Talk:Weeble

message: The article as written uses the present tense: "Weebles are a line of toys...". However, having listened to the commentary track of the DVD Primer, it seems that Hasbro is no longer manufacturing Weebles. The director wanted Weebles to use as props in the film, but had a lot of difficulty in finding them, until finally he bought some on eBay. He mentioned that he had to take the fire truck and another accessory as well, just to get one Weeble. --Cinematical 23:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw "Hansel and Gretel", "Jack and Jill", and "Goldilocks" WEEBLES sets at a Wal-Mart store in Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA, within the past two weeks. (I collect WEEBLES toys like some other Wikipedia editors collect Pokémon toys so I watch follow WM's preschool toy section closely.) So it would appear that they either are still in production or have been discontinued very recently. But then Primer is a 2004 film, and the new (2000s) line of WEEBLES toys became available starting in fall 2004. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 00:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. Thanks. Primer was released in 2004, but it would have been filmed a few years earlier, probably 2001. Great movie by the way; you should see it. I wonder when they were last produced prior to 2004? Early 1980s? --Cinematical 04:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still in production? 

message: Just thought that the trivia section almost sounds like it should be moved to a disambiguation page rather than listed on the article. Some of the trivia has nothing to do with weebles but sound like the name. I think the "weebl and bob" should also be part of the disambiguation or a note on the top of the article. Peter 04:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation

message: Someone put  at the top of this talk page. I'll warn in advance that any photo added to this article's lead section will have to be non-free and uploaded directly to English Wikipedia, not Commons. Here's why:
* Photos of Weebles figures are derivative works of the original sculptures, subject to copyright restrictions.
* Photos of homemade self-righting figures would not fit for the same reason that we don't use a screenshot of OpenOffice.org Writer at the top of the article Microsoft Word.
Oh, and Weebles toys are once again discontinued. (In fact, I managed to catch 'em all.) --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 18:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  reqphoto: license clarification 

message: Prior to the proprietary "Weeble" described here, this sort of weighted-bottom, bounce-back toy existed (e.g., in Der Stürmer No. 29, July 1937). What was it called? The page as presently written describes it without using a particular term. The Leo DE/EN online dictionary gives "tumbler" for the German Stehaufmännchen (note that the interwiki links to the generic toy)—is this British English, as it's unfamiliar to my native U.S. English vocabulary. I'm interested in the U.S. English term.  -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article roly-poly toy has appeared since then. Now which interlanguage links on this article are trademarks of Hasbro in other countries, and which are generic? The generic ones should be moved to roly-poly toy; only links specifically about Hasbro should stay.
I have often wondered where this product name originates because the Dutch word for 'to wobble' is 'wiebelen' (pronounced weebelen).  Thus, Weebles wobble.  Simplastic (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Generic name? 

message: The article needs an image of an original Weeble, preferably a side by side comparison with the new ones. Were the originals discontinued because of possible choking hazards?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 21:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Original Weebles

message: The explanation of how a weeble wroks stresses that it must comtain two solids of different density. Anyone who gas real world experience of destroying weebles (e.g. by hurling them as toy hand grenades) will know they actually have a metal weight in the base and the top is hollow. Altough the principle of low c of g is correct the level of weeble-fu demonstrated by the explanation is paltry and unworthy of Wikipedia. Stub Mandrel (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two solids?