Talk:Figma (toy)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Needed content, needed changes?

I noticed this article was deleted twice due to "advertising" and I believe lacking of sources, so before putting all the info on releases, I thought I'd have one of the more experienced wiki'ans whom search new articles for relevance and such tell me what needs to be changed or added.

I'm attempting to model the article after the Revoltech article.

List of all non-limited releases by max factor, with figma releases labeled: http://www.goodsmile.info/year/max/eng/all/category/all/all/all/all/1.html

Also, is photographs of owned products applicable to fair use? Sk2k52 (talk) 08:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Reversion of Changes

I have reverted the changes from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Figma&oldid=336267407

We are trying our level best to make this a good article. Please do not delete vast swaths of it and slap notability tags on it after doing so. Help us out by revising sections or making them more acceptable to wiki guidelines. Figma are an important line to modern otaku- just check out sites like fg-site.net to see the popularity amongst the group. They are a watershed in action figures for the Japanese, as well.

If Revoltech deserve a place on Wikipedia, then so does Figma. Instead of having our hard work deleted, try to help us out. --Wbd (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

First and foremost, Wikipedia is not a product catalog, which is part of the What Wikiedia is not policy. The product tables simply do not add anything to the article and act as a product catalog for the toyline. Simply because the retail price is not mention doesn't mean it dodges the point of it being a catalog.

Second, there are absolutely no reliable third-paty sources sited in the article. All that is referenced are two blogs and the Figma product catalog. Blogs and other self published sources are not reliable sources unless they are from an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Topics need to be have significant coverage by reliable third party source for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Third, just because there is an article on a similar toy line doesn't affect the notability, or lack thereof, of this toy line or whether there should have an article. —Farix (t | c) 21:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you are being very hostile regarding your changes, and I am treating them as vandalism and reverting them. The sources are perfectly legitimate for a subject like this. There are no shortages of sources regarding the Figma line. Why are you so set on deleting information about a real, physical good? Is there some server space shortage I was not aware of? Maybe a few Pokemon articles can be removed to make space for a discussion of a real item.

Instead of deleting the work outright, why don't you contribute by helping to organize it in a more encyclopedic manner? You are quite willing to delete the effort of others, but totally unwilling to help out.

--Wbd (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

What encyclopedic purpose does the product catalog serve? And how do the blogs and other links comply with WP:EL or WP:SPS? And exactly how does this article pass WP:NOTE? If there are "no shortages of sources" then you need to find them to. In the same note, I will also remind you to assume good faith on the part of other editors by not calling their edits "vandalism" simply because you dislike them. By not assuming good faith, especially by falsely calling edits you disagree with vandalism, may result in administrate action and a loss of editing privileges. I have also notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Toys and Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga about this dispute. —Farix (t | c) 22:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you need to calm down about this. I am trying to help build an article, and you are deleting that material. Perhaps I was too hasty in labelling your action "vandalism", so I apologize for that. I admit to being annoyed with your deletion, and from your comments, it felt like you were being unfair in your actions. Again, you need to assume good faith for my actions- a temporary slip of the keyboard, as it were, is all I am guilty of.

But why are you so eager to delete content? Why not help out and try to assist us in organizing this article? You say a product list isn't useful for an encyclopedia. As you are an expert editor on Wikipedia, (I mean, look how quickly and easily you can quote those policies), maybe you can tell us how best to edit this article and convert that information into something you would consider encyclopedic.

This is a toy- what sort of sources would you consider acceptable? How about Danny Choo? Would he be considered acceptable as a source?

--Wbd (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I pointed you to a policy about what Wikipedia is not, but here it is again. The product catalog does violate that policy and should not be on the article. How much work was but into it doesn't matter if the content shouldn't be in the encyclopedia in the first place. As for organizing the content, there is very little real content in the article to begin with. What is there is a stub, and there is nothing to "organize" at this moment.

For questions about where to look for reliable source for a toy line, I will point you to Wikipedia:WikiProject Toys. They are the ones most likely to know where to look. Otherwise you can do searchs on Google News, Google Scholar, and Google Books and hope you hit something relevant. —Farix (t | c) 22:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Reverting as vandalism was not only rude, but lacking in good faith. Second, catalog listings are not appropriate and completely go against WP:NOT. There is no "encyclopedic" organizing of that catalog table, it simply does not belong. Business articles should be about the business - history, a prose highlight of products and finances, etc, not a straight out listing of their toy catalog that is obviously such. Farix's clean up was highly appropriate to clean out that list. And yes, he is a highly experienced editor on Wikipedia, so he does know what he is talking about. Further, on what sources are acceptable, simple, actual reliable sources per WP:RS. I see no reason Danny Cho would be a reliable source, he is just a random blogger. I'd also question the notability of this toy line when the company itself doesn't even appear notable, and I am not seeing any reliable sources giving these toys significant coverage. I also note you said "we are trying to improve" this article, yet I see no we. Its barely been edited, and most of the editors have been new, SPA accounts. I almost wonder if this was created as part of the whole newbie testing thing from the opening edit summary. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You are the one being uncivil and downright rude now, and using rules to hide behind. Danny Choo isn't any random blogger. Max Factory isn't some garage company. Several hundred thousand figma have been made. A whole factory in China provides hundreds of jobs (if you visited the Max Factory/Goodsmile pages, you would have seen their factory visits).

Your assertions about who have been editing the article are insulting. Your use of Twinkle (designed to remove vandalism) is in of itself an accusation of vandalism, and I am insulted by your tone. Real, physical items don't belong on Wikipedia? Then what's the point.

But don't worry. I'm done editing this article. Feel free to remove stuff until you can delete it as an empty stub. I have no intention of taking the time to research or add items only to have them deleted and then have someone tell me off for doing it in the first place. Hell, if this is the way wikipedia works now, then I'm done editing period. Well, except for spelling errors. I can't take those.

Good day to you.

--Wbd (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)