Talk:Action figure

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Comics (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Toys (Rated Start-class, High-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.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lacking in content[edit]

This page is sorely 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 10incher (talkcontribs) 21:38, 9 June 2006

I recently added data indicating the current estimate of the total number of known unique action figures in existance. I spoke with a number of action figure collectors about an online action figure database called collector-actionfigures. I then emailed the company and verified they are continuing to edit and improve this database. It contains over 30,000 action figures and thousands of photos. I included a reference to the source as well. Today Bobby removed the entry. Why? It is a great, free compliment to the information on this page. Do we not want readers to get complete information. I undid the change. 07:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbenson (talkcontribs)

In looking at your edits in the last few days it is quite apparent they have been designed just to link to this site. If it's important enough then another neutral experienced editor can add it back. Bobby I'm Here, Are You There? 15:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I added accurate, informative text in four Action Figure related articles to A free collaborative database of Action Figures. I believe it is the largest most accurate Action Figure database in the world. A valid reference for information on Action Figures. I have replaced the statistics that were previously removed. If anyone would like to discuss the validity of this information please do. I am monitoring this page. I am interested in improving the quality of Action Figure related information on Wikipedia. I will be continuing to monitor and contribute to these sections. Dbenson (talk) 05:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Kindly stop adding links to sites you are affiliated with. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

What About Zarbon?[edit]

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 (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

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 (talkcontribs) 02:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

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. - 15:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

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)
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)

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 (talkcontribs) 16:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't edited this picture at any time, but one thing we should consider:
Is this Zarbon character a henchman, i.e. an antagonist or antihero? If the former, is it appropriate for this figure to represent action figures? Wouldn't that be like using Batman's Joker, instead of Batman, himself? I would think we would want to give protagonists top billing and, then, show their antagonist counterparts in relation to them, if at all. Just a thought. The soccer figure demonstrates the use of the form outside of science fiction & fantasy. --Joe Webster 05:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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. - 17:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

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. - 00:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

That was certainly not my intention. I was just stating my opinion about the image. My comments stand.

WikiProject tag[edit]

I've added a tag for WikiProject Comics. Obviously, this article is not about comics, but the two are closely associated. Indeed, one need look no further than the acquisition of Marvel Comics by ToyBiz to see the connection. Also, as near as I can tell, there is no "Toys" WikiProject. Hopefully, the tag will bring a little attention to the article. Cheers, GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Toys would probably be too broad of a topic, anyway, and there would probably be a lot of overlap with scale modeling. --Joe Webster (talk) 05:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not just merge this article with dolls? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

GentlemanGhost, I'm not too familiar with wiki editing, but there are two other notable wikis involving toys at the moment, if that's what you mean:

  • (targetting parents who wish to make responsible play decisions for their children, including board and card games)
  • (targetting mainly adult collectors, and an offspring of 4chan's /toy/ board. Overlaps with scale modeling and pvc/unarticulated figures as well) (talk) 11:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The Zarbon photo[edit]

Just because it was the first photo put in place does not mean it should remain. It is a very poor definition of an action figure with its lack of articulation, overly tight photo cropping, and crappy packaging. Poor header photos are replaced with better ones on Wikipedia all the time. I seen no reason why this should be an exception. Cale (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

There has been previous discussion regarding this at User talk:Zarbon#action and Talk:Toy/Archives/2012#Images. Siawase (talk) 20:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and the consensus was that there should be two or three representative images. We don't need many different types of GI Joe images on the page. Two are enough. One other type of figure is fine, it's been there since 2004, there's no reason to remove it now. Siawase is correct in referencing that the previous discussions have brought problems where too many images have been compiled on one page. The toy page has been a problem in and of itself with the various amount of images. We do not want that to happen here, but two or three (different) types of images are fine. In terms of the actual photo quality, I feel it's much better than the GI Joe images for a few reasons. For one, it's a full-body shot, not one limited to the face. An action figure is notably well-portrayed only if you capture the body along with the head. I don't have anything against keeping the GJ Joe images, I do have a problem with removing images when we can have three representative ones on the page. - Zarbon (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Where does this idea we can only have three images come from? In regards to the image - why would we want a poor shot in a plastic bag when the first example of an action figure is clear and present and can go at the top? --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

And the discussion above supports the idea of using GI joe. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

And.. I see that Zarbon was blocked for edit-warring over this very matter previously. -- Cameron Scott (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

If that specific image wasn't to your liking, then I will upload another, more consistent and without a plastic bag that way you won't complain. But, the GI Joe image is a mere face shot, it isn't a full-body image and therefore isn't as representative of a full-body figure. It can stay on the page, but not as the main consensus in terms of full-body representation. And there's no rule against having any certain character. - Zarbon (talk) 00:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright mate. Thanks a lot. On another note, did you see the toy page? It's currently a huge mess, it has 18 images. I brought it up on the talk page a long time ago and just recently to avoid clutter. I was hoping that page could use a heavy fix, I suggested that there be a link to a wikimedia commons gallery section rather than 18 images on one page. What do you think? - Zarbon (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Mate? What're u, Austrailian?! The zarbon toy is one of the WORST images we should display. I implore u, stick with the soccar player image. thanks for listening. ActionFigureLover (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Look, it all boils down to copyright, and how action figures are deemed copyrighted to the point publishing their photos can be seen as copyright infringement. See the warning at commons:Category:Action figures. -- (talk) 10:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Action figure. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Vital article?[edit]

Why was this article listed as a vital article? My instinct is to roll that back, but I may be confused. Gmarmstrong (talk) 14:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)