Jump to content

Talk:Neodymium magnet toys

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

Uninformative

[edit]

The only information this article contains is that this thing has been banned in certain countries. So what? Is there really nothing more to say about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.3.23.240 (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SECOND THAT, as it is this article is extremely anti-technologyGranito diaz (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If that's what you think, why don't you say it yourself? If you find a problem on Wikipedia, fix it. That's what it's all about. Mike Hayes (talk) 06:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Magnetic poles

[edit]

How many magnetic poles does each sphere have, and how are they arranged? 69.255.144.61 (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid this answer is the obvious one. They have two poles. One is North, the other is South. Since they are spheres the actual direction of arrangement, while it is diametric, is probably immaterial Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily, there are many examples of 2N-pole magnets for sale. Since they stick in more than one direction, my initial bet is that they are 6-pole magnets. nihil (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although there is such a thing as a 6-pole magnet, all currently-popular magnetic-sphere toys use simple 2-pole magnets. 184.94.98.235 (talk) 02:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My Buckyball sets have 2 opposite poles, North and South.Neemund (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deskdots

[edit]

Deskdots are vastly different things from buckyballs +others because those are x 5mm balls deskdots are 8 20mm balls. Andrewcat58 (talk) 13:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

[edit]

What is with the tone of this section? It's not neutral at all! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.194.80.48 (talk) 13:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

‎The Controversy: nanny state measures in the U.S. submission was reverted by me. I was also the author of the above anonymous comment.

non-NPOV phrases:

  • "extensive campaign to remain in business... legal harassment from the CPSC"
  • "alarmist letter"
  • "to the ridicule of the general public"

fugacity (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for people keeping up with the edits of this page, keeping it factual and NPOV. fugacity (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Footnote #4 links to a Google Books item that seemingly is no longer available. (Claims you've reached your "viewing limit" or some such ridiculous thing on the very first page viewed.) This link needs to be removed or changed to one that works. And Footnote #5 is 404. That means that the only two external citations supporting the claims of injuries caused are now nonfunctional. I find it interesting, also, that no explanation is given for not simply marking these toys as not for small children, as is standard practice when toys with small parts present a hazard to children too young to know better than to eat the parts. 67.70.59.128 (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You had reached your viewing limit, I'm afraid. The book is available. The other link is now correctly flagged as a dead link in accordance with policy, and should not be removed until it can be replaced.
With regard to your comment about size, WIkipedia is not a vehicle for reporting such things 'as our opinion'. They are only reported when they appear in reliable sources and are deemed by consensus to be relevant to the article. I may have misunderstood your comment here, however. Even so we do not tend to write about what the manufacturer puts on the packaging unless it is relevant, directly relevant, to the article. It is a primary source and thus only reported in very rare circumstances. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I saw that message as soon as I clicked the link, without browsing to any other pages there. In fact it was probably the first time in weeks I'd been at Google Books. If I reached my "viewing limit" then apparently my "viewing limit" is zero, and since I'm a random generic internet user it follows that everyone's "viewing limit" for that link is zero, meaning that for all intents and purposes the link doesn't work.
As for the lack of explanation for not simply marking them as unsuitable for small children, that's not a criticism of Wikipedia; it's a criticism of those jumping directly to banning products entirely. The lack of controversy over whether that's a disproportionate response seems odd, but if there really is none, then there is indeed nothing for Wikipedia to report in that area. 67.70.59.128 (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense to me. The Google Books item I cannot explain. The book is there, so you must have hit a gremlin. The other element is just the way it appears to be. The point you make is valid, both about size warnings and about Wikipedia. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Standard anti-gremlin countermeasures (i.e., F5 and shift-click reload) didn't affect anything. Unless Google Books tracks views over months and across books out of a single quota, which wouldn't make sense, the only alternative is that that book has a zero-view maximum for the general population, i.e. the publisher changed it to "snippets only" or a more restrictive choice sometime after the footnote was added here (as I presume it was working at the time it was first added). If it looks normal to you you may be seeing a cached image of the page from before the hypothetical change. In any event, if a random user showing up and clicking the link can't read any of it there at all, then the link is useless, and that has actually happened; therefore, the link is useless. 67.70.59.128 (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Works with safari and firefox. Since I never use firefox it cant; be cached. Even if you are correct the link is not useless because the ISBN part of it works. We do not need to see the text of the book to cite the book.A citation itself is sufficient. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
this may answer your question, question 11. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but how is a citation useful if nobody can follow it and see what the alleged source says? It could point to a long quotation from War and Peace, rather than a substantiation of the article's claims, for all anyone knows. Now I'm not saying I think that that's actually the case in this instance, but you can see how that hypothetical example shows that a non-followable link is not a good citation. Anyone could put a bunch of biased "facts" into a controversial article and add "citations" that conveniently can't be checked for a) being relevant and b) supporting what they're claimed to support.
(And I'd like to add that no, that link doesn't work for me, either. And I rarely browse Google Books nor have a google account logged in, so I don't see how I could have reached any limit higher than zero.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.45.139 (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The citation is to the book, the url for Google Books is an irrelevance. Books tend to be printed things available in paper. Wikipedia citations include many offline items. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same problem with my Opera browser telling me that I had reached my GoogleBook limit. After finding the same problem on Firefox and IE, I decided to install Chrome. Guess what? No more "reached your limit" notices. Google owns Chrome, of course, so I suppose it is a scheme to get more people to use Chrome. In the process, I found out that I quite like Chrome but now I have four browsers which seems kind of excessive. They are not completely redundant, however, because I have found from time to time, that certain web-pages will only function properly on one of the four browsers, and not always the same one. Mike Hayes (talk) 06:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Footnote 29 is also dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asmarksaz (talk • contribs) 18:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plastic-cased neodymium magnet toys

[edit]

What about neodymium magnet toys cased in plastic (such as Magformers, which are hollow geometric magnetic shapes used to build structures, of which I happen to have a set)?--Adeptzare3 (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More citations

[edit]

Here are a few more citations to deaths or serious injuries:

– Nbauman (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And here's the most exhaustive story I've seen (particularly on the regulatory issues) from the ABA Journal.

Last few standing?

[edit]

As far as I can tell, there are only two companies still selling Neodymium magnet toys (both marketed as adult toys): Zen Magnets (http://zenmagnets.com/) -- one of the big names in Neodymium magnet toys, and Klicky Balls (http://klikyballs.com) -- a new startup who's website went live in January of 2014. Does anyone know of any others? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Buckyball"

[edit]

The usage of Buckyball is under discussion, see talk:buckyball -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 09:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: August 17, 2021 CPSC recall

[edit]

https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2021/Zen-Magnets-and-Neoballs-Magnets-Recalled-Due-to-Ingestion-Hazard
Zen Magnets and Neoballs Magnets Recalled Due to Ingestion Hazard
Recall Date: August 17, 2021
--Nbauman (talk) 17:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neodymium_magnet_toys&oldid=1226287851"