Talk:List of toys

A note
Been thinking about adding a page on office or USB toys. gadgets which run off the USB port of a computer or laptop. Any thoughts Collieman 21:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Put things in the toys category instead of putting them on this page. Zephyr103 09:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Lists and categories are not duplicative. MikeHaskel (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

dolls and action figures
For dolls and action figures, there are already extensive lists on those pages. Zephyr103 09:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Revamp
Why not a sortable table? The only advantage the current list has over a category is that it's organized by type. A table can be sortable by decade and type and name, and contain images. I started working on List of toys considered most popular, but now think that improving this article would be best. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I was going to suggest something like Timeline of toys but then I noticed the List of toys considered most popular you constructed was sorted by decade already. Overall toy coverage on Wikipedia (including this list as it stands right now) is overly slanted towards specific brands rather than types of toys (each of which would include several, often numerous, brands) so that's something to keep in mind when revamping this list. This list has also historically been poorly maintained, with editors (in good faith or not) adding toys that aren't sufficiently notable to be included. If "most popular" or "most notable" are inclusion criteria they must be clearly defined so the list can be maintained. (Also the list you constructed seems like a great way to find (and hopefully later create) notable toys that don't have wikipedia articles (though I notice a lot of the redlinks in the list do have articles under other titles.)) Oh, and in case it wasn't clear, yes I support pretty much any kind of revamp. ETA: The toys listed at National Toy Hall of Fame are also likely candidates for inclusion here. Siawase (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * First, I know a lot of the redlinks have articles at my sandbox. It was just a quick thing I threw together.


 * I like Timeline of toys. It rids us of the pressure to sort out the popular vs notable matter. The article Toy has a lot of that content, but it seems sorted by type instead of time. The whole thing is quite tricky. I'm a bit stumped as to how to handle this.


 * Anyway,I really do like your Timeline of toys idea. The content can be so much more dynamic -- brands, types, prose, lists, you name it. It could really develop in an interesting way. As for this List of toys article, it just seems so close to a category, I'm not sure of it's value to visitors. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I just looked at National Toy Hall of Fame right now. Wow, that sure is similar to what Timeline of toys might start out as. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure "List of toys" is workable either. It's too broad a scope to do anything meaningful with really. Compare for example with Lists of video games and List of film lists and see how those are broken down into more manageable pieces. Actually, after looking at Timeline of video game console releases in North America and Timeline of arcade video game history maybe Timeline of toys is too broad too, Timeline of dolls, Timeline of construction toys etc would probably work much better. (We have Lego timeline under the toys project/category, but that's different since it covers only one brand.) Siawase (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Good point about List of toys. And good point about the timelines being too broad. But, could the "time" sections have subsections about dolls etc? No, wait. That doesn't quite make sense. Yes, it's a pity that a catch-all timeline would be so problematic. The whole overview thing would be lost if dolls and construction toys were split up. My visions originally was to have visitors see a section "1860s" and find nice content about all the things that were "hot" at that time. I just don't know anymore. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Maybe start from the other end? The Time source you used to build that list is great, so what other "broad strokes" toy history type sources can we find? Maybe see how they structure things and work from that? It might be possible to make a broad Timeline of toys if we have the sources to paint in broad enough strokes. (Basically, go back all the way starting out with archaeological evidence.) Siawase (talk) 11:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm, a pretty good plan. Let me give this one some thought. Others reading this are encouraged to give their views. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I posted a brief notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Toys to see if anyone else has some more ideas. Siawase (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I looked around a bit, and there doesn't seem to be a lot of "general" toy books, most are focused on a specific type or brand, and almost all deal with the 20th century. But these two books do look like decent overall toy history sources: and  Siawase (talk) 12:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * But do you have those books? Google doesn't show me pages. Also, this whole thing seems a bit daunting. Do you think others might join in? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately no, just checking if the sources to build a broad timeline are even out there, and it looks like they probably are, but if we can't get hold of them I guess we're kind of stuck for now. I think with good sources just creating a list wouldn't be too much work. Writing a full prose article would be another matter though. As for other editors, possibly? Most people working on toy articles seem to keep to specific niches though, which is probably one reason why the broader articles are largely overlooked. Siawase (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you're right. Maybe we should just hold off on the whole thing and revisit the idea after a while. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Another idea, types of toys
I had a different idea, that wouldn't require additional sources, but I think might create a more useful list. Scrap all mention of specific brands, and instead only list broader types of toys. Maybe also move the list to List of types of toys for clarity.

It's probably easiest to show what I mean by example.

Instead of this current list of brands of dolls:


 * American Girl Doll
 * Baby Alive
 * Barbie
 * Betty spaghetty
 * Bratz
 * Cabbage Patch Kids
 * Fulla (doll)
 * Get in Shape Girl
 * Monster High
 * Little People
 * My Little Pony
 * Polly Pocket
 * Raggedy Ann
 * Rainbow Brite
 * Saghira
 * Strawberry Shortcake
 * Tickle Me Elmo
 * Ty Girlz

Something like this with broader types: (very rough example lifted from Category:Dolls)


 * Action figure
 * Anatomically correct doll
 * Art doll
 * Ball-jointed doll
 * Bisque doll
 * Black doll
 * Bobblehead
 * Celebrity doll
 * China doll
 * Composition doll
 * Dollhouse
 * Fashion doll
 * Frozen Charlotte
 * Parian doll
 * Porcelain doll
 * Rag doll
 * Reborn doll

I'm pretty sure it would be possible to create similar lists for the other categories on this page. Thoughts? Siawase (talk) 12:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The category list you present would be way better. Generally, though, the whole thing seems sort of bald and too similar to the category. Maybe we could take a lesson from User:Northamerica1000's wonderful food lists. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's similar to the category because I picked an easy example where the brands are separate. A lot of categories seem to be a mix, see for example Category:Construction toys and Category:Toy cars and trucks. The food lists seem great, but I'm not sure how you mean they would translate into toys list(s)? Siawase (talk) 11:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Since it seemed like we have consensus that the "type" list of dolls was better than the brand list, I went ahead and switched them out. I added in a few traditional dolls to the list too, to hopefully make it less "bald" as you said. Siawase (talk) 10:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)