Talk:Toyetic/Archive 1

Untitled

I am kind of curious why the neutrality is being disputed on this article. Nemalki 03:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I am kind of curious as to why there's no coverage of the 1950s television shows which were produced specifically to promote a particular toy. I'm going to have to roll up my sleeves and haul out my copy of Saturday Morning TV I see. --Bluejay Young (talk) 06:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Pokémon

"Pokémon: Another controversial toyetic property, due to some of the instances that have surrounded the anime series, as well as unintended cultural offenses"

For those who aren't familiar with the world of Pokémon, can an editor please explain what "cultural offenses" this is referring to. There isn't anything in this single sentence that indicates why it would be "controversial". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

OR in the examples

Putting aside the fact that most of the examples are entirely unsourced, I worry that most of them are a result of synthesis. A franchise may have a lot of associated merchandise, but that doesn’t necessarily mean Wikipedia may conclude that it’s toyetic. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Any objections if I delete the unsourced examples? That would leave only the Batman & Robin one… —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Did it, assuming that if suitable sources existed, four years was enough to find them. Research is not my forte, so I’m not going to claim they don’t exist, but four years seems more than enough. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 16:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, Sanrio in the last sentence of the lead. I had flagged it as needing citation, but another editor had removed that since “they specialize in this area.” Unless there’s a source that claims Sanrio’s media properties are particularly well suited to toys, I call WP:OR on that. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

No harm done, mate. It's really great that you're contributing to this article. Try and go easy on the policies, they're here to help support the project. The big test for a reference is if it can only be read (or understood/interpreted) one way without needing extra proof then there's no real need to add a {{cite}} tag. If a reference says that a person has five freckles on their nose then some extra proof is obviously needed. IF more proof is needed, then it's always better for the article to add the proof than tag it for another editor. Cheers. - Mattwheatley (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

If I had some proof of the claim, I’d absolutely add it. But like I said before, research is not my forte. Web searches for “sanrio” and “toyetic” return only mirrors of this article, and I’m not sure how to find reliable sources that use alternative wordings; but doesn’t Sanrio specialize in the merchandise? Toyetic properties by definition begin in a media form. (Also see the section below.) —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Reversal of meaning

As I understand the term, a toyetic TV show has the potential for toys to be based on it. This article had also used the term to refer to the converse, TV shows that are based on toys; is there any source for this usage? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 17:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

After a month without replies or reverts to removals, I’m going to assume the answer is no, and there was a good-faith misunderstanding at some point. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)