Talk:Shocker Toys/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

On Lying in the Gutters and a "public meltdown"

Shocker Toys and Geoff Beckett got a mention in this Lying in the Gutters column [[1]] on Comic Book Resources. Should the swirl of activity surrounding Shocker Toys on message boards be covered in any way? I understand that attributing any statements to Shocker Toys on such boards is not possible given the nature of how message boards work. I'm thinking more about including something on the polarizing effect, to paraphrase Bilby, that Shocker Toys has almost everywhere online. The internet phenomena that occurs whenever Shocker Toys is discussed, even here on Wikipedia, seems to have had a much bigger impact on the world at large than anything actually accomplished by Shocker Toys as a toy manufacturer. Is that too esoteric to include mention of in the article? ShockerHelp (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow did you wait long enough Domu I mean ShockerHelp (Major COI) before bringing this up here. This is a wiki article about a company to prove it exists not to defame it for your advantage. Oh and I found the forum posts you made about this wiki page and how you commented everytime something was changed here and encouraged sock puppets to come here and skew the article more. It is also unproven that Shocker Toys had anything to do with this scam and they have addressed the issue on their website frontpage. --JMST (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again. Bring it up on the COI notice board, please. Show all of your "evidence" there. Or show it here. Whatever. Please, I'm begging you. Get as many people as possible to look into this and put an end to it. ShockerHelp (talk) 21:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed the text earlier because the sources were rubbish - yes it's pretty clear what's gone on (and by extension how shady certain individuals are) but sadly we still need reliable sources for it to be mentioned in the article. I've got some time next week and I'm going to looking at this article with a microscope... --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd been waiting for that addition to appear - it was good that you spotted it so quickly. :) And another pair of eyes would be handy, although I think you'll find that the article is fairly NPOV as it stands, although I'm concerned that it might still be a tad off balance. - Bilby (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That aside, I agree about the sources. The "Lying in the Gutters" column only has a single line, so while it might be a reliable source, there isn't enough there to be of any use. It would need to be covered in a reasonable amount of detail before it could be discussed, especially given that, as things stand, the best that could be said is an OR comment about the general opinions of people on forums (it would appear that there are about 5-10 people activly discussing Shocker Toys, at least on CBR, but that can't be said to be enough of a sample size to have any real meaning). In regard to the "scam", at the moment all I've seen are emails that some people on forums claim to have come from Shocker Toys - the story would need to break out of the forums to be useful, whether or not it is true. - Bilby (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

And that's why I posted here before adding anything to the actual article on the topic (the addition to the article wasn't me); because I knew I could count on Bilby and his greater Wiki experience, to vet the material. Is the mention on Unscrewed rubbish? Or just rubbish as it is without further explanation. Unscrewed is a "professional" forum. Does that give it any better standing? ShockerHelp (talk) 21:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I knew it wasn't posted by you - I was expecting an IP. :) I haven't seen the Unscrewed one, but guessing, even a professional forum is still a forum. Major claims - such as claims of scams - should have a high degree of evidence, I'd expect. - Bilby (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. Here is the Unscrewed link [[2]] that was removed during a revert. It does seem that (almost) anyone could post on there. Though the page has a "news" section, it seems to be user contributed. I could be wrong. ShockerHelp (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment But there is no proof just like using the Shocker Toys forums to show that the Indie Spotlight line exsists through sprued pictures and injected testshots. To me when a toyline gets a tooling made it has come into exsistance but to others that is not the case. Much like ShockerHelp and others think Shocker Toys is involved in this scam but from what I can see they are not. They addressed the issue on their forums and their website and it seems that someone from a news site started a smear campaign around the time of this wiki article creation and it has been going on ever since. I haven't seen proof of the smear campaign so I cannot say for sure but on the other side I have not seen proof of the scam they are supposed to be involved in.--JMST (talk) 13:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this is very much worth including in the article in one way or another, possibly in a "Controversy" section or something. I'm not going to interfere because I wouldn't call myself impartial, but something that seems to be prevalent on message boards and such is worth including. However, if it's ONLY on message boards and such then I wouldn't say it should be included, as those aren't reliable documentation. If anyone finds a third-party publication that talks about all of Shocker Toys' online meltdowns, such as here: [[3]], (where they swear at and berate comic book writer Robert Kirkman when he says he doesn't think the toys look good. Shocker then deleted all of their posts, but other users had quoted some of it.) please let me know. Of course, for neutrality's sake, we should also include Shocker Toys' announcement on their website distancing themselves from accusations and accusing others of "smear campaigns," though this:[[4]], is the only thing I can find that qualifies as such. Friginator (talk) 01:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

I readded the conflict of interest tag since both User:JMST and User:ShockerHelp appear to have a personal interest in this article. Themfromspace (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - as mentioned above - this article needs some "clean" eyes to take a look at it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm tired of these COI allegations. Bring it up on the COI board or whatever. Oh, yeah, it has been, twice before and nothing was found to indicate a COI on my part. All that exists are wild allegations on JMST's part. Point to edits to the article that I've done that have not been good edits, that haven't retained a neutral point of view. Anything remotely borderline, I've posted here first for discussion. I've not added anything to the article that another editor has voiced a concern about. The only other editor which contributed in the discussions has been Bilby. Though not agreeing on everything, the two of us have made what I feel is a decent article. Please do bring on more eyes to look at this article. ShockerHelp (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea (both the tag and the "clean eyes"). - Bilby (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Even though I am considered a COI I agree and if you have noticed I have not changed or altered the article page in awhile. I only add what I think in my opinion is important here on the talk page for others to see.--JMST (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

"Financial

If you fit either of these descriptions:

you are receiving monetary or other benefits or considerations to edit Wikipedia as a representative of an organization (whether directly as an employee or contractor of that organization, or indirectly as an employee or contractor of a firm hired by that organization for public relations purposes); or,

you expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia; for example, by being the owner, officer or other stakeholder of a company or other organization about which you are writing;

Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy states that all articles must represent views fairly and without bias, and conflicts of interest do significantly and negatively affect Wikipedia's ability to fulfill this requirement. If your financially-motivated edits would be non-neutral, do not post them."

I do not see where ShockerHelp fits in these categories. However, it appears that JMST, does fit these categories. Where do I present my evidence? I do not wish to put personal information on this page.

Discussing changes in the talk page!

Again no one is discussing changes here in the talk page but commiting vandalizim under non registered names and also marking the article for deletion when it was marked keep. The page now that it has been properly written needs to be protected and only changes discussed here on the talk page. --JMST (talk) 14:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

"attempting to manufacture"

I reverted Cmock127's edit that claimed the company doesnt manufacture toys anymore. If anyone wants to dispute this I'm inviting a discussion to take place here. Themfromspace (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I realized after the fact it should be here...brain freeze. Will get my act together and post proof in the next day or so. Cmock127 (talk) 02:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that will happen Cmock127 and you claiming they don't make toys anymore or are somehow out of business seems like an opinion to me. They announced on their website a few days ago that their Indie Spotlight series1 toys have shipped as well as two exclusive toys for the New York Comic Con show which really disproves your theory. They also stated they will be showing new product lines at Toy Fair 2009 so again your theory is not sustainable. As an editor myself I would wait until the New York show to try and bring them down as you so desperately seem to want. Their toys are still for sale on various websites and these two upcoming shows and online updates prove they are still in business and still producing toys. Opinions are great but not part of fact here on Wiki as everything must be backed up with realiable sources and facts. --JMST (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd be interested in seeing the links to the websites that are selling the toys, not selling pre-orders, or out of stock notices. I don't think I have ever seen any websites where one could click the button, give their cc# and wait for the toy in the mail with a tracking number. At any rate it is clear that Shocker Toys does produce merchandise, however I believe up to this point that have all been convention "exclusives" (which the overstock is then sold in the online store and other places after the convention thus falsifying the "exclusive" descriptor), and these are small runs @500 pieces. I would be very interested in seeing links anything that proves otherwise.--Pariah74 (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

"Shocker toys doesn't make toys" isn't true, but it's not an opinion either. As of 1/13/09 the Shocker website says they've shipped from the factories, so we have no reason to believe they aren't manufacturing toys. Toy Fair is a reputable source for a lot of things, but it doesn't prove they're making the toys, just that they're planning to make them. Shocker has shown prototypes for years, and we have yet to see anything on the shelves, though I wouldn't be surprised if we do soon. It's also arguable whether a limited run of convention exclusives counts as regularly producing toy lines, but that point isn't valid now that they have regular product. JMST: I understand you're a loyal fan of the company for some reason, but you don't have to personally attack other editors, like saying, "I would wait until the New York show to try and bring them down as you so desperately seem to want." There's no need to assume everyone is out to destroy Shocker Toys, and even if someone is it's not your problem, it's the company's. You're not their spokesperson, so please try to relax and assume good faith per WP:CIV, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA.

No, Shocker Toys announcing that they have something coming out does not disprove any theory. Shocker Toys have announced both products and ship dates that have proven not to come to be. At this point, it is hard to view them as a reliable source on what will actually appear. A claim of having product is not the same as there being product. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I should put on a smile like the rest. I created the article and then watched it get torn apart for reasons I did not understand. I backed off only to see it escalate again with balance from non-partial editors only. If my husband supported my collecting of toys a bit more I would probably be even more diehard. I love toys; and yes I also like products from Shocker Toys. Does it make me their spokesgirl? No, but I also believe in giving people and companies a chance before crapping on them. I have done it with numerous toylines and companies, a few I almost gave up on. If people can come on here to say they aren't credit worthy or a real toy company or have not produced real products then why am I not allowed to say otherwise? I may have been hasty with the comment you quoted but really, saying you are going to gather evidence and come back to discredit them is kind of scary. --JMST (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You did not create this article. Someone else using the JMST name created this article, as is readily apparent by comparing the quality of writing of what you just posted to the other very, very poorly written things done under the JMST name. The article was torn apart initially because it was poorly written and poorly sourced. It needed a lot of improvement, and luckily for those who wish to keep the article around, it was. You should be thanking all the contributors who have taken the time to make this a decent article instead of lashing out at them for any little thing that you view as a transgression. ShockerHelp (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually I am not lashing out at the editors that kept the article clean. I am happy that Bilby and others took the time to protect the article from vandals. My problem was with the people that were invited from other forums to skew this article into a bad light. I trust the editors who are not sent from online links complaining about Shocker Toys. But again, thank you for trying to make me look like the bad girl in this whole mess. I have seen 1st hand a guy starting posts on forums telling Shocker haters to come here and post. --JMST (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey there JMST, I did not mean to make this personal for you. Was only going to post updates from Shocker's site that the IS series did NOT make it out in December 2008, not that they were out of the toy business.Cmock127 (talk) 02:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that then Cmock127. I just want these toys and think they worked hard to make what I as a fan have been longing for. Truce and let's hope we can add Indie Figures to the article soon. --JMST (talk) 05:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You are making me suspicious. You don't seem to be the same JMST as before. I can tell from your contribs that you're trying to recruit more friends. What's wrong with your old friends? Cmock127 (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think a serious question that should be asked, is not whether or not they manufacture toys, but whether these products they produce are actually relevant to the toy community. As you can see, from the section detailing the products they have actually released, it seems that all of them are convention exclusives and limited to to less than 1000 pieces. Given that evidence, and no other evidence of product, I find it hard to believe that Shocker Toys is a relevant force in the toy industry. Pariah74 (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources and Citations

I removed the links to Shocker Toys' website, as that wouldn't be an appropriate source. I also removed a couple references to an article in The Record, as the full article is not available. One of the facts was mentioned in the part of the Record article that was available, so I kept the reference to that. I would say that some of the sources that remain seem a bit biased, but for now I guess I'll leave it like that. Friginator (talk) 01:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've put them back - the Record article is available, as the link provided takes you to the AccessMyLibrary database, which provides "free" access to registered (US) users through libraries. But that isn't really needed, as a source doesn't need to be online to be used (otherwise we'd have real trouble writing articles). Primary sources are clearly more of a problem, but I think the one use was ok, as it was only to provide the date of incorporation and Buttiglier's joining of the company. However, I did as you suggested elsewhere, and clarified that the source of the Lance Buttiglier statement was Shocker Toys themselves, as well as adding a link to an archive as it seems they modified the page on their site. The Gwar source wasn't a primary source, but the ref tag was broken so it was pointing to the wrong reference, so I fixed that as well. - Bilby (talk) 01:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, good. As long as the cited article I removed is still available to most, that's fine. The sources seem a bit biased, as I've said before. They seem to simply be listing announcements and solicitations, and it would be good if this article had more than that. I also hastily removed the link to MTV, but that was a mistake on my part, as I overlooked the info on Gwar toys. Friginator (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

IS1package pics--JMST (talk) 13:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Founded when?

I'm confused. The Washington Times article says that the company was founded in 2000 with Lance Buttiglieri. The original Shocker Toys' website About page said that Buttiglieri joined the company in 2004. The Record article says that the company was founded in 1998. This interview says 1999. The Shocker Toys' website About page now says 2000. Another interview says 2000. And another interview says 1999 again. This says 2004 as an LLP. This press release says that Shocker Toys LLP was founded in 1999. This article states Shocker Toys was "registered" in 2001. From the same site, different article , it's back to being founded in 2000. This wiki article alone has 2 different founding dates, 1998 and 2000.

This is very basic information. All of it comes from Geoff Beckett directly through press releases, interviews, or his own website. Why do the dates keep changing? Can any information provided by a citation that has Beckett as it's primary source be considered reliable when he changes his story constantly about something as simple as this? What is the policy of dealing with information that comes from a person who just doesn't get things right very often? From the numerous announced release dates that have come and gone with no actual product materializing, to not even getting the founding date of his own company correct, it seems that Geoff Beckett should be considered at least somewhat unreliable whenever he states anything. And so, can references like the Washington Times and The Record articles be considered sound when they are going off nothing more than what Geoff Beckett is telling them? ShockerHelp (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

From what I have seen they were incorporated in 2003 and it seems that is when Lance joined. Could have been the whole going legal inc. thing. I do not khow what or who owned Shocker Toys before that, it would be nice to know though for the article.--JMST (talk) 05:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Reverts and Unreliable sources

I copied this from my talk page, as I thought this should be discussed here. ShockerHelp (talk) 05:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with quoting their website(a first party source), as long as it's made clear that it is from their website. For example,

On January 12th, Shocker confirmed that the series has left the factory and will be shipping soon

Would not be appropriate, as the first-party source is, as you said, unreliable, and is POV in their favor. However,

On January 12th, Shocker announced on their website that the series has left the factory and should be shipping soon, saying...

would be fine, because it is simply a statement of fact. The quote appears on Shocker's website, and Wikipedia would simply be documenting that, not what it actually claims. I removed the "music personalities" statement because "manufacturing" is in the present tense, and Shocker is no longer making the Gwar figure. Thanks. Friginator (talk) 05:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hya Friginator. Sorry if we got off on the wrong foot, or toe. I have to say thanks for helping with the article. As far as GWAR goes, again Shocker Toys stated they were doing the first three figures. They said something about if GWAR does not want to do a Wave 2 after this wave comes out then that will be the end. --JMST (talk) 05:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

That's cool. I would leave off all together that Shocker has announced that the series has left the factory until a reliable, non-first party source could confirm it. Since only Shocker Toys has said that the series would be shipping in December, and now they are saying that they shipped in January, I think it is safe to say that the announced shipping in December clearly did not happen. ShockerHelp (talk) 05:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I still feel it is odd to include the quote. Anyone else want to weigh in? ShockerHelp (talk) 05:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Changes

I've made a few changes - hopefully everyone is happy with them. The main concern was that the amount of information on Indie Spotlight, while probably appropriate, made it unbalanced in the history, so I figured it deserved its own subsection. There isn't enough about it to warrant a products section, especially as it is (still) unreleased, so I left it under history. In doing so, it seemed a tad odd to discuss the release dates and not to mention what figures it is to include, so I added that information. I also found a lot of repetition, probably because of how we've been adding content as news appears. For example, "However, Series 1 did not ship to retailers, nor to the United States in general, in December 2008. On January 12th, Shocker announced on their website that the series has left the factory and should be shipping soon ..." The first statement is redundant, as it is clear that this must be the case based on the second. So I cleaned the repetition up a bit. I also tried to make sure that claims made by Shocker Toys were worded accordingly - hopefully I didn't miss anything, but I'm sure it will be fixed soon if I did. :) - Bilby (talk) 14:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Where is the Toy Fair news where they showed Indie Spotlight Series1 the real figures in and out of the package? Tons of pics and articles are online about it. Simply just having the NYCC news saying they didn't have anything to show looks bad when you know for a fact they had IS1 at Toy Fair 2009.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.246.49 (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2009

The items at Toy Fair were indeed both in the package and out of that package, however, not at the same time. The items shown were obviously painted prototypes in a homemade package. The packaging was not die cut, nor were there twist-ties holding the figures in place, and some of the packaging appeared to have scotch tape on it. The out of the package shots were of the same painted prototypes, only removed from the boxes. As far as I have seen there is no evidence that Shocker Toys has produced this line of figures. Combine that with the claim they made in December 2008 that the toys were already produced and sitting in a container waiting to ship[5], I think the only thing that will prove the toys have been produced is to see them on store shelves. --Pariah74 (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

And your proof that these were not real is???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.246.49 (talk) 19:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the proof was in what I wrote, wasn't it? If you think I need to prove a negative, then maybe you should provide a link to pictures of them simultaneously in the package and out. As I said, the toys at the convention were, in fact, displayed both in packaging and out, but not at the same time. Do YOU have proof that they were? Does anyone? --98.215.236.211 (talk) 06:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggest changes to the introduction

Can I suggest that changes be made to the introduction of the article, as it seems to be quite inconsistent with the facts presented in the rest of the article.

It had read: "Shocker Toys is a company that manufactures action figures and collectible products based on comic book and cartoon characters, music acts, and original creations. Founded in 1998, the company is run by Geoff Beckett Jr. and Lance Buttiglieri, and is based in Ridgewood, New Jersey. Their signature line consists of "Shockinis," 3 inch tall figures with multiple points of articulation and interchangeable parts that lend themselves to customization."

I felt this was not a true reflection of the companies activities based on the rest of the article. The company released only 2 items last year, both limited to 500 pieces. I don't believe they've actually released any items for months now, and their Indie Spotlight line has been delayed for years now so, and they're forever claiming it is only a few months away. The latest photos of the figures are not proof the items are coming, as there is no evidence that more than one of each figure exists at present. There seems to be no evidence that the company will be releasing anything soon, since no other items appear close to being released. Also it is a fact that the company has never actually manufactured an "action figure" at all. They've made unpainted block figures, or resin statues, but nothing that would be defined as an action figure.

Based upon the facts presented in the article, it would seem that a far more prevailing trend with this company is the announcement of items that never get made. I have made some changes to the introduction, but invite any of the more experienced editors to modify it if you think it could be worded better.

I don't believe it is of any value to mention Shockini's as a "signature line" either. The company has ceased manufacturing them years ago, and no longer place any emphasis on the line.SWH (talk) 08:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Your suggested changes came from a very strong point of view, and don't really fit Wikipedia's policies. While you may well have a point about the Shockinis (personally, I'm not sure what constitutes a "signature line" anyway), this article looks at the company's history (good and bad), and historically they were their most important line. It's worth noting that they appear to be about to release products this year. The LE NYCC Scud/Maxx are due to ship Monday, so I would rather wait until that date passes before making any claims, while the full Indie Spotlight line is due to be shipped "by the end of March". While they've missed dates before, this time around they've had packaged products on display (NY Toy Fair), so it looks likely that they'll appear. And, either way, that would be worth covering here. - Bilby (talk) 08:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the introduction I proposed was out of line with Wikipedia policy. I just find the introduction at present does not accurately reflect the rest of the article. The rest of the article illustrates that time and time again the company have not released what they have announced. Every section in the article ends with something not being made as promised. I just think that the introduction should more accurately reflect the article by making reference to what is clearly an ongoing trend throughout the company history, not just an isolated occurrence.

The mention of Shockini's makes it sound as if they are a current product, when in fact they have not been made for several years now. They have a section detailing them and their significance later in the article, so I do not see the need to include them in the introduction in present tense, it is inaccurate. Since there is no reliable source to show evidence of any products currently being manufactured, (the company themselves have proven extremely unreliable in this regard) I think it also inaccurate to say they "manufacture", as if it is an ongoing activity they undertake. For example last year they only released 2 products, sold exclusively at a 2 day convention. I think it would be more accurate to change "manufacture" to "occasionally manufacture". However if you have some third party evidence to prove that Shocker are currently producing products, then in line with Wikipedia policy on Verifiability, I see no problem in referring to it in that manner. As all of the products they have released for several years have only been sold in limited quantities at conventions, the introduction should reflect that. The introduction at present makes it appear that the company is on par with the likes of Hasbro, Mattel, McFarlane or NECA, who continually manufacture mass produced products. It would be more accurate for the introduction to reflect the scale of Shocker's business activity. SWH (talk) 10:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right about the Shockinis, but they are still their major product, especially given that Indie Spotlight hasn't been released. On that basis they deserve mention in the lead, but I've added that they haven't been produced since 2006. The "occasionally manufacture" is very POV, though, so I removed the "occasionally", but I've left out mention of action figures in the first line. Personally I think that the Shockinis probably qualify as action figures, but it is splitting hairs either way. - Bilby (talk) 12:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot. As the lead is meant to be a summary, I added mention of Indie Spotlight and the con exclusives. Clearly any discussion of Shocker Toys should mention Indie Spotlight (good or bad), and the con exclusives are worth a passing comment in the lead. - Bilby (talk) 12:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Good work. I think the intro is now a better summary of the article as a whole, and gives a better indication of where Shocker stands right now. I'm doubtful that Indie Spotlight will be released by the end of March. But it's pretty close now, so we may as well just wait and see. But I would probably suggest that if there's another delay with the line that mention of that gets trimmed from the intro until they do get released. I think the intro should just be a summary of what they have notably done to date, not getting into their hypothetical plans. SWH (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Just made a slight change. I removed the "music acts" from list of things they've made toys of. The Gwar line was never made, and Metalocalypse is covered by "cartoon characters". Also I changed the term "signature line" to "only line", in reference to Shockini's. "Signature line" implies it was the flagship or standout amongst many different lines, when really it was the only line they made. I just feel that is a more accurate portrayal. SWH (talk) 12:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing "music acts" seems fair at the moment, and while I think we can swing either way with "signature", I'm happy with "only", as that is certainly true. :) - Bilby (talk) 13:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't someone who keeps saying doubting something is coming out is COI? This SWH seems to just basically want to say Shocker Toys makes nothing and remove everything until he can argue that the toy company Shocker Toys is not important enough to have a Wiki article. I have looked on the net and SWH has showed distain for Shocker Toys on every forum they goto and has banned on theirs several times isn't that COI? How can he contribute anything here if it is proven everywhere else he has admitted to ruining the company? As far as music acts Dethklok has preformed many times on stage and they have produced toys for them limited or not! Kid robot makes limited toys but they are still a toy company just the same. Again SWH should not be making any edits as he is COI and if the company themselves had created this article it would have been deleted so why should someone who hates them be allowed to do the same? Also from what I have seen the company was founded in 2000 and SWH is using the 1998 date on other forums to say Shocker Toys hasn't produced a single toyline for 11 years which is untrue. Their first product from what I read was created in 2004 and shown at the 2004 Toy Fair. Maybe someone (A real Wiki editor) should ask Shocker Toys themselves they seem open to questions could clear all the air. Isn't Wiki about getting the facts straight not public opinion? This shows you how SWH feels and his plans for Shocker Toys http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=156451&page=3272

No, doubting a source is not COI. And asking Shocker Toys for information would be original research, which would conflict with Wikipedia guidelines. (Additionally, Shocker Toys has shown themselves to be an unreliable source.) In the future, please sign your comments.--Nat Gertler (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, 71.127.246.49, you're coming very close to violating WP:CIV and WP:AGF. Please don't insult SWH and others by saying they are not real editors. You seem to be focusing less on improving the articles and more on accusing people. The fact that you have a New Jersey IP Address is just as much evidence of COI as finding a page where someone calling themselves SWH is criticizing Shocker Toys. You can't pick and choose which users you want working on an article if they aren't doing anything wrong, so please make sure your top priority is working with other editors on improving the article. Thanks. Friginator (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have never "admitted to ruining the company". I have never been banned from the Shocker toys forum. I've never posted there. I am most interested in seeing factual information presented about the company. This article does a good job of that. On numerous occasions Shocker have announced Indie Spotlight was coming on a certain date, and not released it. In that regard, any information from the company itself is extremely unreliable. That much is well documented in this article. Not believing that the items will be released is due to the companies own history in that regard, and in no way constitutes a Conflict Of Interest on my part. As for the Metalocalypse figures, they're based on cartoon characters. There's not need to refer to them as 'cartoon characters' and 'music acts' in the intro, it was redundant.

The 1998 date was taken from this Wiki article. Regardless of if the company was formed in 1998, or 2000 they produced nothing until 2004 either way. Everything they have made since has been a limited release item of 1000 or less produced. I would not consider that a "line of toys". But I am not denying the fact they have made items, just disputing any misrepresentation over the scale of the companies production. By their own count, in 11 years Shocker have made just over 30,000 individual items for sale. This article should accurately portray the scale of the company, not act as a PR piece that makes them appear like a much larger and successful company than they have been. SWH (talk) 03:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Indie Spotlight still not released

According to the Shocker website, Indie Spotlight series 1 was meant to be shipping by March 31st. The company have made no announcements, and there seems to be no evidence of the toys being released. I know a few articles have stated vague dates of some time in April, but in this instance I think we should abide by the date stated by the company on their official site. So once again, they've missed a release date and have still not released a line of action figures. With that in mind, I think it's worth looking at some major revisions to this article. Does the article need an entire section on Indie Spotlight, when the line does not yet exist? For that matter, do we really need a section on Mallow Men, yet another "coming soon" item, with no real prospects of being made? I think it might be best that rather than having the misleading sub heading of "products", and going on to discuss mostly items that have not been released, we should divide it into a section on "Shockini's and Convention Exclusives", and then a section detailing the numerous "unreleased and canceled items" that dominate the companies history. What do people think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SWH (talk • contribs) 07:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Since nobody has objected, I decided to make these edits, rearranging all of the existing information in the article into these two sections; 'Products' and 'Canceled and Unreleased items'. It's all the same info as previously included, just arranged into these two sections. I think at this stage, until there is proof that Indie Spotlight is actually made, it should stay in the Unreleased Items section. It was meant to be released on March 31, and that didn't happen. Even if a new date is given by the company, I think it should stay listed as 'unreleased' until it actually is released. Any further suggestions still welcome. SWH (talk) 06:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Your edits were unfounded and bias against the company. They did announce Indie Spotlight series1 had arrived in their warehouse and was shipping. You think this is a game were you can try and ruin a company on Wiki and their are rules against that so I suggest you read up on them. Adding products that were never released is not allowed and you are doing it anyways to make them look bad. I suggest WIKI editors step in and fix this problem.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.246.49 (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2009

Discussion of product announcements is indeed allowed, and in this case given the history of what has been covered regarding Shocker and what has actually been produced, the announced-and-not-yet-released products are significant to the public history of the company. Shocker may currently claim to have some products in their warehouse; even if Shocker were a reliable source, having products in a warehouse is not the same as having products that have been released.--Nat Gertler (talk) 00:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

At the time of posting my edits, Shocker had made no mention of the figures being shipped on the due date of March 31. Just now they have posted a statement on their website about the figures supposedly arriving by air, and being shipped out in the next few days. The company posted on their website back in JANUARY that these were on a boat from China. Today they're saying that their first shipment has arrived by AIR. What happened to the shipment on the boat? Clearly we cannot take the word of the company as truth. If or when there is actual evidence of the figures being released, then at that time I would obviously see no problem with them being included in the section about their released products. At present, the figures have not been released, so they are in the correct cattegory.SWH (talk) 00:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Updates

I've added some updated info to the Indie Spotlight section that cites some recent interviews and product reviews, as well as confirming that costumers did recieve the exclusives. I also added info on an interview which pushes the release date of some figures back to May. I mentioned that the official website lists the figures as shipping March 31st, and that there has still been no announcement or confirmation that the figures shipped on that date. Friginator (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Indie Spotlight section

I've trimmed back the Indie Spotlight section and reworded it to be more NPOV. I had three concerns. The first was that most of the section was still in future tense, as much of it was written before they were released. The second was that the whole section needed a rewrite, as bits had been added as news came to hand, but without being properly worked into the text. The third concern, though, I think might be a tad more problematic - much of the text was about the last set of missed releases from December 2008 to the March 31st date. Given that they were released on April 6, the March 31st miss seemed not particularly relevant, and while the others were bigger, (and significant from a fan perspective, given the reasons for the misses and the promises made), in the overall picture no particular missed date seems sufficiently notable (noting that none seem to have been covered outside of forums) to be worth special attention, and thus looked like WP:UNDUE. They weren't at the time, but I think now it is better just to treat them as a block, and expand around reception, quality control (if there's anything in RS on that), and series 2/3. - Bilby (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)