Jump to content

Talk:American Girl

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.174.116.10 (talk) at 16:57, 20 December 2012. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Recent edits for unnecessary detail

I've spent some time recently on heavy edits on this page to remove extraneous detail and unconfirmed information or stuff not properly sourced. As pointed out previously, there shouldn't be so much detail stretching out what is essentially an overview article. Private collecting sites and Wikis like the one Nethilia has added can expand on the basic information offered in this overview article.

I keep taking out fannish subjective comments that describe dolls a "beautiful" and so forth. Also added additional links to collection resources. --Heidilaura

Agreeing that this article is quite similar to the info that the manufacturer (Mattel) puts out. If you peruse their website, the general tone of the doll info imparted is similar. Am removing a few unnecessary adjectives...i.e. "a conservative reporter". Normally, the phrase "a reporter" would do unless there is a special reason to mention "conservative, liberal," etc.Lindisfarnelibrary (talk) 11:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editors, please make an effort to follow Wikipedia policy

Wikipedia is cost-free for you to edit, however this does not mean you can write anything you want. Wikipedia is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, and you must follow their rules to use it.

There are many problems with this article, and with recent edits. A major one seems to be that people who have a financial interest in American Girl are editing it. This is called a conflict of interest WP:CONFLICT.

Also, the article anticipates things that have not happened, without providing citation. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball for discussion. Stick with the facts. WP:CRYSTALBALL. One of the three core policies is that information must be verifiable, but editors in this article are adding all kinds of information and speculation that cannot easily be checked WP:SOURCE.

Wikipedia is also not a place to indulge in personal speculation about what is good, bad, influenced by what, for what purpose. This is called Original Research. You must provide citations in reliable, independent, third-party publications for many statements. That DOES NOT mean the Mattel company -- not without a reference that can be checked.

I suggest editors spend time reading:

Here is an example from the article of text that cannot be used without citing a reliable, independent source (i.e., NOT Mattel): "A focus on family unity and hope tempers the contrast between Addy's dreams of freedom and the harsh realities of on-going prejudice."

Understand that Wikipedia is not a free advertising platform, and that editors will enforce policy. Piano non troppo (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Non-Discussion of Article

I have removed two edits to this page that were not a discussion of the article. Please note that Wikipedia is a project, not a messageboard; the discussion page is not to have casual discussion about American Girl products or characters, but to discuss improvements and edits to the American Girl article itself. --Nethilia (talk) 04:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies - Make article more objective

Notably, the NY theatre Actors Equity action against an American Girl theatre seems to be handled like a corporate press release. If you read the link below (footnote # 28 in this article) the writer claims that the actors were receiving very low wages for their work and that the management was stifling the majority actor vote for union membership. This basic claim should be mentioned (along with the corporate response). The actual article's link is in the article and is also repeated below:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/04/theater/04girl.html

Researchers need to get a fair summary of controversies...not the corporate view alone.Lindisfarnelibrary (talk) 11:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unreferenced material

The article has been cleaned up and a significant amount of unreferenced material removed. There has been a lot of additions recently, particularly by our younger editors. While all are welcome to edit, remember to cite reliable sources. Also, the extensive information on individual dolls, unreferenced or only referenced with primary sources from the company itself, is not appropriate for Wikipedia. There is a link in the external links section with an entry for an external wiki devoted to the topic. Detailed analysis of each doll would be welcomed there I'm sure.--RadioFan (talk) 04:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I do agree with most of your edits thus far, the only one I do not agree with is your removal of the original historical dolls. The fan info could be trimmed down, but, when it really comes down to it, those "girls" are what made the company and they deserve more than just a passing reference. --132 06:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Historic dolls are appropriate to cover here, but not in minute detail and certainly not without some reliable, 3rd party sources.--RadioFan (talk) 00:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

agplaythings.com

This website, while interesting, does not meet wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources as it is self published. While this may be an appropriate source for other wikis, it should not be used for Wikipedia. --RadioFan (talk) 04:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Unfortunately, this particular article is prone to spammy links. I've cleaned it up in the past but some have managed to squeak through. I have removed this particular link. --132 06:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section and NPOV

To be more in line with WP:NPOV, the "Criticism" section would probably be better renamed to "Reception" or similar, and expanded to include both positive and negative commentary, see also WP:CRIT. At a quick glance, at least one of the sources in the section appear to be used in a POV manner, [1] spends two pages basically lauding the ethnical portrayal of one of the characters, with a few lines of negative commentary on earlier dolls. Only the negative commentary is included in the article here. Siawase (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's been renamed to "Reception", but no positive commentary has been added, which almost makes it even worse, because now it looks like all the reception to American Girl has been negative. Obviously, this isn't true, but I'm not a very experienced Wikipedian, so I don't feel adequate to add some. I hope this comes to someone else's attention, however... StoryMakerEchidna (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is positive reception in the article outside of that section though, the Oppenheim Toy Portfolio Award is mentioned in the lead, and the bulk of the prose spells out how the doll lines have been expanded, numerous stores opened, and spinoff products released, all of which imply that the reception in the market place has been positive. The article as a whole is in better shape WP:NPOV wise than the reception section in itself is.
It would be fairly easy to improve the reception section. You can use the sources already in place there, and include some positive quotes from them, no special skills needed. I'd be happy to give advice if you're unsure how to go about it. Siawase (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracy

The article states that originally there were three dolls: Samantha, Kirsten, and Molly. - Felicity was also one of the original dolls and, early on, probably the most popular. There were even connections with and events at Colonial Williamsburg. - Shortly after, the article says when Felicity was discontinued - but she was definitely one of the originals, perhaps even before Molly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.42.32 (talk) 12:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, there were only three dolls originally (1986). Felicity was launched at five years later in 1991. Joyfullkitten (talk)

where's Saige?

where's the new GOTY for 2013? All the AG fans are buzzing about her, yet, Wikipedia just dosent want to be involved in one of the greatest puzzles of the year for doll lovers everywhere! guess everyone will just have to endlessly search for a trusty blog. P.S. I have a pic of Saige on my blog that I copied from dolldiaries.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.46.248.164 (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, even with the apparent leaks we can't just vouch on what we gathered up so far. An official statement from American Girl or any other reliable third-party sources is needed before we can add Saige up. Blake Gripling (talk) 00:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do I sound like I care? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.46.248.164 (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's what the policy says. Blake Gripling (talk) 01:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article shouldn't list individual dolls, period. Wikipedia articles are encyclopedic overviews of topics for general audiences, not exhaustive collectors guides for fans. If you look at the external links in this article there's a link to http://americangirl.wikia.com/wiki/American_Girl_Dolls_Wiki which is a dedicated wiki created by and for fans where individual releases can be listed. Siawase (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about the books?

"American Girl is a line of dolls, books, and accessories." Yet you have nothing to say about the books. If I want to know what the characters associated with different historical periods are, do you have an article about that?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Girl&oldid=528980324"