Talk:NakNak

Different shapes of Naks

I remember the NakNak booklets advertising Naks with different body shapes coming soon. As far as I know these never released, but if anyone has further info that would be great. I unfortunately can't find most of my NakNak stuff but I ordered a Wave Rocker from eBay and hopefully I can get some info from the instruction booklet that presumably comes with it.--50.238.119.90 (talk) 03:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently working on gathering info on these unreleased naknaks. I will update the wiki with more info and pictures as soon as I can TherealGordon94 (talk) 04:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a blurb about the different sized Naknaks known as Clown-naks and Basket-naks. To my knowledge, what I've added is the only information available since they were never released. Unless a Hasbro insider can provide more info, this promotion in the pamphlet seems to be it. TherealGordon94 (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Table

The table is kind of a mess. I saw on an earlier entry, there used to be a column that listed known figures in each clik. I think we should try to do this again. TherealGordon94 (talk) 14:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is lacking citations/references

Most of this article lacks any supporting references, so I've added "references needed" tags to several sections. If reliable sources are not provided, the article is liable to be deleted. Personal memories are not reliable sources:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

See: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted two in-line citations which were to an internet forum/fan site; not a reliable source: WP:USERGENERATED. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a "citation needed" tag to the line that is in dispute about the quality of some of these objects. A reliable source is needed to support that statement; it cannot just be the opinion or personal knowledge of an editor. Please provide a reliable source for that statement, or else it will have to be removed. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the "citation needed" tag. Once an editor puts that tag on an unsourced statement, if you disagree, you need to discuss it on the Talk page, not just delete it:

If someone tagged your contributions with a "Citation needed" tag or tags, and you disagree, discuss the matter on the article's talk page. The most constructive thing to do in most cases is probably to supply the reference(s) requested, even if you feel the tags are "overdone" or unnecessary.

See: WP:CITENEEDREMOVE. And yes, I did remove two citations, because they did not meet the Wikipedia standard for a reliable source, as outlined above. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you read my post in the talk section. If you are interested in this topic, I'd be very happy to share what I know so that we can edit this page in a way that follows your rules. TherealGordon94 (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with users deleting sources.

Wanted to discuss the state of this page.

In case you are unaware, Naknak is a Hasbro toy from 2001 - 2003. By all accounts, it seems like it never really took off and so today, in 2022, information on these toys has become extremely scarce. I have been researching Naknak, and have been updating this page when I can to add more detailed information, images and sources.

To quote the wikipedia source rules, "Sources which are generally unreliable may still be useful in some situations. For example, even extremely low-quality sources, such as social media, may sometimes be used as self-published sources for routine information about the subjects themselves." (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#How_to_use_this_list)

Yet three of the five sources in this article have been removed as unreliable.

The strongest source on this topic was a series of images posted by a user on deviant art. These images showed nearly every single Naknak figure, as well as name and number in the description along with some other incredibly useful information. Most of this information can be backed up by comparing it to pamphlets included inside the actual products, though this isn't easy either. Most pamphlets do not include an entire set list as new figures were constantly being added, and even the latest pamphlet fails to include any promo-nak figures.

If the Naknak Fandom (which is admittedly new) will not be considered a reliable source, then you MUST lean on these deviant art posts as a source.

While I understand that Wikipedia has rules, it is incredibly frustrating when users delete things from this article while having no understanding of the subject matter. No alternative source was offered, and nothing was added. Information was only removed, including two images that I have since restored.

Additionally, there actually is information on this page that is/was incorrect that could be corrected with the sources I provided! (Number of figures per clik is likely inaccurate.) However none of the recent edits (aside from my own to the Humanaks clik) have addressed this.

I did not initially create this page, but it exists now. If there are not enough credible sources, and the ones provided are not acceptable, then it's possible this page should be deleted. However, I dont think it needs to be according to the quote from the rules I provided.

It is completely trivial to delete sources and information on such a low profile page. I ask that the recent editors re-review the Wikipedia guidelines and re-evaluate this particular page. If you do not understand this topic, please let knowledgeable users contribute to this page. If you'd like to learn more about it, I would be happy to fill you in. TherealGordon94 (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for coming to the Talk page to discuss. The issue is this: It is a bedrock principle of Wikipedia that all articles must be backed up by reliable, published sources: Wikipedia:Verifiability. That is the one of the Wikipedia:Core content policies. An article must be backed up by reliable sources so that any reader can check the sources and confirm that it is accurate. Therefore, personal knowledge of an editor is not a reliable source. It doesn't matter what your knowledge of Nak-Naks is, nor does it matter what my knowledge of Nak-Naks is. The only thing that matters is published, reliable sources, that any reader can check.

Those principles don't change depending on whether an article is "low profile" or not. All articles must meet that test, and the same standard of reliable sources applies to all sources cited. As mentioned earlier, the Wikipedia community has determined that self-published message boards or fan sites are not reliable sources. That's why I deleted those cites to the "Deviant Art" forum. They don't meet the standard for reliable sources. Therefore, it is not correct to say that we "MUST lean on these deviant art posts as a source". They don't meet the standard, and it's not the case that we give that webpage a pass. In fact, if the webpage doesn't meet the reliable sources standard, we must not use it. Verifiability is a core content policy and cannot be watered down by decisions of individual editors:

The principles upon which these policy statements are based are not superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus.

That is why I've put the tags on for "references needed", and have deleted the two references that do not meet the verifiability standard for reliable sources.

And, it's not of any use for an editor to assert their own personal knowledge of the topic, because that is not verifiable. That is why Wikipedia also has the core content policy of Wikipedia:No original research. It doesn't matter how much you personally know about Nak-Naks. If it's not published in a reliable source, it's not verifiable.

Ultimately, if there are no reliable sources, then this article could be subject to deletion as not notable. See Wikipedia:Notability. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You completely skipped over my quote of the rules. Are you saying this quote is incorrect?

I will respond in indented italics to each of the point you make, as I think that may be the most useful way to discuss. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Sources which are generally unreliable may still be useful in some situations. For example, even extremely low-quality sources, such as social media, may sometimes be used as self-published sources for routine information about the subjects themselves."

Message boards like "deviant art" are not self-published sources. They are not published by the manufacturer, but by anonymous posters on the internet. A self-published source is something like a band's tour schedule, where there is at lease some reliability because the band can be assumed to want people to come to their shows. The very first cite, from Hasbro, is a self-published source. But a message board, with anonymous posters, posting 20 years after the product was on the market, is not a self-published source. We have no idea who those posters are or where they are getting their information from. --Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the information here seems pretty routine, with perhaps a few acceptions.

If it's pretty routine, then it should be easy to find sources for the information. --Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying it's better to delete this page than to consider that this may be one of those situations where lower quality sources are useful?

Yes. The core content rules for Wikipedia, cited earlier, are not up for discussion. Editors cannot agree to waive them. If so, there would be endless debates about whether an article is one that can be based on "lower quality sources". The most fundamental requirement for a Wikipedia article is notability: Wikipedia:Notability:

"Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics."

If there are not reliable sources that meet Wikipedia's standards, then it may well be that the article should not be included in Wikipedia. --Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying my knowledge or anyone's knowledge should be taken at face value, of course not. What I am saying is that there are verifiable sources backing up my knowledge. The deviant art posts are incredibly useful, but we aren't simply relying on the users word. There is photographic evidence backing his claims. If you would take a moment to try and understand the topic, I think you would find that the section of the rules I pointed out fits this scenario perfectly. If not, then what is it even referring to? TherealGordon94 (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the reasons given, a message board with anonymous posters is not a reliable source. If there are verifiable sources, that meet Wikipedia's standards, please provide them. --Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also wanted to add that the whole point of adding sources is so users can see where the information came from. They can decide if they think it's credible or not. If it's within the rules (which i believe it is in this case) it should be allowed. The fact of the matter is that the page is currently in a worse state since you removed the sources. There's a bunch of information with zero sources. TherealGordon94 (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "routine information" exception is for cases where the source is being used for information about itself - ie if you were writing an article about Fandom it might be appropriate to cite Fandom. That's not the case here. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we want there to be sources that the readers can check. But, those sources must first meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. And I disagree that the article is in worse shape. I've deleted unreliable sources, and highlighted the need for better sources. That's how we build the encyclopedia. --Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fine then delete it as not notable. TherealGordon94 (talk) 01:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no power to delete an article. That's for the community to decide by consensus, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some dude basically just deleted the entire article. You guys are crazy, that's all I'm gonna say. I dont know why you guys go around deleting stuff you don't even care about. Just to hit some threshold to give your account more permissions? Probably TherealGordon94 (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith on the part of other editors: Wikipedia:Assume good faith. You've been told repeatedly that all Wikipedia articles must have reliable sources. That is the problem with this article. Wikipedia isn't a computer game where editors make edits to "level up". If you don't agree with Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources, so be it, but don't expect all other editors to ignore the basic principle of reliable sources. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]