Talk:Fuzzy dice

Origin

Does anyone know why furry/fuzzy dice? Was it initially meant to say something about the owners gambling nature, for instance? Loris 19:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may come from the old school tattoos with "man's ruin". Similar to eight balls, cards, et.c. // Liftarn (talk) 13:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Image

Why the image of fuzzy dice was deleted, eh?--Xinjinbei 00:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC) yhyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy![reply]

Illegality (or lack thereof)

Researching this topic, I ran across a lawyer's website (http://www.sheltonlegal.net/html/ask_a_lawyer_.html) shedding a little light on the topic. Basically, he says fuzzy dice are probably not an issue, but may be used as an excuse to stop you for something else. - Striker (talk) 03:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prod

I decided to remove the prod tag. There actually are sources that could be used in the article, like this, this, this, this, etc. Zagalejo^^^ 00:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay; fair enough. (That's the point of the tag, to see if anyone can find/assert references.) VigilancePrime (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

notability

Ok someone put up a template complaining this is not notable enough for inclusion. I am disputing this tag. Fuzzy dice are ubiquitous at joke shops, auto supply shops, and carnivals, have been promoted, ridiculed, and featured in countless movies and television programs. Will someone in authority please reomove the tag? --Ted-m (talk) 04:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is this Notable? Anyone can remove the PROD tag; that's the point of the tag, to see who's watching, improving, or if the article really has no interest, value, and editors. That said, please temper comments such as "someone ignorant of this subject" with civility and an assumption of good faith. Some who are more sensitive or looking for fights (yes, there are some) would possibly see that comment as a personal attack.

Lastly, the article needs some sort of referencing so as to cite some sort of sources both for it's claim of notability and for verifiability of the factual accuracy of the content.

That's all that is needed. Other than that, have fun with editing and expanding the article! VigilancePrime (talk) 04:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC) (post-note - edit conflict! - thank you for removing the "ignorant" part. I'm sure it was not meant negatively and I appreciate your having modified it immediately.)[reply]

On another note, I realize it's not the PROD tag you're disputing (that one had been removed), but the notability one. That one hopefully attracts attention to the article so it can be sourced. Above another editor gave some links; feel free to use them and cite them to address the concerns noted in the various tags. That's the point of the tags, to help the long-term improvement of the article. Best of luck! VigilancePrime (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rarity

The article says that fluffy dice have "since become increasingly rare, especially in cabs" - what was this editor trying to say? That they're rare except in cabs, or that they used to be common in cabs and have completely disappeared from them since? I've deleted the sentence fragment for now. --McGeddon (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Six sided

I changed the text to say that they are usually six sided sine not all are.[1] // Liftarn (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relations

The sentence, "Modern usage of the dice has emerged in youth circles to indicate that the vehicle has been used for relations and to indicate a commissioning of the vehicle to ones peers." is so vague it is void of meaning. Relations? If it is sexual relations, say so; don't be coy. If it's Uncle Frank, say it. Commissioning? What?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.250.226 (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going to ask that. Relations of humans are relatives (your family). If it's sex, is it a movie reference or inside joke, or something that can actually be cited? Maybe it meant incest. And I have no idea what the author meant about "commissioning", other than "putting it to use" by driving friends around. If I visit this article again, I'll remove the sentence. 68.151.108.107 (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

I can't seem to find any (reliable) citations regarding the use of the dice in fighter planes, though it sounds reasonable a source can't be found. This is the best I can offer: http://carmemorabilia.about.com/od/Automotive-Collectibles/a/Dicing-With-Death-History-Of-Fuzzy-Dice.htm . The part about Mark Shepard I haven't fonud referrenced anywhere apart from here and places that point to here. I'm a new editor, not sure where to take it from here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr14159 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Self-contradictory history

This section offers many conflicting explanations for the origins of fuzzy dice. Only one of these statements can be true:

First used by fighter pilots in the 40s

Invented ("produced the first") in 1952 by Shepherd of Texas Instruments

Invented ("started the trend") in 1959 by Sundberg and Zavala of Deccofelt Corporation

In addition, the statement that Shepherd produced the first fuzzy dice and gave it as a gift "knowing the original use of the dice" is itself contradictory: how could fighter pilots have used fuzzy dice if they weren't invented yet?

I'm adding the "self-contradictory" template since I'm not sure the best way to fix the issue; I would suggest something prefacing the section like "The origin of fuzzy dice is unclear/disputed/unknown/..." and offer each contradictory claim as a separate possibility.

CubeBag (talk) 08:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CubeBag: I removed the latter two statements, as neither had adequate sourcing prima facie. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 07:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]