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hero 004 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

stop deleting the image. there's no reason to delete it. if you feel a g.i. joe image belongs there, then add one, but there's no valid reason to delete an existing image just because you feel it doesn't represent the page, although it very well does represent the page. - 72.229.48.178 15:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The representative figure would be GI Joe which is well represented in other articles. A modern representation would be more typically distinguished by permanently molded clothes, such as McFarlane's (a key innovator) "Spawn" series. --Joe Webster 00:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC

I'll tell you why a GI Joe would be a good figure for this page: it was the first toy to be called an action figure. Now tell me why this Zarbon figure is a good figure for this page. Because it's a cool, rare, or obscure figure? There's plenty of those. There's not plenty of figures who were first called an action figure. It doesn't represent the page and I'm sure many Wikipedia authorities would agree. You see, there are so many figures like that Zarbon (by that I meen cool, rare, or obscure figures), that it is not significant enough.

I don't care one way or another about the "Zarbon" figure. It IS representative, however, of the typical modern action figure fare. The modern action figure HAS molded-on clothes as a distinction from 12" Joe with few exceptions. For significant figures, McFarlane, Toy Biz and Hasbro's Six Sigma are probably more representative of the state of the art.

Denudable/redressable action figures, like Joe & Jane, are now often referred to action dolls, particularly, mandolls and femfigs. They have emerged as a specialized subset of the action figure hobby since they resist typecasting AND their scale is pretty standardized. --Joe Webster 06:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because of this distinction, action dolls should be redirected to their own article which already has an entry, Playscale Miniaturism, and this article should emphasize action figures in their modern form, i.e. with molded clothes. --Joe Webster 11:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Webster- I was directing my comment at the unnamed individual who posted right before you, in case you didn't know. Yeah, I agree, I think that another modern figure would be great for that first paragraph, but not the likeness of the Dragon Ball Z henchman called Zarbon that was previously there. Any ol' modern figure is an edit war waiting to happen. Maybe we could decide on a significant modern figure to add? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hero 004 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no substantial evidence as to why the image shouldn't be on the page. There is also no rule against adding another image. So go ahead and add a G.I. Joe image to the page. But there's still absolutely no reason to delete the existing image. There can be more than one image Joe Webster. Besides, if anything, the Ryan Giggs image is an even worse representation than the Zarbon image. So go ahead and add anything you want, but don't delete what exists on the page. - 72.229.48.178 17:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is my opinion that I have provided the reason why that image should not be there, but it would seem that there is no way of avoiding an edit war and I just don't have time for that. I'm not going to delete it anymore since I don't have time, but I don't like that Zarbon action figure being there. Hopefully someone with greater authority will remove it.

Hopefully, you will stop removing it like you've said, because you don't seem to be avoiding a revert war so far, but provoking one. - 72.229.48.178 00:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just stating my opinion about the image, not provoking an edit war. My comments stand.