Talk:DC Universe Classics

Matrix Quest (talk) 04:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)== Articulation ==

Can someone check and make sure the points of articulation are correct on this page? I think a number of the values may be inaccurate. JLThorpe (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, some of the points of articulation seem off. What articulation is missing from the basic figures with 21 points that the figures with 23 points possess? --Ryokuu (talk) 13:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Updated as of 11/19/10: As of this date, the articulation values for the following figure categories are current and (should be) correct:


 * Waves: 1-15; Two-Packs: All (Current); Five-Packs: All (Current); SDCC Exclusives: All (Current); Superman/Batman Public Enemies Figures: All; TRU Exclusive Singles: All (Current); TRU Exclusive DC vs. Masters of the Universe Two-Packs: All (Current)


 * Feel free to dispute any of the values if they appear to be incorrect. Ryokuu (talk) 07:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Articulation has been removed in the new and very weak charts, so I cannot confirm for you anymore, but last I checked it was accurate before. This lines articulation for regular figures was varied and could have a figure with two points in the wrist, to no articulation there or ankles that may have had rockers and not just the one point of movement that is classified as two each.  Also, a re-release may have had a smaller amount due to cost cutting.  Matrix Quest (talk) 04:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Series vs. Waves
Each grouping of action figures is noted by the series number in this article; but, wouldn't it be more accurate to change the word "series" to "wave?" The figure packages have "wave" printed on them, and MattyCollector refers to the groups as waves. --Ryokuu (talk) 03:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Good idea. I'll do just that. JLThorpe (talk) 12:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

DC Universe 15 has already hit a number of websites, but there are still no confirmed figures/pictures of the line up. Anyone know why this is? Mattell isnt answering anything

~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.250.2.10 (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

comicfigs.net
comicfigs.net seems to be confirming a Bane Series and an Arkillo Series. Would this be a reliable source?

http://comicfigs.net/Line/DCUC/DCUC16.htm http://comicfigs.net/Line/DCUC/GLC01.htm 75.180.62.2 (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Though that lineup has been heavily rumored, it would probably be best to wait until Mattel confirms (or denies) that list before adding it to the actual article. Ryokuu (talk) 12:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Figure Name Issues
Obsidian's and Tomar-Re/Tu's names seem to be switching every so often; based on Mattel's information, Obsidian will be packaged as "Todd Rice"; Obsidian's packaged image (originally posted on Mattel's facebook page) confirms "Todd Rice" as the name of the actual product. However, "Shazam!" and Mary Batson have been listed as their actual superhero titles within this article, so Obsidian should probably be listed this way (as "Obsidian") to remain consistent. Though the costume details are inaccurate, Mattel has noted Tomar-Re's inclusion in the upcoming five-pack, but changing it back and forth until a carded photo is shown is pointless, in my opinion. Ryokuu (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Removal of release info
Since there is an issue with including detailed release information on this page, would it be acceptable to move it to a separate page (such as List of DC Universe Classics Releases)? JLThorpe (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, not until the notability of such information is established by reliable third-party sources. Wikipedia is not a release guide. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I am a new user here and have not yet set up an account, but I feel strongly that I need to comment on this series of deletes and undos. WesleyDodds, I'm not clear on why you have made it your personal mission to remove (repeatedly) information that many people clearly find useful. I agree with you completely that personal commentaries and opinions do not have a place here. However, I am not clear on why a history of the line should not be included. You indicate that "Wikipedia is not a release guide." This may be true, but Wikipedia does track history, events, evolution and change, and quite simply, provides helpful information. The release information is a history of this toy series and this Wikipedia page is tracking that history for current and future users and collectors. Whether you personally agree or not, the release information is helpful information to collectors and I don't understand why you believe you are the sole decision maker who gets to determine that this information should be included here. Clearly, there is a community of people that supports including this information and part of what Wikipedia is all about is community support and validation of information.

If you are concerned about the reliability or validity of the release information, I must ask why? Why do you care if the information is correct, reliable, or valid? What impact is it to you personally if someone posts false or inaccurate information about a wave of figures? I'm not suggesting that people should post false or inaccurate information, but I don't understand why you care or how it impacts you. Additionally, if someone does post false or inaccurate information, there is a community of collectors that will come in and correct that misinformation. Again, that is one part of what Wikipedia is about.

Last, if it troubles you so greatly to view this page with release information on it, there is a really, really easy way to avoid seeing this information...don't...visit...this...page.198.203.175.175 (talk) 18:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)Thomas
 * The assumption that I am taking this personally is false, and ignores the Wikipedia guidelines I have cited. See WP:USEFUL, WP:Verifiability, and WP:NPOV. Furthermore, I have left the history of the line--what was taken out was mainly the overly-detailed wave assortments. There are fansites for that sort of thing (which remain in the external links section). For an example of what a well-researched, comprehensive Wikipedia article should look like, see In Utero (album), or any page at Featured articles. Also, saying "Last, if it troubles you so greatly to view this page with release information on it, there is a really, really easy way to avoid seeing this information...don't...visit...this...page." really misses the point. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand the Wikipedia guidelines, but I also know the valuable resource the wave assortments on this site have been to many in the collecting community, and I think it's a real shame that you have taken it upon yourself to monitor the content of this particular page. And, the fact that you return day after day to edit the content back to the way you believe it should be indicates that this is clearly personal for you. You are helping no one but yourself. Enjoy your page, WesleyDodds. 75.72.238.98 (talk) 03:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)Thomas
 * Wikipedia articles aren't intended for the "collecting community"--they are meant for the general reader, the sort who need to to be told exactly what this line of action figures is and what's relevant about it above all the fancruft. It's not meant as a database for people to keep track of their collections. If you want to improve the page, you can research and cite reliable sources in the article. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * What is your connection to this content? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.238.98 (talk) 07:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the question. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

We just want to know why you seem hellbent on limiting the information on this page, while the JLU page goes on and on. Why not go over there and weave your editing magic as well? when people want information quick they come here, and your heavy-handed editing has made this page all but worthless, please leave it alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Earth-2 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Worthless" to whom? I cut out tons of unsourced, biased, and speculative material. That actually make the page more useful as an encyclopedic article. A lot of people here seem to be unclear on what is actually appropriate for a Wikipedia page. This article needs to cover the line in an objective fashion that establishes what the subject is and why it is notable, instead of providing a biased, unsourced history followed by an overly-detailed list of products only of interest to collectors. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Consensus on removal/readdition of release info
I think there needs to be a consensus on the constant deletion and readdition of the release info for this page. While I think WesleyDodds may be right about not using Wikipedia as a release guide, there can't be continuous back and forth of him deleting the info and other editors readding it. There should be a discussion on this page between the two sides before this continues. If WesleyDodds is right, then the other editors should be willing to accept his changes and not undo them. Likewise, if the release info is acceptable for Wikipedia, WesleyDodds should be willing to accept it and not remove the info again.JLThorpe (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Other than removing all the release info for the sake of being a complete and total dick, is there a POINT doing that? What, are we running out of space on the internet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.160.178.29 (talk) 08:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

There's tons of unsourced information and frankly biased prose in the article, which has no place in a Wikipedia article per our guidelines. There's no reason for that to be reinstated. The editors who revert these changes are all new users and anonymous IPs who have only edited this page, and it's logical to reason that that don't know about how Verifiability and Neutral point of view work. In fact, there's nothing to even establish notability here. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Please put the release info back and quit deleting it. The point of Wikipedia is that the users decide what is and important and you are cleared out-numbered. Continued activity will get a request to have you banned from the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstepp (talk • contribs) 18:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You cannot reinsert material that violates Wikipedia policies, not matter how many people agree with you. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I've just undeleted the deletions. Seriously, Wikipedia exists primarily as a destination reference for ALL aspects of pop culture. Need to see an episode list of Two and Half Men? It's here. Plot summaries of Dickens novels? Here. Explanations of symbolism of Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon. Here. So, WesleyDodds wants to draw the line with information about TOYS? Quite a nebulous line there. Leave it. Clearly, people look for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.31.54.136 (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd love to know how this is "unsourced" when a simple google search brings up tons of sources for who was released in what wave. Amazon isn't a reliable source? And simply being an "anonymous IP editor" doesn't make someone an idiot any more than being a regular wikipedia editor makes someone a 35 year old 500 pound acne ridden WoW playing virgin living in their parents basement. Generalize much?24.160.178.29 (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Amazon is not a reliable source. Additionally, sources must be cited in the article itself. See Citing sources for details. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I went in and rewrote parts of the article to make it more neutral in tone and remove some of the unverified statements. I also added some references from a third-party source (a toy news website). I hope to add some more references later if I can find them. JLThorpe (talk) 18:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a good start. Make sure when you include references from websites you format them like this:




 * You can copy that example and cut and paste the relevant information. Also, make sure that the text being cited accurately reflects the reference. For example, the reference attached to the sentence "The issue came to a head with the Wal-Mart exclusive fifth wave, which was not available at all Wal-Mart stores, but was eventually re-released and sold online at Mattel's website" does entirely support that sentence; all it says is that it was "instant success and subsequently pretty hard to find" and notes that it was offered again on the website. Another note: avoid citing press releases, and articles that merely reprint press releases, such as in the example I described, for they are not objective, independent sources. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Note on bold text
The only text in the prose that should be bolded is the subject of the article at the top of the page, per WP:MOSBOLD. Terms like "Collect and Connect" and individual figures should not be bolded. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

WesleyDodds, Are you a Wikipedia employee? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.238.98 (talk) 04:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No. How is that relevant? WesleyDodds (talk) 09:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed split
I didn't propose splitting the history of the toyline and the list of released figures, but I oppose it mostly because the current article falls inline with other articles on toylines such as Marvel Legends, Marvel Universe (toyline), and Classic Marvel Figurine Collection. Some of the tables could use some work, however. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

This was a very good article I used often, but now the information is missing that was there. Bring back the layout of the figures and versions that was there before with variants each having their own rows. They can have varying accessories. Also, add back the accessories listings.

I own a majority of this collection so if you need something collaborated, I could do that. Matrix Quest (talk) 04:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Blackest Night line?
Why isn't the Arkillo series listed here? From the Blackest Night line? PokeHomsar (talk) 18:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)