Jump to content

Talk:Beanie Babies

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.30.112.165 (talk) at 01:36, 4 December 2007 (→‎Beanie babies are CUTE!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Tag variants

It seems a disproportionate amount of this article is spent differentiating the generations/subtle differences in the tags of beanie babies...not the babies themselves. The article is obviously incomplete, but even in its completed form, it should not contain so much about the tags. The amount of detail spent on these tags is the level of detail necessary in a beanie baby collector/buyer/seller guide - by no means relevant in a general article on beanie babies in an encyclopedia.

If such detail is to remain, I would at least recommend the tags be addressed in a separate article. - Slow Graffiti 05:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the tag info should be a separate article. 67.172.125.13 21:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna go ahead and start a new article for the tags. Splamo 18:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement

I find this article's subject to be fascinating. Perhaps someone who was/is an avid collector could add more details about the collecting procedures, craze, and bust. Price guide values? --Chris Griswold 12:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I used to be, but I broke from the addiction years ago, and it has died down greatly. A price guide would bnot be wise, as it has changed a great deal. For example, while eight years ago, such Beanie Babies as Humphrey the camel once sold for several thousand dollars, yet today, some go for under one hundred. There's no real consistency now that the craze has died down. Michael 21:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, there are probably over a thousand Beanie Babies that have been released. It would be impossible to cite them all. Michael 21:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe some notable ones should be mentioned... Michael 21:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to make a section on some of the rarer ones now. Mr. Papaya 18:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

beanie babes have soooooooooooo not broken down in addiction. they still have the funnest website ever made www.ty.com they have named almost every single beanie babe in america, canada and even the uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by IHEARTRAINBOWS (talkcontribs) 01:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio in sections?

the lead looks like original work, but I have my suspicions about the content in the sections. Reads like a Beanie Baby collector's book I got a few years ago, I'll look at it once I find it and post back. ~Chris /e@/iar/beans/dbad/ 22:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed while browsing, much of the Beanie Buddies section seems to have been copied verbatim from beaniephenomenon.com which says clearly at the bottom All graphics and content on Beanie Phenomenon are property of Peggy Gallagher Enterprises, Inc. And may not be reproduced, copied, or tampered with in any way without express written consent. -- Richard 23:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think beanie babes should sell everywhere cause i love them myself —Preceding unsigned comment added by IHEARTRAINBOWS (talkcontribs) 01:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tenses?

This article, in particular the history section, seems to be written in past tense, to me it seems as this implies that Ty no longer makes beanie babies. Does anyone else think this and are they still produced? I'm not much of a beanie fan so I thought I'd check before rewriting all of it. Thanks Jyuichi 04:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just cleaned that up - I can't belief it was left with so many sloppy tenses for so long! Beanie Babies still exist (obviously) and new designs are being released regularly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.182.66.234 (talk) 05:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section for specific beanies

I remarked out the Peace Bear Collecting section. I did this because it would set a precedence where other editors will think that adding their favorite beanies is acceptable. Based on the deletion of beanie-specific pages earlier by the admins, we shouldn't be resorting to jam-packing this page with the same material. Even if the section was used as an example, it is much too information to serve as an example. Groink 22:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beanie baby photos ...plus "webkinz" photo?

I look at the beanie baby article and see a single bear. Ok. Fine. As I scroll down I see a photo of several "Webkinz" dolls. Why? They aren't even made by Ty, Inc. This article needs a photo with different beanies... maybe a Teenie Beanie Baby, one with a new gen-15 tag, and a Beanie of the Month tag. Any volunteers.... if not I'll see what I can put up in my spare time.

Protecting this article

This article currently has a low level of protection. But it still has been subject to some vandalism. One user changed it to say that Beanie Babies are 'evil.' The amount of protection should be increased. Xyz7890 15:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is one user who has repeatedly vandalized the page and should probably be banned entirely. Bluebeary 20:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot remember if I have ever edited this page myself, but I do have it on my watchlist for curiosity, since I once collected beanies. I have noticed the page's repeat vandalism, which has differed somewhat each time, and I have been concerned about it. Often, vandals return under new user IDs each time, making banning a particular person difficult. Protecting the article prevents it from being edited by these newly registered users, and any vandalism thereafter will have to be planned at least 4 days in advance rather than done on impulse, like most of it is. Sebwite 22:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.190.144.240 is the user I had in mind. I have cleaned up the last of the vandalism so far (I removed my comments on that from this talk page as well).Bluebeary 01:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

they still rock

thise if you who think the craze has died..... YOU R SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO WRONG these babes r still in tact and you should respect that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IHEARTRAINBOWS (talkcontribs) 01:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC) who is vandalizing this page? tell me now and I can report them —Preceding unsigned comment added by IHEARTRAINBOWS (talkcontribs) 23:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]