Talk:DC Universe Classics

message: Each grouping of action figures is noted by the series number in this article; but, wouldn't it be more accurate to change the word "series" to "wave?" The figure packages have "wave" printed on them (), and MattyCollector refers to the groups as waves (). --Ryokuu (talk) 03:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. I'll do just that. JLThorpe (talk) 12:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Series vs. Waves 

message: comicfigs.net seems to be confirming a Bane Series and an Arkillo Series. Would this be a reliable source? 
http://comicfigs.net/Line/DCUC/DCUC16.htm
http://comicfigs.net/Line/DCUC/GLC01.htm 75.180.62.2 (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Though that lineup has been heavily rumored, it would probably be best to wait until Mattel confirms (or denies) that list before adding it to the actual article. Ryokuu (talk) 12:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  comicfigs.net 

message: Obsidian's and Tomar-Re/Tu's names seem to be switching every so often; based on Mattel's information, Obsidian will be packaged as "Todd Rice"; Obsidian's packaged image (originally posted on Mattel's facebook page) confirms "Todd Rice" as the name of the actual product. However, "Shazam!" and Mary Batson have been listed as their actual superhero titles within this article, so Obsidian should probably be listed this way (as "Obsidian") to remain consistent. Though the costume details are inaccurate, Mattel has noted Tomar-Re's inclusion in the upcoming five-pack, but changing it back and forth until a carded photo is shown is pointless, in my opinion. Ryokuu (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Figure Name Issues 

message: Since there is an issue with including detailed release information on this page, would it be acceptable to move it to a separate page (such as List of DC Universe Classics Releases)? JLThorpe (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not until the notability of such information is established by reliable third-party sources. Wikipedia is not a release guide. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

text: The assumption that I am taking this personally is false, and ignores the Wikipedia guidelines I have cited. See WP:USEFUL, WP:Verifiability, and WP:NPOV. Furthermore, I have left the history of the line--what was taken out was mainly the overly-detailed wave assortments. There are fansites for that sort of thing (which remain in the external links section). For an example of what a well-researched, comprehensive Wikipedia article should look like, see In Utero (album), or any page at Wikipedia:Featured articles. Also, saying "Last, if it troubles you so greatly to view this page with release information on it, there is a really, really easy way to avoid seeing this information...don't...visit...this...page." really misses the point. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia articles aren't intended for the "collecting community"--they are meant for the general reader, the sort who need to to be told exactly what this line of action figures is and what's relevant about it above all the fancruft. It's not meant as a database for people to keep track of their collections. If you want to improve the page, you can research and cite reliable sources in the article. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What is your connection to this content?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.238.98 (talk) 07:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand the question. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

text: "Worthless" to whom? I cut out tons of unsourced, biased, and speculative material. That actually make the page more useful as an encyclopedic article. A lot of people here seem to be unclear on what is actually appropriate for a Wikipedia page. This article needs to cover the line in an objective fashion that establishes what the subject is and why it is notable, instead of providing a biased, unsourced history followed by an overly-detailed list of products only of interest to collectors. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of release info 

message: The only text in the prose that should be bolded is the subject of the article at the top of the page, per WP:MOSBOLD. Terms like "Collect and Connect" and individual figures should not be bolded. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No. How is that relevant? WesleyDodds (talk) 09:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note on bold text 

message: I didn't propose splitting the history of the toyline and the list of released figures, but I oppose it mostly because the current article falls inline with other articles on toylines such as Marvel Legends, Marvel Universe (toyline), and Classic Marvel Figurine Collection. Some of the tables could use some work, however. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed split 

message: Why isn't the Arkillo series listed here?  From the Blackest Night line? PokeHomsar (talk) 18:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blackest Night line?