Talk:Action figure

message: This page is sorely lacking in content, I updated it and added a few new paragraphs now it is somewhat better. I don't understand why the action figure guide link I added was removed, I think it would be a great help for people browsing this page. i can think of at least 6 more good ones to. The 2 links currently there are kinda useless on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 10incher (talk • contribs) 21:38, 9 June 2006
I recently added data indicating the current estimate of the total number of known unique action figures in existance. I spoke with a number of action figure collectors about an online action figure database called collector-actionfigures. I then emailed the company and verified they are continuing to edit and improve this database. It contains over 30,000 action figures and thousands of photos. I included a reference to the source as well. Today Bobby removed the entry. Why? It is a great, free compliment to the information on this page. Do we not want readers to get complete information. I undid the change. 07:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  In looking at your edits in the last few days it is quite apparent they have been designed just to link to this site. If it's important enough then another neutral experienced editor can add it back. Bobby I'm Here, Are You There? 15:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Kindly stop adding links to sites you are affiliated with. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lacking in content 

message: I've added a tag for WikiProject Comics. Obviously, this article is not about comics, but the two are closely associated. Indeed, one need look no further than the acquisition of Marvel Comics by ToyBiz to see the connection. Also, as near as I can tell, there is no "Toys" WikiProject. Hopefully, the tag will bring a little attention to the article. Cheers, GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Toys would probably be too broad of a topic, anyway, and there would probably be a lot of overlap with scale modeling.  --Joe Webster (talk) 05:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject tag 

message: Just because it was the first photo put in place does not mean it should remain. It is a very poor definition of an action figure with its lack of articulation, overly tight photo cropping, and crappy packaging. Poor header photos are replaced with better ones on Wikipedia all the time. I seen no reason why this should be an exception. Cale (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been previous discussion regarding this at User talk:Zarbon#action and Talk:Toy/Archives/2012#Images. Siawase (talk) 20:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and the consensus was that there should be two or three representative images. We don't need many different types of GI Joe images on the page. Two are enough. One other type of figure is fine, it's been there since 2004, there's no reason to remove it now. Siawase is correct in referencing that the previous discussions have brought problems where too many images have been compiled on one page. The toy page has been a problem in and of itself with the various amount of images. We do not want that to happen here, but two or three (different) types of images are fine. In terms of the actual photo quality, I feel it's much better than the GI Joe images for a few reasons. For one, it's a full-body shot, not one limited to the face. An action figure is notably well-portrayed only if you capture the body along with the head. I don't have anything against keeping the GJ Joe images, I do have a problem with removing images when we can have three representative ones on the page. - Zarbon (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

text: If that specific image wasn't to your liking, then I will upload another, more consistent and without a plastic bag that way you won't complain. But, the GI Joe image is a mere face shot, it isn't a full-body image and therefore isn't as representative of a full-body figure. It can stay on the page, but not as the main consensus in terms of full-body representation. And there's no rule against having any certain character. - Zarbon (talk) 00:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Alright mate. Thanks a lot. On another note, did you see the toy page? It's currently a huge mess, it has 18 images. I brought it up on the talk page a long time ago and just recently to avoid clutter. I was hoping that page could use a heavy fix, I suggested that there be a link to a wikimedia commons gallery section rather than 18 images on one page. What do you think? - Zarbon (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Mate? What're u, Austrailian?! The zarbon toy is one of the WORST images we should display. I implore u, stick with the soccar player image. thanks for listening. ActionFigureLover (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 18:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Zarbon photo 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Action figure. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://science.enotes.com/how-products-encyclopedia/action-figureAction
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090427202757/http://scifiwire.com:80/2009/03/review-watchmen-action-fi.php to http://scifiwire.com/2009/03/review-watchmen-action-fi.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090227061458/http://he-man.org:80/primary_sects/toys/html/collector_guides/motu_class/toy_pages/batarm_he-man.shtml to http://www.he-man.org/primary_sects/toys/html/collector_guides/motu_class/toy_pages/batarm_he-man.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090413201048/http://www.toyotter.com:80/sp/history.html to http://toyotter.com/sp/history.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why was this article listed as a vital article? My instinct is to roll that back, but I may be confused. Gmarmstrong (talk) 14:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vital article? 

message: Are these Japanese examples in the image really action figures. They're well-made, but most of them seem to lack real posability, being mainly decorative sculptures. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 12:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: If you'd want to have some better image than the flea market sale, above, I guess you could have some figures from McFarlane Toys or something. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Japanese examples

message: why are we using an AI art generated picture for the infobox? can't someone just use a picture of a spider-man figure or something? why are we using AI art? Babysharkboss2 (talk) 19:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The image