Jump to content

Talk:RealDoll

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Realdoll

Question on woman in Real Sex episode

[edit]

I was wondering if anyone could tell me who the three woman were who used the Real doll were from the show Real Sex?. I believe it was from episode 22.

Thanks Lummie 06:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Sex Doll

[edit]

There are several manufacturers mentioned in this article. No reason to give a free ad to just one by naming the article Realdoll. -Barry- 01:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, although I agree that the list of competitors should be moved to sex doll. Realdoll has become a symbol of sorts for the Uncanny Valley, which, I will admit, is not mentioned in the article, but something that social commentators and artists (I actually came here because of a new photoart exhibit done by Elena Dorfman called Still Lovers and an article a few months back in the New York Times Magazine). It would be like merging the article on McDonald's with fast food, without regard to it becoming much more than a restaurant franchrise, such as a symbol of globalization.--YoungFreud 03:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See CybOrgasMatrix discussion page for a similar discussion thread regarding merging under Sex doll.--Esoterik1 21:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture needed

[edit]

Please add a picture. The article is bare without one. --kingboyk 23:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The external links need to be cleaned up a bit. I won't do it, but someone with a solid head about this subject should. Lunis Neko 09:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The idea that stays with you...

[edit]

I admit I couldn't help but think about the Realdoll when I saw this article on National Geograhic[1]... --Bobak 23:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I have recently watched the "Surplus" movie and it features Matt McMullen and the Realdoll factory. However, I was unable to locate any online (or offline, either) verifiable information in order to remove the {{Fact}} tag on the article. Any ideas? Rudá 19:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It seems like the documentary itself should be able to serve as a source, no? Just because a source isn't online doesn't make it any less of a source. --Dlugar 19:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The dolls, and the website, play a major part in the story....

Move to RealDoll

[edit]

I will request a non-controversial move to RealDoll from Realdoll if no one objects. Robotman1974 18:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. A little research will quickly show that the name is RealDoll. Might as well move Nesquik to Nesquick. 67.49.8.228 (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources/reads like advert

[edit]

This whole article needs to be referenced, and reads like an advertisement. Also it's weaselly: "some do this and some do that and some do something else" 67.49.8.228 07:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I will ask the owners of this picture if i can upload to her but before that i need to ask you if this picture ok to be upload. http://www.dollalbum.com/dollgallery/displayimage.php?album=favpics&cat=0&pos=23

Merge with Sex Doll?

[edit]

Should this article be merged with Sex Doll? What is so special about this particular brand? The article reads like an advertisement for a brand of sex doll. Claireislovely (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neutral on such a merge, but leaning Keep. RealDoll is an especially well-known brand of Sex doll—I'm surprised the name has not become a genericized trademark for sex doll—but good promotion may not be enough to merit a separate article, and as written this could be easily merged and need not be freestanding, However, I think from glancing at the non self-referential sources that a decent article can be written on this subject, not dwelling on product features and other promotional angles. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think it reads like an advertisement; it's merely a short article stating the most obvious facts. I think the article can be expanded upon. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 03:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge If anyone is still considering this, I now think this information is better kept in Sex doll. Currently this is (and seems likely to remain) a primary-sourced stub, and an attractive nuisance to spammers and vandals. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The current stub version supports merging until enough sources are found to validate a stand-alone article.--PinkBull 18:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep realdoll is important cultural item and probably classical example of sex dolls in the future. Article's last years degeneration is shame though. --Zache (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like advertisement

[edit]

There is one sentence in "similar products" that sounds like an advertisement: "Real Solid Sex Doll is a manufacturer of dolls based in the U.S. They offer 3 full sized dolls the Taffy Lolly and Cherry as well as a torso named Pixie. Real solid sex doll is known in the industry for their prices you can buy any of their dolls for under 2000.00 USD" Just wanted to mention it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.101.113.224 (talk) 10:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't just mention it, change it! You are entitled to do it Wikipedia:Be bold (especially when you see advertising-like stuff) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.4.81.129 (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References for sales figures?

[edit]

As far as I know the company does not give out sales figures, so it hard to get reliable figures. However as the dolls at least once had sequentially increasing "production numbers", on can deduce from that video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4-RHng6Enk that there have been somewhat over 4000 RealDolls sold in 2010. However I guess this does not count as a reliable source, or does it? As some people heavily overestimate the phenomenon, thinking RealDolls sell by at least ten thousands, maybe that vague figure has some assets and can stay? Or should the paragraph scrapped completely? (I have no idea where the geographic figures come from.) Camil7 (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on RealDoll. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:RealDoll&oldid=1233672380"