Talk:Where the Toys Come From

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the Animated films task force.

Animation: Films Low‑importance

	Animation portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Animated films work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Disney Low‑importance

	Disney portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Toys Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Toys, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of toys on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ToysWikipedia:WikiProject ToysTemplate:WikiProject ToysToys articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Toys To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Barbie Queen of the Prom, Eve The Second Genesis CCG, More...
Assess : Rate the Unassessed Toys articles and Unknown-importance Toys articles.
Expand : Expand the doll pages, Expand Larami article
Infobox : Toys articles needing infoboxes
Photo : Request images that are needed from Wikipedia requested photographs of toys to included in each articles.
Stubs : work on stubs in Category:Toy stubs
Other : * Tag the talk pages of Toys-related articles with the {{WikiProject Toys}} banner.
- Help out with articles placed in Category:Toys articles needing attention

Release[edit]

Don't make unsourced changes to the release date please. Discuss here and provide source and justification before making changes. December 1983 is supported by the only source present on the page. If you want to change it, provide source.Tehonk (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neither date is properly sourced: you should support your preferred date with an inline citation to a WP:RELIABLE, preferably WP:SECONDARY, source. Currently all we have is two external links, one of which (Disney) seems to be broken, and the other of which is considered dubious per WP:CITINGIMDB. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for participating, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Where_the_Toys_Come_From&diff=next&oldid=969700729 I don't see any inline citation to a WP:RELIABLE here on this diff, do you? Current date is just added within last month without any source, the correction I made is at least supported by one of the sources on the page, whether it's dubious or not, it's still something against nothing. So in the case of something vs nothing, nothing wins? Page at least should stay on this state while protected if both dates are not properly sourced: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Where_the_Toys_Come_From&oldid=969700729. All of this looks so odd to me, protecting an unsourced data that's not supported by anything like that. Plus "Neither date is properly sourced" is not an accurate statement. It implies both are somewhat sourced, that's not the case, one is not sourced at all, other is not "properly sourced". There is a difference. Disney link is not broken btw, it's region restricted, it's about the DVD release so only lists 2002 DVD date. Tehonk (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As neither date is well sourced I have simply removed it from the infobox. Editors should read WP:BURDEN and provide an appropriate inline citation before restoring either of the two dates which have appeared recently. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add some good sources soon, I'm not too good with formatting of these. Btw you are still making inaccurate statements. "neither date is well sourced" is not an accurate statement. Accurate statement is "one date is not sourced at all, other date is not well sourced". There is a good difference there. Let's be careful about that. Thanks.Tehonk (talk) 00:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both dates can be found on various web pages, but none of these are reliable sources, which is why I say that neither date is well sourced, and currently there is no significant difference between them. If you have a reliable source then identify it: sorting out the formatting of a reference will not be a problem once a source is identified. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 06:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both dates can not be found on various web pages, June 19 date can not be found anywhere, and other date can be found on the only source presented on this very page already. You're still insisting on making false and inaccurate statements for some reason, that's weird. History of the page on Disney fandom wiki shows it's added there on 28 March, just after the edit warring started by the IP editor here. And other result(s) is just a Wikipedia mirror/cache. Again, let's be careful about making inaccurate and false statements. There is a difference between them. Truth is "one date is not sourced at all, other date is just there on the links of this page and may be considered poorly sourced". You can continue to imply both dates are sourced somewhat but that would not be the truth. Anyway thanks for offering help with formatting. I'll see what I can. Thanks for your interest. Tehonk (talk) 07:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Offer withdrawn. I've had enough of your agressive approach. You're on your own now. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you but let's not make personal attacks, I could consider your insistence for making inaccurate statements along with these edit summaries on this talk page agressive as well but I wanted to focus on the subject only. And I can definitely consider these last remarks like "nonsense" aggresive and such personal attacks is not nice. I only wanted you to not make false statements to not represent things and the truth falsely. Accuracy and truth and little nuances on presenting them should be important. I only wanted to be careful on not twisting the reality and truths, and for some reason you wanted to draw a picture like both are somewhat sourced, which was not the reality. Anyway thanks for your withdrawn and thanks for adding these boxes to the page, I'm not too good with them, so thanks. I'll make sure to make edits to remove all of them very soon. Have a nice day. Tehonk (talk) 08:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]