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)

Did we ever get a decision here? Personally I like how the toys are divided on the ROTF toyline page. Add on the wonky bath towels/valentines cards/candy/shampoo bottles stuff as "Merchandise" and we should be golden. Khajidha 16:04, 14 December 2009 (EST)

Unindenting for clarity. Just did a quick check on several series that have been mentioned as problematic. Revoltech Starscream is listed under Merchandise, all other Revoltechs under Toys. All SCF/HOCs are under Merchandise (although several are missing). Most 3" Titaniums are listed as Toys. The exceptions are Optimus Prime (G1), Starscream (G1), Predaking, Cliffjumper (Movie), Sunstreaker (G1), Ark, and Seeker (body type); all of which are under Merchandise. In the interests of full disclosure, I must admit that I was the one who put the Ark and Seeker listings under Merchandise. Is there a consensus as to where to put these listings? As they are it is somewhat confusing that Revoltech and Titanium Robot Masters are found in different places on different pages. Khajidha 13:51, 22 December 2009 (EST)

Moving these to merchandise. Khajidha 17:09, 10 January 2010 (EST)

These have been moved, except for the major movie characters. Those character's toy/merchandise sections are extremely complex and often confusing. I will come back to each of them later, when I can give each page the time it deserves. Khajidha 17:58, 10 January 2010 (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)

If anyone has an old picture of them opening up a brand new Optimus Prime or something at Christmas when they were a kid, I think that would be the PERFECT image for this article. Sometimes a sappy image of a happy kid with a big beaming grin works, even for a sarcastic wiki like us. -- Semysane 14:27, 5 December 2009 (EST)

Who here owns BotCon Legends? The back cover image is a picture that hung inside Hasbro offices circa 1984: it's a "sales concept" pic of a child model whoosh-ing the Seeker toys through the air as they bombard toy Prime. It's an actual in-house demonstration of the toy-based play pattern used from the very, very beginning. I think it would be ideal for this purpose, and it would already be up here but for my own lack of a scanner. --Thylacine 2000 14:54, 5 December 2009 (EST)

This picture *IS* quite good. --Jimsorenson 15:20, 5 December 2009 (EST)

Now THAT's fast turnaround--thanks, Jim! Any objections, anyone? --Thylacine 2000 15:41, 5 December 2009 (EST)

No objections here. It is interesting though, that the kid has two Optimus Primes to play with. It seems to suggest that the photo was taken before any decisions had been made about what toys would represent leaders or other character types. --Tigerpaw28 16:12, 5 December 2009 (EST)

That's not how I read the image at all. It's just showing the two different modes of Optimus Prime, displaying to the retailer what the guy looks like before and after. --ItsWalky 16:16, 5 December 2009 (EST)

Yeah, that occurred to me after I made my comment and I realized Thundercracker and Prime have faction logos on them. It probably is just to demonstrate the two modes. --Tigerpaw28 16:57, 5 December 2009 (EST)

Oh. My. God. YES. -- Repowers 17:12, 5 December 2009 (EST)

Wow! This kid has TWO Optimus Primes! Did YOU have TWO Optimus Primes when you were his age? All the cool kids had TWO Optimus Primes!!

Transformers toy

Why, exactly, is this section here? In its current form, what relevance does it have to the design, production, distribution and commercial sales of Transformer toys? It appears to relate entirely to matters of wiki policy, and not at all to the subject matter of the article. -- Repowers 22:57, 22 February 2010 (EST)

What is the subject matter of the article? The article isn't talking about "toys" in general marketed under the Transformers brand. It is talking about certain kind of toy. From the article: "The toy design process begins with a range of character types and possible alternate modes." "Nearly all Transformers toys have a minimum of two forms... even a fairly simple Transformer is much more complex than the typical action figure." The article is talking about toys someone could point to and say, "that is a Transformer." It isn't talking about role-play toys and things like that.

So, that section may be clumsy, but that is why the section was put there. To try to clear that up. Maybe if that section is removed, the article could be expanded to include things like role-play toys. I guess it depends on what the scope of the article should be. - Starfield 23:57, 22 February 2010 (EST)

It's pretty absurdly pedantic to assume that someone would stumble onto an article on toys on a Transformers wiki and be befuddled by the lack of information on trading cards or whatnot. "But... but... but my Energon Saber just don't got none of them ball joints in it! AH DUN'T UNNERSTAND!" Is that really what you're saying is going to happen? "Ah HAH! My Attacktix toy HAS NO ALTERNATE MODE!! Clearly, these wiki fools are full of LIES and INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATIONS. They're probably socialists!" Sorry, I just am not seeing this as a looming problem. -- Repowers 07:32, 23 February 2010 (EST)

Perhaps not, but the pedantry of defining what we mean by toy needs to be SOMEWHERE on this wiki so that people will be better able to understand the classification schema we use here to be better able to use and contribute to this wiki. Khajidha 08:34, 23 February 2010 (EST)

I'd move it to the bottom, personally, and change it to "Toys and this Wiki" or similar. -hx 08:56, 23 February 2010 (EST)

Good idea. Khajidha 09:04, 23 February 2010 (EST)

Again, that is a matter of Wiki policy, about the artificial and semi-arbitrary divisions we use to keep things manageable, and doesn't have any relevance to this article's content that I can see. This article is about the physical production of toys, Transformers specifically. Some aspects of that are going to apply to things we call "merchandise". Some aspects are not going to apply to things we call "toys". It's up to the reader to figure out that his G1 Huffer toy has no ball joints, and that his Attacktix merchandise still has paint operations. Our arbitrary labeling of these things doesn't really have anything to do with it.

All that said, I find the section much less offensive down at the bottom where it doesn't interrupt the the flow of the article. -- Repowers 20:45, 23 February 2010 (EST)

Intro

The intro is patently false given how merchandise effectively rules most speculative fiction franchises, and animation in general is dominated by Big Toy like Mattel and Hasbro. Given the central nature of this page and our classic biting the hand wit, I suggest we add a bit of snark in the ibtro perhaps a (BWAHAHAHAHA) or (yeah right) or something like that. It just seems like a missed opportunity. Lush City (talk) 23:02, 25 December 2015 (EST)

"Lockout"?

The link goes to a RID15 episode. Is this a real problem related to toy aging or not? --Thylacine 2000 (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2017 (EDT)

A list for countries of TF production

I feel like we need a page that lists all the countries Transformers toys have been produced in (China, Vietnam, etc.) "List of countries where Transformers are made?" Probably something shorter and a bit less clunky.