Talk:Prop replica

message: I would very much like to see this article expanded but have no knowledge on the subject myself. Could somebody expand the article with things like processes used and materials required? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.105.25.160 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

message: It's vital that articles on wikipedia include cited sources.  The links serve as those sources.  Removing them diminishes the article when no alternative sources are substituted.  Unless and until JHunterJ and Budgiekiller can replace what they have removed, the external links remain.  Thank you for your other housekeeping efforts, however.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Animakitty (talk • contribs) 01:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The deleted links serve as spam, not sources.  "A fan lightsaber site" does not support the claim "There are many props regularly replicated by fans and merchants. Some of the most common include: Lightsabers" -- anecdotal evidence is not a citation.  And "The owner and maintainer of Star Wars Helmets, 'Jez', had this to say on the subject. "How important is screen accuracy? Very! Although when we say "Screen" accuracy I mean "how it looks on the screen", rather than whether it reflects the actual state of the prop as it is now."" is advertising.  The list of forums is directly counter to the guidelines for external links. Please read WP:SPAM and WP:EL. -- JHunterJ 02:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The links removed were not sourcing any of the statements made in the article. I agree the article should have sources, but I disagree that links to fan forums, quotes from Jez (which are not present on the link that you are calling a source), or links to individual lightsabers (which aren't sourcing the claim that lightsabers are one of the most common) serve that purpose. -- JHunterJ 03:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with prop making that as it is not a wholly officially supported art, there's few official sites that approach it.  Excluding, I think, Lucasarts... there won't be a site at Sony about prop making... or Dreamworks or even the BBC for Doctor Who props.  That means the only 'official' information can be found through the web forums.  I don't like it but that's how it is.  I think, that after a number of related incidents the guidelines for links need serious redrafting as there are some things where the fan pages hold the official info.Kingpin1055 08:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if it's the only info, that doesn't make it official info.  References for prop replicas can be found in newspapers. Those are the kinds of sources that could benefit the site. Here are three I just pulled from Nexis: The Post-Crescent (Appleton, Wisconsin), November 4, 2006, Pg. 8D, "Even Star Wars, D&D nerds can't stay out of court system" by Reg Wydeven; New Straits Times (Malaysia), November 26, 2005, Pg. 9, Costumed fans get into the act, Faridul Anwar Farinordin; Los Angeles Times, May 19, 2005 Home Edition, Pg. E28, "Darth shadows; Brides and grooms dressed as 'Star Wars' characters? Jedi ethics as a religion? It's not a movie. It's a galaxy not so far away.", Dean Kuipers. -- JHunterJ 13:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Replica prop making probably won't have any sort of "Bible" type reliable source, but true theatrical property construction is a multi-million dollar industry.  Given how many excellent sources I know of for prosthetic makeup, similar sources for propmaking techniques would not be at all surprising.  But this returns to the comment I made below that I believe that prop construction and replica props are two different topics, and the articles should be reorganized to reflect this.  The techniques for replica prop construction and original prop construction are identical. -Verdatum (talk) 01:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding External Links 

message: Just as a point of reference, 'A Site About Props' (Or ASAP) is that forum's actual name, it wasn't a poor description. Kingpin1055 19:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A Site About Props

message: I've added the original research tag to better categorize this article.  While wikipedia disapproves of original research, a look at their page explaining why has no bearing in this case: an informative article about a field that is not yet well documented by verifiable sources.  There are a good number of books about props as far as original work goes, documenting the efforts of those involved with producing the television shows and movies.  On the subject of replicating those efforts however?  I've yet to run across such a book or article.
Still, I encourage those with access to books like the Star Wars illustrated encyclopedia and the like to attempt to find something we can cite in support of this article. --Animakitty 22:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The major issue I saw was WP:NOT#HOWTO.  The article was giving advice or instruction, instead of presenting facts.  I removed all that content.  Most of the information in sources reccomended above and similar are related to prop construction not prop replication.  These are two separate subjects.  The article is probably largely original research because it's a very niche hobbyist activity.  Information is provided on forums, not classic Reliable sources (Though I'd love for this to change, or to be proven wrong!).  The only source I can think discussing prop replication are a couple random episodes of Mythbusters.  They explain how prop replication is done professionally, for the purpose of film sequels or other similar throwbacks. -Verdatum (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research 

message: I'm tempted to tag this article with  as it is borderline fancruft with all the external links and examples, or even . Any disagreements? -- OlEnglish (Talk) 22:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed most of the issues.  There are still WP:V problems, but none of the content looks dubious to me.  I'm too lazy to check out every external link, but the descriptions all do appear to be related to the topic, and not of a purely commercial nature. -Verdatum (talk) 00:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fancruft?