Talk:Boglins

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

You Tube edit warring

There has been a certain amount of edit warring to try and insert some fanboy cruft about a YouTuber onto the page. This fails too many thresholds on standards, encyclopaedic nature of information etc, particularly as it relates to a claim made in an autograph. All parties are welcome to comment, but if the IP continues to edit war without discussion, there is always the possibility of page protection to stop things. If there are insufficient comments made on thie thread in the next week or so, we'll see if an RfC helps widen the comment base. - The Bounder (talk) 16:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine this is regarding Jim Sterling, it's reasonable that at it's current size he not be mentioned. However he is a fairly well known figure who has been regularly publishing (ironic) reviews and news regarding boglins. With 500k subscribers and 20+ videos on the topic, it's reasonable to imagine he is the most popular journalist discussing them, and responsible for some of the current interest in boglins. If someone heard boglins mentioned and wondered why, they may be well served by the information that he has discussed them extensively. The fact that Tim Clarke has acknowledged him on 2 occasions paired with the fact they receive little other media attention strikes me as grounds for his inclusion in the article. Surfad (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like a sentence or two mentioning him is reasonable. We don't want to fall too deeply into WP:RECENTISM, sure, but there's been enough secondary coverage for a brief mention. (Note that all of these sources appeared after the discussion above.) Especially the Tim Clarke quote from that interview, which specifically credits Sterling with a resurgence of interest in Boglins. (Jim has been a godsend! Even when he doesn’t like something I’ve done! I really appreciate him and I’d like to meet him again and do a show with him!) --Aquillion (talk) 02:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This reply is old, but I have never heard of Boglins until I watched Sterling's reviews on them.

Even after a few years of not watching his videos, when I saw a buddy with a collection of Boglins, I immediately thought of Sterling. When asked about how he got them, he said he used to watch his reviews on them as well as being a fan of Henson's creativity.

Point is that I believe a mention of him doing Boglin reviews and causing a slight "resurgence" of them within his fans should be mentioned. 2A02:A020:C4:65DD:D12D:F883:5664:9A75 (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]