Help talk:Official info

Incomplete official info vs. additional details from unofficial sources

There are occasions when a toy is officially confirmed by Hasbro in some capacity, but is lacking information on some of the finer details. However, some of those gaps are filled in by stolen toys. Examples:

According to the "official info" rules, once Hasbro had added the names "Gunbarrel", "Reverb" and "Backtrack" to the Target exclusive Scouts in their website checklist, it would have been okay to say "new Target exclusive Scout Class toys named Gunbarrel, Reverb and Backtrack are planned for the 2007 Movie toyline. No further information on these toys is available." But it would not have been okay to say "Gunbarrel is a redeco of the Energon Kickback/Blight mold, Reverb is a redeco of the Energon Blackout/Stormcloud mold, and Backtrack is a redeco of Cybertron Lugnutz." Because that info was taken from unofficial sources.

Likewise, we actually did insist that we officially didn't know yet whether Animated Shockwave (a toy Hasbro had officially confirmed) would be released as "Shockwave", "Longarm" or both, even though we had seen stolen samples in packaging.

On the one hand it makes sense to apply the "only official info" rules in those cases. On the other hand, claiming that further information is not available is patronizing and withholding information from readers.

Keep in mind that I'm not asking about toys we have only known about through unofficial sources (which I don't mind keeping off the Wiki altogether), only about toys Hasbro did, in some capacity, confirm, but only mentioned in passing, without telling us about the mold, the deco, the name or other details we only know about thanks to stolen samples.

Should we a) rigidly stick to the "official info only" policy to the letter, b) use a more liberal "once Hasbro have acknowledged a toy's existence in whatever capacity, further details glanced from stolen toys are okay" policy, or c) use an even more rigid "until we don't know enough details, even toys officially acknowledged by Hasbro should better be kept off the Wiki just to spare us a headache" policy?

I'm not taking sides here, just looking to discuss the issue first.--Nevermore 13:26, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

Korean government site

The last few rounds of leaks were made possible by a South Korean government ministry website, apparently one whose purpose is to show how large products are compared to their packaging material. Though this isn't a HasTak release, if it is a legitimate and official release through non-stolen product, would such things fall under our criteria in the future? --Thylacine 2000 (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2020 (EST)

I'd say it counts. It's on Hasbro for not doing proper reveals before they pop up in government sites or stores. Saix (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2020 (EST)