Talk:Girls' toys and games

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 May 2020 and 2 July 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rpolanco2.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2020 and 10 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jwo1125.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
New article. OttawaAC (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

A couple suggestions
Looks like a great start. I just had a couple of suggestions. I would suggest adding more book and journal sources. Right now the citations seem to be heavily weighted towards popular-media sources, which are fine, but not always accurate. For example, I'm a bit skeptical of the "hard wired" to love pink claim (especially since pink used to be a boy's color a couple hundred years ago). You might be able to find some good material in sociology books. Also it would be good to add material on girls' games and toys from other parts of the world, although this will be more difficult to research. Kaldari (talk) 05:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll be looking for something more substantial sourcewise. The History section needs expansion pretty badly. And it is way too global north at the moment, agreed. OttawaAC (talk) 21:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Scope of article
Much of this article seems to be told from the perspective of the marketer who is trying to sell toys to girls and the scope seems to be the marketing of the toys rather than the toys and games themselves. The "Beauty spas for girls" section is more a product/experience that is marketed to girls than game or toy. I propose renaming this article to Marketing of toys and games to girls or something along those lines. Gobonobo T C 20:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a nice article so far however I think it needs more 'scholarly' references and resources. Perhaps more statistics, especially in the beginning with who is actually in the toy industry ( is made up of more men or more women?). I also feel that the "Beauty Spa for Girls" section is a little bit out of place compared to the rest of the article. It doesn't really add anything new or interesting. Also it seem a bit better to point out where this shift between where girls went from liking traditional toys to preferring mass-marketed things started to occur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.206.216 (talk) 00:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Girls' games and 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111013190343/http://www.greatwolf.com:80/scooopskidspa to http://www.greatwolf.com/scooopskidspa

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

POV
Why is the neutrality of this article disputed? How could it be improved? Hyacinth (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Editing for Clarity
In the introduction of the background section, I clarified the first sentence by removing a few extra words. The aim was to make it a bit more clear for those entering that section. Just a minor edit. Lovinglearner (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Inaccurate title
The title of the article, "Children's games and toys", doesn't seem to accurately reflect the focus of the article at all. It seems to be much more focused on girls' toys/games and the marketing thereof. This diff seems to be the one where it was moved by User:Hyacinth from the previous title, "Girls' games and toys", apparently in an effort to generalize, but no effort seems to have been made to change the article to match that new title. V2Blast (talk) 00:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 8 November 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved to Girls' toys and games. (closed by page mover) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 02:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Children's games and toys → Girls' games and toys – Requested move to Girls' games and toys. This article was started in 2011 by User:OttawaAC under the name "Girls' games and toys" to specifically cover this market of the toy industry and issues related to it. It has been rated by several gender-related WikiProjects. The article was moved to its current title by User:Hyacinth in June 2017. He/she did not bother to change the content. The article title no longer reflects its contents or sources. Dimadick (talk) 00:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 02:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * move to Girls' toys and games - What a mess. Firstly, on the suggested title, ordering it "toys and games" rather than "games and toys" is a good deal more common in books as well as live internet search results. I do see value in keeping this article devoted to traditional girls' toys and games, and would also like to see a matching boys' toys and games. A merged article makes no sense in the current format, since then we're just talking about toys and games. The article should stay focused mainly on describing traditional girls toys/games history and industry.  If its going to get into more of a broad gender study as related to toys and games, that should be a separate article. -- Netoholic @  12:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * move to Girls' toys and games – ^What Netoholic said. If the subject were tweaked somewhat to talk about gendered toys in general, which is what the current title and redirect of Boy' games and toys to the page suggests (and I think would be a reasonable course of action), then I would suggest moving to Gendered games and toys. In the current state of the aticle, however, Girls' toys and games is the obvious choice. DinoD123 (talk) 08:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably should be Gendered games and toys, with equal time given to the idea of other games being "boys'".   - WPGA2345 -     ☛   05:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with WPGA2345. Should be Gendered toys and games or possibly Genderization of toys and games. Since toys don't have a gender, but the evil corporations pushing them obviously have a genderization agenda. Famous  dog   (c) 12:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That doesn't match the content of this article. What your proposing is an idea for a new article, not a justification for renaming this one. -- Netoholic @ 02:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Restore title and oppose any politicized POV title. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Which of the above suggestions do you regard as "politicized", ? Famous  dog   (c) 14:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "evil corporations pushing them obviously have a genderization agenda." unless it is irony. Otherwise it is time wasting. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Restore title (and possibly reorder to "toys and games") per above.  ONR  (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move and merge
The result of the recent AfD was no consensus, but there does seem to be some support in the AfD discussion for merging this article (and the other, much shorter one: Boys' toys and games) to a single article with the (tentative) title Toys and gender. Since I've been accused of "axe-grinding" and "hostility" XD for proposing this AfD, I will let other editors weigh in on this proposal. If there are no strong opinions on it after a few days I'll action it. Famous dog (woof)(grrr) 11:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No objections. Done. Famous dog (woof)(grrr) 08:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted this move/merge. No consensus has been shown for this. -- Netoholic @ 16:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Firstly, who says this needs consensus? The only mention of consensus here is "if the retitling is expected to be controversial..." I requested comments here a month ago and left them up for a week and nobody (not even you) responded. As I pointed out in my comment above, several editors (not me) had actually suggested pursuing this course of action in the AfD linked to above. Nobody responded or objected... Therefore this isn't remotely controversial - except with you, it seems. So almost a month later you rock up and indignantly revert changes that nobody else seems to care about. Frankly you're demonstrating some weird ownership issues here. These articles are cluttering up WP and obviously being co-opted for the purposes of selling stuff. I informed the community of the course of action I was going to take, which was based on suggestions from other editors (,, and ) I received no response, therefore this isn't controversial - except for some weird reason, with you. You don't seem to want to fix these articles yourself, but you seem to be furiously resisting their deletion, or a change of title that might make the content more meaningful.  Famous dog (woof)(grrr) 10:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If you're having to argue about consensus then you haven't got it. Myself, I think the page works well as it is and we should focus on developing its content rather than pushing it to and fro. Andrew D. (talk) 10:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So exactly how does one demonstrate consensus when faced with disinterested silence? Where were you and Netoholic when I proposed the move? I assume you had better things to do than write a simple comment to prevent the apparently outrageous merge-and-move that I was suggesting? And I note that Netoholic didn't bother asking for consensus and waiting five days for comments when he undid all my changes. Pot. Kettle. Etc. Famous dog (woof)(grrr) 08:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

So, and ... How do you propose we move forward on this? Famous dog (woof)(grrr) 11:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I myself wholeheartedly support a merge into Toys and gender. SportingFlyer  talk  11:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I also support a merge. The objections above are garbage. "it's just fine" <- No it's not. The article is a WP:POVFORK that has WP:SYNTH up the wazoo. "no consensus exists for it" <- If the only reason you're objecting is "no consensus", please see yourself out the door. That might work on PAG pages; on an article, it's simply disruptive. --Izno (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * By working on the topic as it stands. There are some clear-up tags and so the priority is to address these. Andrew D. (talk) 13:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with Andrew - using the current shortcomings of the article makes no sense with regard to any merge proposal. This topic is distinct and notable - a merge is only appropriate if that weren't the case. There is also a thread of agenda-driven, anti-gender, axe-grinding in those people wanting a merge, which has no place in the discussion. -- Netoholic @ 04:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There's been general support both above and in the AfD for a merged article, but we don't really have a large enough audience at the moment. SportingFlyer  talk  05:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see Netoholic, Andrew D or indeed anybody else "working on the topic as it stands". There's nothing here that's not better covered by other articles such as Toy (and subsection Toy) or Game or Gender. If the topic of this article is "distinct and notable" then please explain it to me, because I just see a fuzzy mess that nobody cares enough about to work with that is being hijacked by spam links and is clearly a WP:TNT candidate. Also, Netoholic, I'd appreciate you assuming good faith and not labeling people who disagree with your own self-proclaimed anti-deletionist axe-grinding agenda as "axe-grinders" and "agenda-driven". It's hypocritical in the extreme. Famous dog (woof)(grrr) 09:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * To play devil's advocate, its a bit shaky for someone to get involved with improving an article when there is someone like you advocating (and enacting) a merge. This is why its important to take the "present state" of the article out of consideration, and only look at whether this topic is alone sufficient to warrant a standalone article. The state of the article can be fixed, but no one would likely want to invest the time if you're just going turn it into a redirect. -- Netoholic @  11:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's all wait around for someone to improve this article then. I still maintain that the move/merge IS an improvement in itself. The title Toys and gender better reflects the existing content and eliminates some of the need for extensive rewrites. It still don't understand this dogmatic anti-deletion, anti-move stance you have adopted. Famous dog (woof)(grrr) 14:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)