Talk:Toy store/Archive 1

Archive 1

Replacing old copy?

I'm not sure why the recently made edits were reverted by Mr. or Ms. 99.233.216.11 ?? I am once again making the change until the reversion can be justified. In enormous confusion, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

List Inclusion Discussion

Let's work together and find a consensus on the issue as to whether to include a list of toy stores on the page or not. My thinking is that a list isn't needed and only serves to invite a directory/advertising feel to the article. Inclusion of notable toy stores can be made in a prose fashion which would illustrate why they are notable and how they have contributed to the rise/fall/existence of toy stores and such. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree on having a header for "Notable stores," and then tell why they are notable. This list of toy stores does not tell the reader anything about the stores, which should be notable to be mentioned in this encyclopedia, which is supposed to be a serious one. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, just stumbled upon this article and thought I'd add my two cents regarding having or not having a list of stores. Here are my major concerns:

• Even if a list of notable stores would generally be acceptable for an article on such a topic, this one is so short (only 2 sentences at the time I'm writing this) that a long list would make it look more like a directory than an article. It would essentially be a "List of Toy Stores" sort of article with a brief introduction. I might be less hesitant if it was a longer article, but right now I'm not particularly comfortable with the idea.
• Notability is always a concern with such lists. I suggest that notability be based on whether or not the store is notable enough to have it's own article. That way, major stores (including Toys "R" Us, FAO Schwarz, KB Toys, etc.) would be included, but 15 editors' favorite mom and pop shops would not. One benefit of this approach is that if someone adds another store to the list, any subsequent discussion about notability can be addressed on that store's article's own talk page instead of cluttering up this one with frequent discussions over new additions.

The compromise I propose, which would satisfy both of my concerns, would be to wikilink to Category:Toy companies (or a new, more specific category, as this category also includes manufacturers) in a "See Also" section. Cross-namespace "see alsos" are rare, but I've seen a few here and there and I think it's the best solution in this case. That way, the list is available, but does not overwhelm the article in length or allow unfettered dubious additions. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 03:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that notable toy stores should have their own articles or they are not notable. I suppose there are such stores in many countries of the world. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Three-Revert Rule

I'm delaying reporting the reversions by 99.233.216.11 because of the laudable attempt by Jasynnash2 to gain consensus. This is what you can find at WP:3RRN:

If you find yourself in a revert war, you should ensure that the "other side" is aware of the three-revert rule, especially if they are new, by leaving a warning about the rule on their talk page, for example using the template as follows:

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Article. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. .

Administrators are unlikely to block a user who has never been warned. If you report a 3RR violation here it is good form to inform the person you are reporting of this on their talk page and provide a link to this page: WP:AN/3RR. Consider the arguments of the "other side": perhaps you can provide an edit that satisfies both sides. Consider also trying Wikipedia:Dispute resolution without asking that your "opponent" be blocked for 3RR violation.

Mr. or Ms. 99.233.216.11 does not have a talk page. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and placed the warning on the IP's talkpage for you although the 24hour thing may not fully apply in this case. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I knew there was more to say than just one line . . .

I've stumbled across a Source that indicates there is more to say about Toy Stores than just one line. In fact, there are 264 pages' worth to say in six chapters, by Christine L. Williams, Inside Toyland, Working, Shopping, and Social Inequality. Undoubtedly there is a bibliography in this book as well. Her History of Toy Shopping in America is on line, at http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/10529/10529.ch02.pdf.

So I think we should retain this topic inasmuch as a university professor has seen fit to write a book about it, which one of us might even buy and use as a Source.

Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)