Talk:Shocker Toys/Archive 1

Hang on
There is a hangon tag placed here stop deleting it!! This is not advertising but an attempt to get an article going about a notable company for another article nominated for a redirect here.--JMST (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

What this article needs
If this article is to survive, it needs the following:

1) Reliable 3rd party sources about the notability of it's existence.

2) Reliable 3rd party sources that any of those toys have actually ever been released.

If neither of those can be provided, this article will be swiftly deleted. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As to item 2) above -- the only real requirement is that the article clearly state that the products are TO BE RELEASED, and some reliable, 3rd party sources relating to the upcoming products (pre-release reviews, etc). Failing that, information about unreleased products should be removed, but information about the company itself can probably stay.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure but currently the article talks about product lines and releases - if something hasn't been released, we shouldn't talk about like it has been. We need to clear about what's a) proposed and what's actually out there. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have added products and refrences also the Indie Spotlight line another article which I think should get redirected here can be spoke of in a Indie Spotlight section which has had 2 varied products released based on the upcoming line. So it is released in some ways but upcoming in others? i don't know how to word that here to follow the rules.--JMST (talk) 16:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Editing questions
I will try and find better refrences for the rest but are we allowed to show Amazon links or stores or ebay to prove products exsist?--JMST (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Proof that the products exist is a fairly minor concern, but yes, I would think that links to third parties selling the products would be acceptable. The problem your article had (and one you seem to have addressed) is notability -- i.e. anyone other than yourself caring about it.  The links you have added to third party product reviews go a long way to addressing that concern.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds great I will try and find more product reviews. I do own a few myself but dont want to seem bias. I am glad my few changes have helped the article. I hope others will contribute as well as time goes on.--JMST (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * An ebay link is proof that someone has an ebay account. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I figured that but didn't know, I will steer clear of Ebay litings then.--JMST (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Product reviews from reliable sources establish notability. Consumer product reviews establish nothing. Mayalld (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * When a huge toy collecting site does a review of a product that is reliable again look at the definition of reliable sources on Wiki. On of the other reviews was actually unfavorable to the company but it shows the products existed!--JMST (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You really aren't understanding here. The sites don't do the reviews. They allow just about anybody to post reviews on their site. It would be trivially easy to get a review of a non-existent product onto these sites. Mayalld (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing
The article seems to have loads of sources, but the truth is that this is a case of quantity over quality.

Inserting a dozen sources that don't meet WP:RS in the hope that the number of sources will mean that nobody will bother to check them is not the makings of a worthwhile article. Mayalld (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, my fixing the links shouldn't be taken as me saying that I thought they were any good, just that in their old form, it was difficult for people assessing the quality of the article to tell *what* they were. I think they are all pretty week - filler and puff. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have deleted a whole raft of blogs, reviews that clearly have no editorial oversight, promotional material from the company itself, and most bizare of all, a link to a picture of a half naked woman in front of a banner with the company website on it.


 * That leaves us with just two references. One from Washington Post which seems to be OK, and another review that is very dubious. There just isn't enough to support an article, and this just looks like petulance from the author in response to the AfD on his pet article. Mayalld (talk) 21:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You are not being fair at all. A review of a product shows it exsists! Wow pet article ok if that is what you think. Everything here was reliable sources I think you need to check the wiki definition of that sans the half naked woman which I didn't know about. You are just acting out because this came about due to the Indie Spotlight article and your opinion of this company not being notable is not shared by everyone. I think before one person thinks they can swoop in change the article (which is what caused trouble on the Indie Spotlight article) it needs to be discussed in the talk page first.And Mayalld didn't you say this page needed to be created to have Indie Spotlight redirected? So I took a shot and created it I am not perfect but I think it is a nice stub that can be expanded. And what gives Neca or any other toy companies the right to be on Wiki and not this company they have released products since 2003 from what I see.--JMST (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You think that changes should be discussed here? No. If an article contains clearly unreliable sources, it is open to any editor to remove them.
 * A consumer review of a product on a website proves that somebody wrote a review. It doesn't prove that the product exists, and it sure as hell doesn't prove that it meets WP:N
 * Notability isn't about my opinion or yours. Notability is an objective measure based on being written about by reliable sources. It matters not one jot if you can produce a hundred people who say "notable". You must produce reliable sources that attest to notability, and littering the article with junk sources to bulk it out is just wasting everybody's time. Mayalld (talk) 21:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, yes, it is impossible to redirect your pet article here unless the page exists, but there is very little chance that AfD will conclude that the article should be turned into a redirect anyway.Mayalld (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * My view on this is as follows - if this article goes to AFD, it will die, I have no doubt about that. I am going to propose the following - that we give JMST and whoever else a few days to come with some decent references.. and then it heads off to AFD if they don't appear. How does that sound? and if anyone would care to look at my recent history at AFD, I'm not an inclusionist by any stretch. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * My view is that having already introduced one very poor article, introducing a second article with abysmal sources just to keep the company name on Wikipedia is getting VERY close to spam, and to disruptive editing. I would agree that JMST should get on with finding some reliable sources, pronto. If it doesn't have reliable sources by Monday, or if it gets another rash of junk sources, I'll be proposing it at AfD immediately. Mayalld (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

But you don't walk in and start deleting the non-proper cited material. The material needs a better reliable source so you take out the non-reliable source and add citation needed so a better one can be found by other editors. This is a community web based site where all can contribute. One person coming in and saying this is all crap and removing it is not everyone working together??--JMST (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry that's just wrong, if a source is non-reliable, then it's removed, we don't wait for a better source to appear. I will, however, recheck all of the removed references and see if I think Mayalld has acted in haste (and a quick glance suggests that's not the case). --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Having deleted all the junk sources, we were left with a whole section that was now unsourced, so it had to go. It would have been better if JMST had assembled all his sources BEFORE creating the article. Mayalld (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The shocker toys forum is worth a look (not a source just as context), it just seems to consist of people saying "is this out yet?" "I thought this was going to be released six months ago?" --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes but their forum is a direct result of their posts. Plus it sites a huge list of products they have released so that would have to count as well as context.--JMST (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Dosen't matter now the Vandal from Indie Spotlight article is here now [User:ShockerHelp] and I aint fighting with him this is what caused all this crap in the 1st place. So yay more power to the trolls!--JMST (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You need to take a look at WP:CIV. ShockerHelp (talk) 01:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You need to stop vandalizing articles and learn how to use Wiki properly instead of just teariong an article apart you are supposed to say why and maybe conribute something.--JMST (talk) 14:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

History and references
I've extended the history section, and added references as I went along. One is a primary source, but I think three (The Record, Washington Post and Playthings 2007) are reliable and (hopefully, if others agree) enough to meet WP:Note. I'm not sure of the status of the Comic Book Bin article - it is an interview, so I treated it as a primary source, but I'm unsure of the reliability of the Comic Book Bin. They're included here because it seemed ok, they were listed in Google News, and the one use seemed non-controversial. Anyway, there would appear to be other reviews/articles in print (going by the Comic Book Bin interview), so hopefully they'll be able to be tracked down. - Bilby (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * New layout looks good and looks like it can be worked with. I will try and hunt down more sources citing the company itself then we can work on products. But I think that any serious changes to the layout we have reached should be discussed here before removing.--JMST (talk) 20:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This appears to be the Playthings 2007 article, "Next Stop: Toy Fair", online  It does not appear to be a reliable source, just a collection of company press releases. ShockerHelp (talk) 22:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to the Record article, "Christmas Comes Early for Young Ridgewood, N.J.–Based Toy Company" . Article fills in some history, but is mostly about future plans and product which would prove to be vaporware.  Shows a company that maybe could have been a contender back in July 2002 when it was written, but ultimately hasn't really done much. ShockerHelp (talk) 22:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As to the Washington Times article, it is inconsequential and apparently poorly researched. It gets basic facts wrong, stating that Lance Buttiglieri joined the company in 2000, contradicting the info on Shocker Toys' own webpage, which says he joined in 2004.  This suggests that the article was just a light entertainment piece.  The writer also doesn't seem entirely convinced that Shocker Toys will actually produce any product in this line, "Now, if Mr. Beckett's product actually makes it to shelves this summer, he really can celebrate."  The product did not come out this past summer. ShockerHelp (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The "Next Stop: Toy Fair" article is a report, written by several people, of the products displayed by various companies at the Toy Fair. It is extensive, and Shocker Toys gets a nice, non-trivial entry. There is nothing there to suggest that it is reprint of a press release, and the presence of the list of authors would certainly suggest otherwise. The Record article, as you say, fills in the history, is reliable and is entirely about the company, so whether or not everything discussed in it came to fruition, it counts as a reliable source that speaks to notability. And the Washington Times article does make mistakes, so we need to be careful what we reference to it, but it talks about the company, problems with Marvel Toys, and again counts as an RS. My impression from researching them is that they are a small company that have managed to gain enough press coverage to meet WP:Note. Just, perhaps, and arguably not always for the right reasons, but enough.
 * As an aside, thanks for spotting some errors in my referencing - one was clearly wrong, and I agree that the wording of the other was less than ideal. That should be fixed now. - Bilby (talk) 23:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree with your appraisal of the 3 citations in question for the reasons I originally stated. I just don't buy attributing notability to a company for merely getting interviewed about future plans, while seldom delivering on any of the promises.  The company seems capable of generating a modicum of press, but not much in the way of actual product.
 * Also, I feel your rewording is more problematic than the original, attributing a conclusion to the article through selective quoting that clearly wasn't intended. As shown by the line I quoted above, the author appears skeptical of the company producing anything. As it turns out, rightfully so. ShockerHelp (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * [User:ShockerHelp] Please stop deleting my signature when you edit something I have done or reply to something I have said. The signbot has left me a message on my user page that I don't use my signature and I always do but when I come back to see talk page it says I didn't.--JMST (talk) 23:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are talking about. Please direct me to the edits you are referring to. ShockerHelp (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you may be confusing WP:Note with notability in a wider context. WP:Note (and there was a debate on this issue not long ago) is primarily concerned with inclusion guidelines, and refers back to the verifiability policy. The question is not really one of worthiness, but suitability, and there it is focused on the presence of sufficient reliable sources to write an encyclopedic article. In this case I'm willing to accept that they seldom deliver on products (I stayed away from forums and other sources when researching them, which is where I assume this was discussed), but the concern isn't whether or not they are a good company. Just whether or not they've had sufficient third party coverage. As to the the Washington Post article, I was hoping the wording was better, but if not I'm certainly happy if we keep working on it. :) My reading was that the author was describing how a little company came up against a big one, and the comment about whether or not they released it was more of an aside. But if there is a way to write that in I'm certainly happy with that. - Bilby (talk) 00:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I certainly may be confusing the two to an extent. I'll step back from that discussion.  ShockerHelp (talk) 01:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Tooling pictures on their forum of the Indie Spotlight parts on sprues the line set to hit market in December--JMST (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment So from what I see there is around 8 paper trade sources mentioned. I think they have been in much more from what I saw on their archives topic the magazines mentioned were, ToyFare, Lee's toy review, Tomart's action figure digest, Bergen Record, Playthings, Stuff, Licensing Mag, Toy Fair Times, Toybook, Animation Magazine, Creative Child and Rue Mourge I am sure there are others. They didn't show any scans or issue details though so how do we find out? Do magazines keep a online database for their paper tradebacks? Can we goto the company themselves for info?--JMST (talk) 14:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Removing of links from article after Keep

 * ShockerHelp Please post here to come to a concensus before deleting links! Also you made the ref section all messed up with duplicate links.--JMST (talk) 22:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Also ShockerHelp if you can lump your large amount of small changes into a few changes it will be easier to look everything over.--JMST (talk) 01:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not delete any links. I added online links to the articles already referenced so that people without the printed versions could see them.  I was in the process of fixing all the duplicate links already in the article when you reverted all of my edits.  Perhaps if you excercise a bit more patience and understanding, you would see that I have actually done as much as anyone to make this a stronger article, one that could survive a AfD nomination, unlike how it has fared every other time in the past.  You're welcome for that. ShockerHelp (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But you keep tearing the article apart with 30 edits at a time without discussing on the talk page.--JMST (talk) 03:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Why is ShockerHelp removing full refrence link info? Isn't that how the refrences are formatted so we can see what there from. He is once again vandalizing the article.--JMST (talk) 12:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * All I see here is formatting to remove duplicate references - what in particular is the problem - please provide specific examples of where he has removed sourced comments? --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment removed (2,500)pcs from Dethklok sets, why?  These are poseable action figures I have a set why was (action) removed?  How does ShokerHelp know that the Shockinis product are no longer in production, was there a PR stating the line has ended?  Removal of link and direct quote from reference explained what the company was working on at the time.  Multiple duplicate changed links with wiki error.  Removal of Reference info causing wiki error. Bottom line why can't ShockerHelp discuss changes instead of raiding the article with the highest changes out of all editors working on the article? That way we can all work together. I have posted suggestions here first to discuss them before making serious edits.--JMST (talk) 16:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * From Wikipedia Contact us/Warning messages:
 * "What not to do


 * Please, no online drama. However infuriating the actions or reactions of other users might be, the situation can only be made worse if tempers are allowed to flare. Please do not start accusing other users of wrongdoings, at least unless you have a clear-headed understanding of the situation. Keep in mind that all messages that you post on Wikipedia, including in discussion pages, are indexed by search engines such as Google. You do not want to write things that you would not be comfortable for all the world to see." ShockerHelp (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I was asked to provide examples which I did. As I said before instead of doing multiple edits a day you should really try to discuss here in the talk page how to better the article.--JMST (talk) 21:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Whenever anyone makes any edit, this note is presented:
 * If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it.
 * If you feel my editing is inappropriate, please use the proper channels to address it. You've brought complaints against me before (though, I'm guessing, not resulting in your desired effect), so I'm sure you remember how. ShockerHelp (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Why would you edit a page mercilessly? Why would you redistribute it for profit? Also this is not all my writing but a concensus of writing using the talk page here. I am going to leave this article alone and move on for now because no matter what I or Bilby add User:ShockerHelp decides it is not good enough. ShockerHelp has made it clear he/she is in charge of this article and there are strict rules to follow and the talk page does not come into play except to justify every change instead of suggesting changes. --JMST (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The goal of editing a page should be to make it correct and useful, not to show mercy to either the subject of the article nor to other contributors. And Wikipedia pages are all redistributed for profit; there are numerous commercial websites that take the information from here and represent it in their own commercial context, so that if you were to go to an ad=supported site like answers.com and type in "Shocker Toys", you would see the information from this Wikipedia entry there. That is why that warning is given. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Sock Puppets

 * Its seems there is a few sock puppets here to sway the deletion or skew this article. [User:194.221.133.226] has been identified as a shared account and a sock puppet. This person was also identified as being banned from the Shocker Toys whole website according to an admin at their forums.--JMST (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Ratings
How do we rate according to the inserts at top of this discussion?--JMST (talk) 22:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Generally, I avoid rating articles I've been working on, as I'm not sufficiently neutral. Eventually someone will come by and take care of it. It's more than a stub now, so it should be a "start", but some WikiProjects have gone with "C Class" now, which it might qualify for. But that's something for someone else to decide. :) - Bilby (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I guess we can wait. I saw the warnings at the top and thought it was a time sensitive thing.--JMST (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Licenses
I'd like to see a license spot here which if refrences back they have the licenses why can't they be listed. NECA has a section like that in their wiki article. I will post licenses they claim to have and refrences that I find to back it up here.--JMST (talk) 22:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Who wants to be a Superhero?
 * GWAR
 * Metalocalypse / Dethklok —Preceding unsigned comment added by JMST (talk • contribs) 23:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * From what I understand they don't have the license for GWAR anymore, and I don't know about WWTBASH, but since that show has been off the air for almost 2 years I have to think it's either expired or close to expiring with no announcement from Shocker Toys. I would be interested in having a section dedicated to the licenses of Shocker Toys as well, but only if it detailed what licenses they grabbed up and never created toys for. I believe "collecting licenses like Pokemon cards" was the term used by another toy manufacturer.98.215.236.211 (talk) 03:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest?
JMST, are you the same person posting company announcements on the official Shocker Toys forum as jmst? 24.234.68.105 (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Take it to WP:COI/N if you think you want to make an issue of it. This page is for discussing improvements to the article. The personal back and forth is getting old on both sides here. --Onorem♠Dil 22:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. I'm new here. I'll do that thing you said if I can figure it out.24.234.68.105 (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not want to go back and forth with anyone. I don't understand why my articles and me personally keep getting attacked by non-user IP's and others. I just want to conribute to Wiki in all toys articles since I am a big collector myself and have a bit of knowledge. I think user 24.234.68.105 (you need a name lol) can do good things on Wiki if you are a collector as well. Talk about what you think needs fixing or changed in the discussions page and I will work with you. We are all here to work together =) --JMST (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Use of the Washington Post article
ShockerHelp has been disputing part of the following statement:

"Shocker Toys also started work on their Indie Spotlight series – six inch high action figures based on characters from independent comic series. Development of the Indie Spotlight series encountered some hurdles, though, when Marvel Toys announced their own plans to produce toys based on independent comics. The result was a 'war of e-mails and emotional releases', which eventually concluded with Shocker Toys' as 'the last man standing'."

The line in question is:

"The result was a 'war of e-mails and emotional releases', which eventually concluded with Shocker Toys' as 'the last man standing'."

The line quotes from the Washington Post article Shocker standing tall after action-figure flap. The source is:

Mr. Beckett's beef with Marvel Toys came when his plans to produce independent-comics action figures appeared to be absorbed partly into his competitor's plans. A war of e-mails and emotional releases became a murky swamp of licensed-agreement reality versus "he said" hearsay at best.

However, Mr. Beckett is proud to be the last man standing ...

While I'm guessing, I suspect that the source of the problem is undue weight. Rather than reverting or letting it sit, I'm hoping some consensus can be found here. My reading is that the article is about this topic (hence the title of the article), so a two line description is fair, but as this is the only RS that has been used for the dispute it may be that either myself or the Washington Post is giving it undue weight. To be honest, it is only one line, so edit warring seems overkill to me, thus advice just to clarify things in either direction would be appreciated. - Bilby (talk) 07:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well Shocker Toys 1st Line up for their comic book toyline was taken from them which the article relates to along with other licenses taken. There is numerous dated proof of the announcment of Indie Spotlight in which they announced their 1st wave of Indie Spotlight as Witchblade, Judge Dredd and Madman then awhile later Marvel toys announced their LCBH 1st wave which was the same characters. It is no doubt that the line was taken from them, concept and licenses. Should they have moved faster? I don't know if that is a dicussion for Wiki. But the fact remains they announced their toyline first and got sideswiped by Marvel Toys who at the time strangely lost the Marvel license and had nothing left to produce. May I also make aware that the toy line has been shown as factory made testshots which means that the Indie Spotlight do seem to be real.--JMST (talk) 15:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Sections?
Should there be seperate sections if there is enough references to back up each section to warrent them? --JMST (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Suggested sections:
 * History
 * Products (inventors of an original toyline not just a licensed sculpt as well) see below maybe we can work into the article as a section to show they have released products.
 * Licenses
 * Controversy (they seem to have alot)
 * References (There is many but not all fall under wiki's guidelines)

AFD
The link at TOP for the AFD closing points to the 2007 AFD for Shocker Toys not the current. The current 2nd nomination AFD was a KEEP --JMST (talk) 21:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Fixed. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 03:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you.--JMST (talk) 03:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Released Products
Shockinis - I have found over 10 versions of Shockinis that were produced and are still selling. (Male, Female, 4 Arm, 4 Leg, Mutant Heads, Skeleton, Kade, Toxic Avenger, Apex, Neutrex and Xenix.
 * Ruby Red shockinis - A SDCC 2004 Exclusive Shockini figure 500 pcs
 * Toxic Avenger shockinis - A SDCC 2005 Exclusive licensed shockini figure 500 pcs
 * Glow in the dark shockinis (maybe white too)- A New York Toy Fair exclusive shockini figure 500pcs
 * Skeleton shockinis - A Wizard World (date unkown) exclusive 1,000pcs

—Preceding unsigned comment added by JMST (talk • contribs) 03:59, 14 November 2008

Others -
 * GWAR Beefcake - A SDCC 2006 exclusive resin figure
 * Dethklok - A SDCC 2007 exclusive statue set of Nathan and Murderface, 500 pieces each
 * Mini Maxx - A SDCC 2008 exclusive mini vinyl action figure, 500 pieces
 * It's a stretch to call this an "action" figure. Simply calling it a vinyl figure provides a better description.  Many, if not most, vinyl figures have similarly articulated arms.  ShockerHelp (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Scud Statue - A NYCC 2008 exclusive, 500 pieces
 * Dethklok - A SDCC 2008 exclusive set of 5 vinyl figures, 500 sets (2500 pieces)
 * Including "2500 pieces" feels like number inflating to me. They were sold as sets, not individually.  ShockerHelp (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Gwar line cancellation
I can't find where I read that the line has been canceled. It may have been a post on the Shocker Forum. (I can't check because any time I create an account there, it is deleted after a few days, I suppose because I don't bother to post anything. Don't feel like going through the hassle again.)  I can't find a listing anywhere on their website for any Gwar product, past or future, if that counts for anything. Can anyone find a link? ShockerHelp (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * They created a GWAR Beefcake statue and it sold out and GWAR produced and is still selling a GWAR shockini t-shirt. So products did release just not the original planned action figure line. There was a mention however of GWAR coming in a vinyl 5" designer figure. --JMST (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the statue is mentioned already, but I don't think that the t-shirt should be included because, as you noted, it isn't a Shocker Toys product. Any link for the vinyl line? ShockerHelp (talk) 23:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have searched extensively and have found no comments from either side on this matter, except for one caustic comment from GWAR's lead singer. Actually the only thing I have found is an unconfirmed report that Shocker Toys is producing the vinyl line without GWAR's approval or license. Does anyone know the release date for these new figures? And most importantly I am very curious to hear how Shocker Toys explains an apparent FTC violation; they kept payment for the GWAR figure pre-orders and offered the customers Dethklok figures, or the option of waiting for the vinyl line. The FTC regulations are quite clear, "If you authorized a charge to your credit card account, the merchant must credit the account within one billing cycle - not give credit toward another purchase. If you pay by cash, check or money order, the merchant must mail you a refund within seven working days." Here  Shocker Toys states that their license expires in or around Feb. 2009, and here  Shocker Toys admits to offering credit towards a new purchase in lieu of a refund. It seems me to be a violation of FTC regulations. Does anyone else have more information on any of this?--Pariah74 (talk) 17:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

How about adding Gwar's reaction to the line being canceled? Oderus: You can expect more lies about these toys coming out then never actually coming out, because much like DRT, Shocker Toys have turned out to be a complete fucking bust! The source can be found here.  --Pariah74 (talk) 06:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

On "yet to be released" product
Bilby, I feel labeling product as "yet to be released" is entering crystal ball territory. Simply stating it has not been released is more objective. If/when the product comes out, it can be changed of course. Much of the product has "yet to be released" for several years now, so it seems somewhat misleading to me. "Yet to be released" conveys a just around the corner connotation that seems very speculative given how often release dates have slipped with all the product in question, and how often other announced product was simply never released. ShockerHelp (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I know what you mean, and I debated the "yet" myself, but I think either wording is problematic. "Was not released" has a finality about it, suggesting that it has been determined that it will never reach the market, in the same way that "not yet released" suggests that it will. However, at the moment they still list Feedback as "coming soon", so the suggestion that they're still planning to release it seems slightly more accurate than the alternative, unless there's something to show otherwise. This doesn't hold for most of their products, though - just those which are still listed as coming. (Mind you, I expect things to become clearer if the Indie Spotlight series comes out, as I would have thought they'd take the opportunity to clarify the status of other products). - Bilby (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me, so I'm good with keeping the "yet to be released" label. I guess we should wait until after December to address it again. ShockerHelp (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * How about we add the already released products in released products section above to the article? Instead of wondering what is crystal or not it would be good to list what has come out already.--JMST (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

On missing another release date and internet feuds
In this thread on the Comic Book Resources forum [], Geoff Beckett mentions that the Indie Spotlight figures will not be available to buy in December. How should yet another missed announced release date be handled? It seems that the company's announcements are almost inherently unreliable at this point. Also, should an online altercation with a well known comic book writer, as occurs in that thread, be covered in this Wiki article? Legal threats are made by Beckett, though they are summarily dismissed by the threatened party as being completely frivolous, and Beckett apparently apologizes soon after for his behavior. I ask because others have argued that mention of a "feud" with Marvel Toys, which seems to have been along the same lines, was worthy of inclusion. I argued against, but perhaps I was wrong. There seems to be a definite pattern and history of Beckett stating he has legal claims against people with out bringing any sort of actual legal action. Thoughts? ShockerHelp (talk) 08:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * We're limited to reliable sources, so his comment on a forum can't be used - especially as they will verge on WP:BLP issues. This is especially the case given that the posts are under a pseudonom. However, I think it is ok to use the [store], which now lists "shipping to US in December" for the changing dates, so I'm happy to update it accordingly. - Bilby (talk) 09:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going to change the word "clarified" in your update to "changed." "Shipping in December", as it was written, has a very straightforward meaning.  The intent was clearly to announce that these would be on the shelf available to purchase in December.  The change to "shipping to the US in December" is just that; a clear change, not just a clarification.
 * I'm also wondering as to the reliability of anything that comes directly from Shocker Toys at this point. The information coming from them about release dates in particular has proven over time to be wrong way more often than not.  Is there precedence for dealing with a company that puts out information that is simply not true? Should things that are reported as going to happen just be stricken completely until they actually materialize?  ShockerHelp (talk) 09:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with that change if you want to keep it, but I used "clarified" because the press release only says "shipping December", and could be interpreted to be in line with "shipping to the US in December" - the second statement isn't disproved by the first. That aside, we can trust their site when it comes to some claims. We can't say "will ship", (especially in this case), but we can say "is intended to ship", as the site shows their presumed intent. Anyway, give it a bit longer, and we'll see if it needs to be changed again. Their history suggests they will be, but the product shots look more promising. - Bilby (talk) 10:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The product shots do look much more professional. But, at this point, to be out by the end of the year, I'd expect some finished product in packaging pics.  But, yeah, no need to hurry.  ShockerHelp (talk) 10:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * CommentJust saw the fued and wow it is amazing that ShockerHelp found that. I think he is very much COI and that is why I do not edit here anymore. The fact that he has this sudden internet fued which I could not find by searching the net shows he is one of the people from the thread against the Shocker company. Until this is realized this article can never be trusted with ShockerHelp's edits. Also this link that he placed above is being placed all over the internet by a person named Domu to make Shocker Toys look bad and it seems Wiki is another place for the link to be so people can judge without all the info.--JMST (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * While I don't get the impression that ShockerHelp likes Shocker Toys, I wouldn't go so far as to say that there's a COI, and I think ShockerHelp is doing a good job helping to keep this article neutral. SH has questioned wording and the validity of sources, but I've agreed much of the time, and SH has always listened fairly when I've disagreed. I think the result is a fair article - at the moment perhaps a bit too much emphasis on what hasn't been released, but I think it will make sense to put some details about Shockinis, as their main line, and that will help balance things more. Plus there should be a nice section on Indie Spotlight when it comes out.


 * On the COI issue, as mentioned elsewhere, for it to apply ShockerHelp would either need to be an employee of Shocker Toys (which seems very unlikely), or work for a rival manufacturer. (I suppose ex-employee of either would count, too). But given that Shocker Toys seems to polarise a lot of people, this feels like an overly complex explaination, and there is no evidence to support it. :) Either way, the information was, as you said, placed all over the internet, and was placed on some major forums. Perhaps SH reads or posts to them, but that still doesn't make for a CIO. - Bilby (talk) 08:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for addressing that for me, Bilby. It is getting tiresome...
 * About the emphasis on product not released, should references to such announced but never released product just be removed entirely? Maybe restrict the article to only product that has been released, not just announced at some point in the past?  The cataloguing of missed release dates and unreleased products does come across as negative, but would not including this information create a skewed view in its own way through a sin of omission?  Do we abandon a fair view of a subject to avoid presenting it in any sort of negative light? ShockerHelp (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Should there be a discussion about Shocker Toys' claim that the product shipped to the USA in December, but now says it isn't shipping until March? Clearly some untruths have occurred here. I will stay out of it since I was banned from their website for saying I knew from their own words and my experience that they did not actually ship anything in December, and that the product was not on the dock. So I do have a definite COI on this subject, since it brings me many giggles to see the lie exposed. But I do think this is an important subject for the Wikipage, when a toy company is accused of the things that Shocker has been accused of, and now it's obvious that their press releases did in fact contain some untruths. --Pariah74 (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)