Talk:Toy

Production Numbers

I coulda sworn that at some Botcon panel, we were told a rough number for how many toys were typically produced -- I wanna say it was 100,000. But I can't find it in my own notes. Anybody else recall this, or am I dreamin'? -- Repowers 23:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Article intro

Just to note, Headmasters are counted as one transformer, even if they are 2 toys that combine.--Grand-majin 22:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Um... according to what? There's no "correct" answer. -- Repowers 23:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

What specifically is a "Transformers toy"?

The wiki seems to have adopted a its own definition of "toy" that is a bit different than what is ordinarily thought of as what a "toy" is. For example, we put things role playing toys and R.P.M. Mini-Vehicles into the "merchandise" category. I don't disagree. Those things aren't "Transformers toys" even though if you asked a thousand people on the street, they would probably all call them "toys". But it does make me wonder if we can define what we mean by "Transformers toys". I'll start with two possible suggestions:

1. A Transformers toy is meant to represent a character in Transformers fiction. An R.P.M. Mini-Vehicle does not actually represent a Transformer in fiction that has his robot mode on the bottom of a vehicle. There is no fictional Optimus Prime that transforms from a truck into a hand holding a gun. If the toy has no meaning fictionally, it is not a "Transformers toy". Where does this leave non-Transforming figures? With the exception of Action Masters, non-Transforming Transformer figures are not intended to represent non-Transforming fictional Transformers (I don't think). So I wouldn't think they count as "Transformers toys". Maybe a new category is needed.
2. A more straightforward definition might be that a "Transformer toy" is anything that has an associated bio and/or tech spec. - Starfield 13:49, 27 November 2009 (EST)

2 is too limiting. There are probably plenty of totally legit transformers toys without a bio or tech spec. Beta Maxx comes to mind. --173.2.173.248 14:15, 27 November 2009 (EST)

I think mini partner guys piggyback on their bulks' bio. - Starfield 15:33, 27 November 2009 (EST)

To tell you the truth,I always disliked this categorizing. In my opinion, character pages should be separated in the sections "Action Figures" and "Merchandise," seeing as I always thought those were better terms to express what we consider to stick in the first category of the products sections of every character page. Or, for what I consider even more logical, would be to have a first section named "Action Figures" (where we stick all of the main transforming toys of the characters of the various size classes, and the action masters too) then have a section called "Other Toys" (Or just straight up called "Toys", having it contain toys of the character like the ROTF Devastator HotWheels play set thingy and whatnot) and finally having a section called "Merchandise" (for stuff like posters, Battle Cards, costumes, etc...) --Ascendron 15:42, 27 November 2009 (EST)

We've already got a problem with definition 1 and the R.P.M. line - there's a forthcoming one that is an entirely new character who has never appeared in any of the Movie/ROTF product prior to this point. I don't know if that item has been officially announced yet, but suffice it to say, there's "merchandise" that is the only representation of characters - take the 3D card game as another example. (and I see that Ascendron already hit on this. Action figures/Merchandise is probably a marginally better fit.) -hx 15:53, 27 November 2009 (EST)

You might be thinking of Rollbar (RPM). My personal favorite Merchandise-only character is Power Cycle. I don't know if that is a problem. They might be only represented by merchandise, but even then their merchandise isn't intended to be their actual fictional representation. Rollbar isn't really a Hummer that "transforms" by standing his vehicle on end revealing his robot mode underneath. - Starfield 16:39, 27 November 2009 (EST)

Personally I only consider it a "toy" (as opposed to "merchandise") if it makes an attempt to represent the character in all his/her forms to the best ability of the toy technology at the time of manufacture. Some examples: Action Masters are toys because those characters could not transform, but Robot Replicas and Revoltech are merchandise because those characters could transform. Many G1 figures are toys because they really were the best that could be made at the time, but Bumper Battlers are merchandise because better representations of the characters are possible with current tech. Khajidha 13:53, 1 December 2009 (EST)

I disagree. It amuses me to know Brawl's main pic is accurate. (It is accurate somewhere, even if it is in a micro-continuity). - Starfield 15:48, 3 December 2009 (EST)

That's why I said "personally". I wasn't trying to force my definition on everyone, I was simply offering a viewpoint to be considered alongside other viewpoints to finally arrive at a good working definition for the wiki. Khajidha 16:50, 3 December 2009 (EST)

HOW DO YOU KNOW POWER CYCLE DOESN'T ACTUALLY LOOK LIKE THAT? HOW DO YOU KNOW, YOU SON OF A BITCH?! Seriously, though - if it was sold in the toy department, it's a toy. If it was sold in housewares or clothing or whatever, it's merchandise. -hx 18:25, 3 December 2009 (EST)

I like that definition Hooper. Simple, intuitive and clear. I say we go with that. --Tigerpaw28 19:09, 3 December 2009 (EST)

Thing is, with that definition, those rolled-up Transformers wall arts from the first movie are considered toys. --ItsWalky 19:10, 3 December 2009 (EST)

And the Prime hand thingy mentioned earlier. And the Power Cycle. I don't see all those as being the same sort of thing as a Deluxe-class Bumblebee.Khajidha 19:12, 3 December 2009 (EST)

Why isn't the prime fist gun a toy? It's a role-play toy, but it's a toy. The Power Cycle is a toy. The train set is technically a toy. They sell stickers in the toy section at my Walmart, on an endcap next to the TF, but those aren't toys. Sometimes wiki pedantry might need to take a back seat to common goddamned sense. (this is why there's totally a walmart ad out right now that makes fun of us.) -hx 19:29, 3 December 2009 (EST)

Point well taken Walky. Got me thinking of other iffy items: puzzles, board games, and water guns. Looking back at other suggestions, maybe a modified version of Ascendron's proposal would be best: Action Figures, Other Toys and Merchandise? With other toys encompassing anything sold in the toy department as something intended for children to play with. Which does not include wall art. --Tigerpaw28 20:15, 3 December 2009 (EST)

Aside to Hooper X, I don't think anyone is saying that the Prime fist etc are not toys in the standard real world sense, just that they don't belong in the same classification as standard TF figures for the purposes of this wiki. Khajidha 20:34, 3 December 2009 (EST)

I can't agree with Hooper's definition. An RPM car may be a toy of a Transformers character, but it's not a Transformers toy in my view; it may entirely be play pattern-based for me, I dunno. I have the same issue with Attacktix, as brought up earlier.

I am in favor of separating things out more, but I'm not sure about "Action Figures" as a topheader, because that implies including Robot Replicas and Revoltechs, which are more traditionally "action figure" than regular TFs are... but which, again, I don't think of as being Transformers toys. (Darn our franchise for successfully expanding beyond its initial parameters.) --Monzo 21:36, 3 December 2009 (EST)

(Replying to Monzo, unindenting because it's getting silly.) I think you and I have a similar idea in mind, but I don't know if it can be quantified into something less subjective. Khajidha 21:42, 3 December 2009 (EST)

I think Tigerpaw may be onto something - splitting "toys" into a "Mainline product" and "other toys" divider. The ROTF topline is the regular figures and maybe the FABs. Robot Heroes, Bumper Battlers, RPMs, and all that other stuff isn't. -hx 09:41, 4 December 2009 (EST)

Agreed. I think we all agree that the standard size classes are main line and that the others you mentioned aren't. FABs, Activators, Robot Replicas and Revoltech are the ones that we seem to have disagreements on. I see FABs and Activators as part of the main idea of TFs, but Replicas and Revotech aren't. Any other opinions out there? 97.82.152.134 09:51, 4 December 2009 (EST)Whoops, forgot to log in! Khajidha 09:52, 4 December 2009 (EST)

Is the dividing line coming down to which toys we think are or aren't canonical representations of the character? The interesting thing is that most all of those have bios which are themselves canon. What Battle Charger Bumblebee's bio says about his changing his deco, or whatever, is in some sense canonically true. A part of me likes the idea of taking the toy bio as literally true which brings all these gimmicky toys into canon as-is. - Starfield 11:46, 4 December 2009 (EST)

Does the toy bio refer to the character or to the toy? Seems to me that Animated Bumblebee doesn't "actually" look like his Bumper Battler anymore than he is "actually" made out of plastic. The toy bio could be true, but the toy it is attached might not be a good representation of that truth. Khajidha 15:38, 4 December 2009 (EST)

While your attention is turned here...

...this article could really use a more fitting main image. I'm thinking something like a huge collage or collection of toys, but... I dunno, not just a photo of some sloppy collector shelf. Something nice. Something representing many franchises, eras, sizes, styles, and levels of complexity. Suggestions welcome. -- Repowers 20:50, 4 December 2009 (EST)

I can probably swing something, since I have so much of them out for toy section picture-taking. --M Sipher 21:03, 4 December 2009 (EST)

Conversely, a really really loved on and broken-ass toy from someone's childhood. That seems sort of thematically appropriate and gets across the idea that THIS IS A TOY. YOU PLAY WITH IT. -hx 09:54, 5 December 2009 (EST)

The main pic from Army building sounds like what Repowers is suggesting. Of course, them being drones, many of the characters are far from iconic.--76.167.228.223 10:39, 5 December 2009 (EST)