Talk:Dinky Toys

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Toys (Rated B-class, Mid-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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Brands (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brands 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

External links[edit] (talk) 02:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC) I recently I received an influx of emails saying that a spammer was mucking about with the wiki links on the dinky toy page.

The two which are left are commercial portals. The three I am correcting to are info sites: (talk) 02:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding?? The first site says "Click our shop's logo to see our Store". The second site sells toys. It was tough to figure out, but the link that says sale and order form gave it away. The third is a myspace site. Please read external link guidelines where you will see commercial sites and social netowrking (Myspace) violate the guidelines. I removed all links but two one of which was a museum and one of which had no apparent commercial aspirations, although I don't read German so its a tougher call. Since you object, I have removed all links. I will continue to remove all commercial links from the article. TastyPoutine talk (if you dare) 02:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
External link guidelines doesn't quite say that forums and social networking sites definitely shouldn't be linked, it says that they are "Normally to be avoided", or "generally to be avoided". That means that, yes, they normally shouldn't be linked, but that if something is exceptionally good, we can (as ever) apply common sense and the "Ignore all rules" rule if an editor can successfully make the case that the result makes a Wikipedia page better. IMO, one unusual example of when one might consider linking to a discussion group site is the possibility of a link from here to the TalkModelToys site - TMT have individual discussion threads on almost every individual Dinky Toys model, and those threads often include photographs and scans of primary source material, often including packaging, advertising, and photographs of the vehicles that individual toys appear to be modelled on. Even if one chooses to ignore all the personal opinions and unverified expert opinions, the scans still have credibility.
WP.ELNO also says that one can consider linking to "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." If we assumed that Meccano Ltd. themselves counted as a knowledgeable source regarding their own Dinky Toy products, then one could dismiss the TMT Dinky Toy model number forum threads as insufficiently reliable, but still consider linking to the site on the grounds that the many cross-referenced scans of Meccano Ltd material on those threads nevertheless count as included subject material from a reliable source.
I'm not saying that we definitely should add a link to a site like TMT, but IMO WP:EL doesn't forbid it, and one could probably make a decent case for inclusion. ErkDemon (talk) 23:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Why Dumb it Down?[edit]

I had no choice but to undo your changes DinkyHugh. What had been added was superior and more precise use of the ciations, new citations and references, better and additional pictures (and better organization of them), better organization of the article and much more new information. Now you had added some good new info. and that's great and if you don't I will add it in. BUT...what was there previously was inferior to what the page was becoming.--Cstevencampbell (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Paint Colour Chart[edit]

I added a link to a paint colour chart for Dinky Toys, which has been taken from actual models using an official RAL colour book, but this was deemed as SPAM and removed. I also have links to colour charts for Corgi and Spot-On models as well as a link to a restoration resource for these models. I'm loath to add the link/s again as they may be removed, but would this be something of interest? Please note, this is not a profit making or commercial link/s. --Kspope (talk)

You added two links. The second, as a forum site, was a clear fail under WP:ELNO.
The other link, the paint codes, is potentially a good EL - although I don't think so in this case, as the content isn't good enough. It's a short list of models, there's no visual indication of the colours at a simple level, the colour code system used is so obscure as to not be of much usefulness to most readers: Pantone or Humbrol paint colour codes would be much more accessible.
WP:EL is worth reading - ELs are not seen as a good thing, but rather as an admission of missing content from the article itself and things that, in an ideal world, would simply be embedded within it. ELs are not seen as having any sort of "directory" function, or as a replacement for using a search engine. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
ELs often are a good thing, in that they often provide links to resources for further reading, which have been vetted for usefulness and relevance by other wp editors who are knowledgable about the subject. If Encyclopaedia Britannica articles provide a "further reading" section, then it'd be odd if Wikipedia didn't consider "further reading" to be a sufficiently encyclopaedic subject. If you know of good resources on a topic that a reader would find valuable, and you choose not to provide a reference to them, then that's discourteous to the reader and makes Wikipedia a less useful resource. See also WP:BURO - the purpose of the guidelines is to make WP a more useful and more valuable resource, but if a guideline gets in the way of that goal, we are supposed to apply common sense and set it aside (of course, we have to be able to persuade other editors of our point of view, otherwise they can apply their common sense to revert our work). The guidelines reflect the current general documented consensus ideas of best practice as they have evolved thus far, but it's not an entirely prescriptive set of rules.
The idea that WP shouldn't help readers to find external resources is IMO a bit reader-antagonistic - WP isn't an internet directory, but if we take the position that Wikipedia shouldn't be a substitute for people putting in a bit of work and using Google, then since WP isn't supposed to hold original work, and the majority of WP's information can probably be found on a combination of Google / Google Books / Google Scholar, the argument could be extended to say that if if it's not our job to help "lazy" people, that perhaps the whole of Wikipedia ought to be shut down and replaced with a single page saying "Stop being lazy and just do a frelling Google search!".
There's a lot of useful information out there that is not going to end up on WP for the foreseeable future (although that's not very long!). For instance, a lot of people who are interested in Dinky Toys might be interested in seeing, say, a full listing of all the hundreds of items that Dinky produced. That listing is probably not going to end up on WP any time soon (apart from anything else, if you assembled and uploaded such a list, some editor would be liable to delete it for being insufficiently noteworthy), but if and when someone compiled such a list and put it online, it'd obviously be valuable to link to it from the article. ErkDemon (talk) 00:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I would agree strongly with the first half of your comment – and it's unusual to find someone who appreciates this. As to WP:BURO, then take a look at tonight's edit-warring at Bristol Perseus / User_talk:Andy_Dingley#MOS.3F. "Further reading" is an excellent reason for ELs, but they have to be edited on that basis, not just have it attached as a heading and excuse. There is a real problem of outright spam – we still need policies to control quality against it. Like so much of WP policy, the actual policy turns out to be surprisingly good and prescient, if only people would read the detail and follow it!
As to directories, then WP shouldn't duplicate Google because it's just not good at being Google. Where there is added editorial context to these links, then it can beat Google (hence the Further reading section). Otherwise, just being a directory is best left to directories. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Dublo Discussion[edit]

Please make comment regarding the article here on the talk page.

"The second paregraph has little to do with the subject matter." (comment put on main page by DinkyHugh).

I think it is important to compare what a company is doing compared to the competition. This is so because companies do not produce in isolation. They are always considering what the competition is doing so they can make production decisions. Thus to augment sales to make a profit. Some discussion of the competition is useful to understand any company's products for a given time.--Cstevencampbell (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

What is the notability of these toys?[edit]

What is the notability of these toys? All I see is a catalog of products from a defunct company. Are these toys valuable? If yes, why is there no mention of that fact, with some details to help clarify why anybody should care about somebody's old toys? Badon (talk) 01:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The "Demise" section mentions their value, although it is lacking inline citations. —Bruce1eetalk 06:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Dating from the 1930s and lasting until about 1980, Dinky Toys were THE most notable diecast car and truck toys ever. They led the way for Corgi, Matchbox, and Mattel Hot Wheels. And there are plenty of references for this article - parenthetical - which Wikipedia supports - and not in-line.--Cstevencampbell (talk) 23:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, here on the talk page. I see someone has already begun making it more clear in the article that this brand of toys is very important as the progenitor of a class toys. I hope to see more clarification and factual details, especially in the intro paragraphs, that further convince casual readers that this brand of toys is worth learning about. Some quotes from a commentator on the subject, like an auction organizer or appraiser, might be very helpful too. Badon (talk) 12:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Origin of name[edit]

The Pre-war History section rejects the idea that the Dinky name came from a nickname for one of Frank Hornby's daughters and quotes from an American dictionary the definition of 'overly or unattractively small'. This ignores the British (home of Hornby) definition given in the Collins UK dictionary of 'small and neat; dainty', which would make a good name for a girl or a series of models. (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Moriarty

I see the British meaning, but the point seems to be splitting hairs, don't you think?--Cstevencampbell (talk) 00:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I've removed much of this. Investigating possible sources of the name in dictionaries is original research and speculation that doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted this again, but I want everyone to understand exactly the problems with what I've removed.

  • "Along with Solido and a couple of other brands, Dinky Toys were probably the most popular diecast vehicles ever produced" - this is what is called a weaselly worded claim. Where is the evidence to support that they were "the most popular diecast vehicles ever produced"? Putting "probably" into the claim does not remove the necessity to back it up, it just makes it more obviously an unattributed opinion. (Note; I'm not saying it's wrong. Maybe it's right, but if the article has no supporting cite I can't tell, and neither can any other reader.)
  • "or simply mean "overly or unattractively small" as found in Webster's Dictionary (Merriam Webster 2014)." This is plain original research. Not to mention being extremely dubious. Why would a toy manufacturer in Liverpool, England be using a word as defined by an American dictionary? Far more likely they were using the UK definition of attractively small and neat. However, I'm not putting that in either, because that would still be original research.
  • "The name could also have been borrowed by Hornby from the "Dinky" playthings originally designed and made by Clayton and Pownall prior to 1915 which included model houses, churches, bridges, mills, and people (Daily Mail article, 26 November 1915)." - this is entirely speculation. Unless a reliable source is suggesting it, it shouldn't be here.

--Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dinky Toys. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Referencing and content[edit]

There is only one citation in the correct format in the article. Also, there is a use of adjectives that depict events in a negative or positive, not neutrally, this can mostly be found in the 'Demise' section. Also, please can someone provides dates for significant events in the history of Dinky Toys? Production ceased in 1979, but then every event (such as being purchased by Universal International and then Mattel) is not given a date, instead the article states that the Universal International bought Dinky Toys in the late 1980s and Mattel bought it a few years later. Please can accurate dates be found? Pjposullivan (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I have 31,430 pages on my watch list and this is the only one that uses Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing most of the articles references don’t even include a page number making it difficult to verify, isn’t there a case for improving the references by updating to the normal method of referencing? Theroadislong (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Phew, I thought I was the only one thinking about changing the format of the references. I have just undone my edits after seeing the 'don't add <ref>' notice. For me, the parenthetical references make it look like an unencyclopedic personal essay, and I'm happy to remove the notice if only I knew how. Pjposullivan (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I have no idea what the protocol is but surely we don't have to be stuck with an inferior method of referencing for ever. I can see that it would be confusing to mix the styles but if we change over completely I don't see a problem. Theroadislong (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree, I don't see a problem switching to the conventional way of referencing. —Bruce1eetalk 14:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Agree. The current method is unsatisfactory. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
The parenthetical referencing is my responsibility (or fault). I prefer it because I've not found an easy way to do numbered referencing - I think it is a nightmare. I prefer it because it is easy to follow (citation leads you right to reference at bottom in alphabetical order of author or title). The only drawback is that parenthetical referencing doesn't show you the reference by rolling over the number of the reference. If page numbers are not shown it is usually because a website is being cited.Cstevencampbell (talk) 15:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Another drawback is that parentheses are used not just for referencing and this lends to confusion when someone for example references the 'The Dinky Encyclopedia' in brackets, but it looks like a person is giving an example and not a reference. I find the use of parentheses adds confusion to the meaning of the sentences in this article. Pjposullivan (talk) 00:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I see what you are saying. One argument, though, is that in clear writing parentheses should not often be used for clarification or example, simplifying ID of the citation.Cstevencampbell (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)