This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. The result of the debate was Closed by request to redo choices, prevent overlap, etc. in a new vote.—Xwing328(Talk) 21:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Quinlanfan began this in the general discussion forum. I've brought it here for those interested in discussing the topic. — SparqManTalk 17:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
This descussion is weather we should allow information about action figures on certain character's pages. Please cast your vote. All in favor say I. All who dissagree I Don't. Please only vote once. Thank you! —Unsigned comment byQuinlanfan (talk • contribs).
Herbsewell 21:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC) If it's Star Wars, it's here.
I'll vote to include a BRIEF "==Merchandising==" section. It shouldn't be a "list of products" per se, but a general summary of the subject's coverage in the collectables market. I'd also support links to a new Star Wars Collectables Wiki. --Azizlight 00:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Azizlight. Adamwankenobi 21:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Per Azizlight. As long as the new "Merchandising" section is placed within the "Behind the scenes" section.–SentryTalk 05:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Only for EU characters should a note be made in the Behind the Scenes section. Otherwise, toywiki.org is the wiki for things like this. --RedemptionTalk 20:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I can't support something so non-specific. I'd gladly allow action figure information on the conditions that it is only for notable figures (meaning EU characters only, since it's hardly news when somebody produces a new Luke Skywalker figure) and only for figures that actually exist (not, "OMG somebody said their cousin whose friend works at the company that hauls Hasbro's trash says they're going to make a Quinlan Vos figure!!!111!!!11!"). Until the terms are laid out more precisely, I oppose this silliness. -- Darth Culator(Talk)(Kills) 21:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I have an interesting example. Currently, the Mitth'raw'nuruodo page has three things relevant to this conversation in the Behind the scenes section.
Artistic renditions of Thrawn during his final campaign often picture him with a ysalamir.
An action figure of Thrawn was made in 1998 as part of the Expanded Universe assortment of the Power of the Force 2 line. The figure came with a blaster pistol and an ysalamir.
A Star Wars miniature was made of Thrawn, from the 'Universe' Set produced by Wizards of the Coast, depicting him with an ysalamir draped over his shoulder.
By themselves, the second two would seem to be exactly what this discussion is talking about, whether that is useful information for this wiki. Combined with the first point though, they support the fact that he is often portrayed with an ysalamir. I think this is an interesting fact and that it can sorta be a precendent. If there is information that is more functional than a list of merchandise, and as long as it is canon and not in contradiction to other higher sources and not simply duplicating information that has already been provided, then it is pertinent to our goal of chronicling the Star Wars universe. I've therefore created that as a voting option, and changed the titles of Support and Oppose to make them more clear voting options. And I apologize for the ridiculously long option title. --Wildyoda-talk-contribs- 23:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Isn't that what always happens? :P —Xwing328(Talk) 02:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
That's why I added my voting option, and maybe we should split the "support" again. And I think we should have a totally separate discussion of a Merchandise wiki. Doesn't that have to go through some other people above us as well anyway? --Wildyoda-talk-contribs- 02:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to vote until the voting options are all sorted out, but I do want to note that action figures do play a role in canon - for instance, Leland Chee says in the comments for this blog that "I'll leave the issue with the Ewoks [Lumat and Romba] open until it comes up in a future source. I'd lean towards using the image on the action figure packaging." jSarek 08:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
You aren't listening. What if just one figure, for one character. What else would they add.--Herbsewell 14:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I am listening. Someone would end up adding information on every toy made on the subject of that article. Luke Skywalker would end up having information on over twenty figures. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax(Imperial Holovision) 14:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
No you are not. What if there was only one figure?--Herbsewell 14:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, it would depend on how many toys/collectables the article's subject had. Well then how about just one?. I answered your question and I can't get more specific than that.--Herbsewell 14:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
You're right, I'm wrong. Nobody could've guessed that one figure meant one figure on the subject of the article. I should have spelled it out instead of summarizing it because I'm too lazy.--Herbsewell 14:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Only if the toy contributes something useful to canon, or is notable in some other way (say, EU figures). It will be useful in many cases, but the vast majority of articles don't need it. I've been a collector for years, so it's not that I'm against the toys--I just don't think it belongs here. Frankly, I don't see much need to start a SW merch wiki either, since there are plenty of excellent sites that already cover that in considerable detail (JediDefender.com, RebelScum.com, GalacticHunter.com, Yoda's News, Sir Steve's Guide, and on and on). So I see no reason to reduplicate the wheel and clutter our articles with extraneous garbage about, say, all the figures that have been made out of C-3PO.--Valin Kenobi 22:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I have no problem with the Mr. Potato Head Star Wars figures and other notable collectables having articles, but that's where I'd draw the line. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax(Imperial Holovision) 02:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Well you originally complained just because we were going to mention it.--Herbsewell 02:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Jack, it's all or nothing. We just can't pick and choose our articles.--Herbsewell 02:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
No, it's not all or nothing. If it was all or nothing, every piece of information from the RotS novelization would be included next to the information from the film. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax(Imperial Holovision) 03:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
That would be redundant.--Herbsewell 03:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Jack, it's all or nothing. We just can't pick and choose our articles. Let me be the first to say ... why the hell not? I don't understand why every policy debate around here always turns into absolutist black-and-white/all-or-nothing arguments with no room for shading or nuance. Every rule has exceptions, and I certainly don't see that as a bad thing.--Valin Kenobi 07:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
It would, but if they don't explain it's advantages it's not going to take off with the rest of us. That is unless they expect us to figure out the pros and cons ourselves.--Herbsewell 18:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Question: In theory, one could vote for both the Star Wars Merchandise Wiki and the one below it, right? Neither contradicts the other. JorrelFraajicComlink 15:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Of course.--Herbsewell 15:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I made it clear in my earlier proposition above, but I'm not opposed to articles for a few notable collectibles such as Darth Tater. Just as long as they're legitimately notable and not, as I said, filler garbage about every figure that's been made of C-3PO.--Valin Kenobi 17:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Consensus Tracks typically go two weeks. However, with this one, I think we're going to need to iron out the details once the basics (to include or not to include) are decided. —Xwing328(Talk) 02:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm killing the long line of bullets Herbsewell is right. Maybe it would just be easier to restart with some more organization. For example, the first original two questions are really vague, and one overlaps one of the later options. The merchandsing wiki option needs to be more pronounced and needs less conflict with the one under it. JorrelFraajic 20:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, it's clear from recent comments by Leland Chee like the aforementioned in this blog and this comment in the Holocron thread that toys are C-canon sources, just like anything else made recently. So, they should be treated like those other things, and have any pertinent information added to relevant articles and links be made in their Appearances sections. However, an individual article for each action figure would be overkill, so we should take a page from things like the SWCCG and, instead of an article for each item, have an article for each set that's released. jSarek 08:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd say "Appearances" is more accurate, Nebulax; action figures are rarely sources, but they are a place where the character appeared. Valin, it has already been decided (against my opinion, but that's another matter) that Appearances and Sources should state any mention of a character, not just mentions that provide new information. I don't see how action figure sets would clog up 3PO's article any more than other uninformative appearances do. jSarek 10:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Those "other uninformative appearances" are far more necessary then listing action figures in "Appearances" section. And action figures are not "a place where the character appeared"; that's incorrect, because there's no actual appearance. So, a figure of a character alone is not an appearance. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax(Imperial Holovision) 12:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Correct. That's an out-of-universe appearance, not in-world. JorrelFraajic 15:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)