Talk:Creatable World

Additional sources
The New York Times (I've run out of free articles there this month, so I can only see the headline). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that's the same New York Times article that's already cited in the article? That said, I don't like looking back how much this focuses on Mattel's marketing. I've created a reception section and I am looking at expanding it further. I need to think about a few things and I need a nap because I only got like 5 hours of sleep last night, but I am interested in improving this beyond what the article is currently like. Clover moss  (talk) 13:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem is that we're dwelling on one outre intepretation of the dolls – one never advanced by the manufacturer – that they represent nonbinary/genderqueer subjects (and various largely negative reactions to them on this basis, from the Christian right to the queer left), when what they are is dolls, intended to be switched between girl or boy representation with a change of hair and clothes.  In this, they are more akin to Lego people which have gender-neutral heads until paired with (stereotypes of) feminine or masculine hair and dress.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:07, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There's a lot more stuff out there when there was when the product just launched, so there's more to sift through. Which is why I attempted a reception section. I think I get what you're saying. I don't want to focus too much on one particular aspect. I think part of the disconnect is that people make it complicated? Like part of the reason people are writing product reviews and criticism pieces is because they have different opinions about what this toy means. Kind of reminds me about discussions in regards to the extent authorial intent matters. But the point is to write about what the sources say, right? Or am I thinking about it in the wrong way? I don't want to accidently stray into original research so I'm trying to be careful about these things.
 * I was attempting to give it more substance than just the section about doll design, but there's probably a better way to do the reception section. Should I just stay away from sources that review/critque the dolls and just focus on newspaper articles about them? I guess part of the reason I find this confusing is because I'm comparing toys and books in my mind, where people care about reviewing them. But they're probably not ideal sources.
 * Do you think the quotes would be undue weight, then, since it's only one interpretation of the dolls? Ideally I should give equal weight to all intrepretations, right? Not just the one where people percieve them as representing transgender or nonbinary people and how different sources contextualize that.
 * I really do appreciate having a second opinion, though. A lot of the time I feel like my efforts to do things go into a void and I worry sometimes that without input on certain things I'm messing them up. I know how certain things work in theory but actually doing them is more complicated than it sounds.
 * For the most part I've just been writing out my thoughts here, but I'm going to actually try to improve the article later. I have plans for most of today, but I'll be free later on in the evening. Maybe check back in a few days if you care to see how the article's progressing? Obviously you aren't obligated to do anything. But I would appreciate anything you have to say after I attempt to improve the article further.
 * I have more hope that I can actually do something useful now that I'm not completely sleep-deprived. I was trying to use this as a distraction from something else but that didn't really end up working. Being in a better emotional state helps with thinking, too. Clover moss  (talk) 11:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thoughtful response. I don't strongly disagree with any of that, I just observe that we are not covering authorial intent at all.  There's sort of a sub rosa OR of "writing about what the sources say" but only selecting sources that are convinced these are transgender dolls when they are not (or are not marketed as such, and there is no evidence they are intended to respresent TG children). They're simply sexless child dolls.  It is important to cover the furor[e] coming from those who choose to interpret them as TG dolls, positively and negatively as their prejudices direct, but that cannot be the entire story our article provides.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Did rearranging some of the content in the doll design section to the lead help make that clearer? I'm still interested in trying to expand the article in general but I'm going to be busy for the rest of the night so I haven't been able to do much at the moment. I would argue that there was some aspect to the marketing that kind of makes all of this a bit more nuanced? Like, look at this ad from 2019 (it's official, so I don't think it counts as a copyright violation to link to it). At least some of the marketing has mentioned different pronouns like she/he/they/xem . They also tested the product with at least some children who were transgender, but that doesn't mean the dolls are meant to be transgender. It's just a doll that's a blank slate for someone to do whatever they want with. I wrote the content earlier that uses that language to describe it elsewhere in the article, what's new is mostly the attempt to include information about how people have percieved it. Maybe I'm missing something but there's a lot of people perceiving the whole you can swap hairstyles and clothes thing for this is a representation of gender expression? I wouldn't say it's nessecarily a fringe view. I'm not trying to be secretive by including it. The article didn't have anything about it before so I thought that ignoring it completely was bad idea. But I don't want to put too much emphasis on it. As I've said, it's kind of complicated. But I think I get what you're saying about how other POVs shouldn't be excluded. As in, boys can play with dolls and girls can play with trucks. It's not really a gendered thing to like different toys.  Clover moss  (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You're right, and the rearrangement helps. PS: Boys love dolls, they just like to call them "action figures", heh heh.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, action figures. Goes to show how a lot of this stuff is rather arbitrary line-drawing. At least in my experience, kids tend to be more blasé about things until adults show they care. One of my younger brothers used to love dressing up in my Cinderella dress and doing my hair when we were really young and didn't think anything of it until adult relatives freaked out and told us that stuff like that "isn't for boys".
 * Anyways, I tried to add some information about differing perceptions about boys doing feminine things and girls doing masculine things. Or at least what people perceive as such. I originally found it from a hyperlink from a potential source talking about Creatable World, so I thought it's likely useful as context? At least in regards to how the dolls could potentially be perceived by different demographics. But I'm worried about touching anything that could be construed as political. Do you think it's useful? Or too tangential, maybe? If it is kept, do you know if political affiliations should be capitalized or not? My local news doesn't usually capitilize stuff like liberal and conservative, but I've typically seen stuff like Democrat and Republican capitilized in international news about the United States.
 * If you elaborate on what exactly you think I'm right about, that would also be helpful. Is it more of a yeah that content should be in the lead thing, or that the marketing is kind of nuanced? Or something else entirely? Clover moss  (talk) 03:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable enough. Political party affiliations like Democrat and Republican are usually capitalized.  I think you were right about the marketing reaching out to trans audiences at least a little; it's material I had not seen.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thoughts on the progress of expansion so far? I think in general it's in much better shape than it was a few years ago, but if there's any glaring issues you see I'll try my best to fix them. Clover moss  (talk) 04:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oops, pinging your doppelgänger by mistake in my previous comment. Clover moss  (talk) 04:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks like an overall improvement. Thanks for working on it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Doll examples
Hi ! I uploaded two files on Commons demonstrating what exactly these dolls look like. None of my local stores have had any of the dolls since they came out, but I finally caved and bought some online. It took awhile, but they finally came today. As far as I'm aware, licensing is fine because I took the pictures myself. But if there is an issue because it's depicting intellectual property of the doll, then feel free to do whatever's nessecary to fix that. Do you think I should incoporate one or both into the article? I had a few options so I took two pictures: Clover moss  (talk) 03:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I would think the pics are fine to include in the article; cf. Stretch Armstrong and Midge (Barbie). We regularly include pictures of notable toys.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That'd make sense, but it's always a good idea to double check. I've typically uploaded photographs of stuff like bridges, so it's possible that there was something special about toys I was unaware of. Anyways, do you know if there's a way to put the pictures side by side in wikimarkup? It'd probably be useful as a comparison since it's technically the same doll w/different wig and accessories. But from a readability standpoint, I'd prefer it not look like it does right now on the talk page. Do you get what I'm trying to say? Is there a way to do that that you're aware of? Or is this way the only/better option? Or do you think I should only use one image since it's literally the same doll with a different appearance? Clover moss  (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * For side-by-side pics, you want WP:GALLERY markup. I think it's better with both pics since it's illustrative of how the dolls work with the long-hair wigs, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! This is going to sound a bit embarrassing, but I already knew about WP:GALLERY. I was operating under some weird assumption that you had to have at least three images in a gallery? But I'm not sure how I'm picked up that misconception. Thank you for showing interest in this article and motivating me to improve it. It's always great to have someone to bounce ideas off of :) Clover moss  (talk) 00:59, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * So I tried to use gallery markup, but I'm not sure I'm thinking about it in the right way. Would you mind double checking that I'm actually doing what you were suggesting? Clover moss  (talk) 01:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Added captions and moved them below the paragraph; that should probably work fine.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The captions are a good idea, thanks! I wasn't sure if there was a way to include them as part of the gallery or if the text had to go outside the box... so I just didn't do anything caption-wise. I think I'm going to copy a sentence from the lead that mentions the whole swapping clothes and hairstyle thing within the paragraph above the images, too. Again, thank you for all your input. Clover moss  (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Turns out that photographs like that actually aren't allowed on Commons per COM:TOY . I figured I'd let you know now that I know, even if it's a bit late on my end. I kind of forgot about this discussion until I saw a news article about a new Barbie launch. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Can probably be uploaded to en.WP itself and used within WP:NONFREE rules. The problem with Commons is that files hosted there have to be free for commercial as well as non-commercial use.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

So I'd have to get the dolls out of my organized closet and everything so that's likely a task for tomorrow, but I was thinking this time I should try to take only one photograph if I can manage it? I know that non-free content is meant to be as minimal as nessecary, it's just a matter of figuring out how I'd arrange accessories like the wig that comes on/off, I suppose. Anyways, I've only ever uploaded book covers before when it comes to non-free content. It's just a matter of going through the upload process, right? Or is there something special I should consider in this situation? Obviously I'm going to take a read through all the instructions before I actually do it but in my experience it's always best to ask for advice because sometimes stuff isn't always spelled out the way you'd think it'd be. Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't have anything particular to advise; I haven't done anything on here with toys before.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's okay, I think I figured out what I was going to do? Here's the local non-free file I just uploaded: File:Creatable World doll example.jpg. As I said, I've only uploaded book covers under the non-free content criteria before, so a second pair of eyes to make sure I didn't mess up on the upload process would be appreciated. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 12:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks reasonable to me, but I'm no expert on such matters.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Creatable World Doll Example 1.jpg (discussion)
 * Creatable World Doll Example 2.jpg (discussion)