Jump to content

Talk:Barbie: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Barbie/Archive 3) (bot
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Barbie/Archive 3) (bot
Line 23: Line 23:
| {{cite book |last1=Miyatsuka |first1=Fumiko |script-title=ja:バービーと私 |trans-title=Barbie and Me |date=April 2011 |publisher=Akishobo |isbn=978-4750511054 |language=ja-JP}} ([https://jwh.trannet.co.jp/works/view/10043 Details in English])
| {{cite book |last1=Miyatsuka |first1=Fumiko |script-title=ja:バービーと私 |trans-title=Barbie and Me |date=April 2011 |publisher=Akishobo |isbn=978-4750511054 |language=ja-JP}} ([https://jwh.trannet.co.jp/works/view/10043 Details in English])
}}
}}

== Barbenheimer in See Also section ==

Why is Barbenheimer in the See Also section? I feel like that should only bee a "See Also" in the article for the [[Barbie (film)|Barbie film]]. It just doesn't seem relevant enough here, especially when the See Also section doesn't even include the film. [[User:NowInHD|NowInHD]] ([[User talk:NowInHD|talk]]) 16:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
:The film is in the lead paragraph. Barbenheimer is one of the major societal and historical events to occur about Barbie, and has received well over a million views the last 20 days. Seems appropriate for at least a See also mention (or maybe added to the lead?). [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 22:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
::Smells of [[WP:RECENTISM]]. Can probably be worked into the article properly in the appropriate section. [[User:TarkusAB|<span style="color: #000000">'''TarkusAB'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:TarkusAB|<span style="color: #aa0000">'''talk'''</span>]]/[[Special:Contributions/TarkusAB|<span style="color: #aa0000">'''contrib'''</span>]]</sup> 23:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
:::Agreed. Since Barbenheimer falls under [[Barbie (media franchise)]], which is already listed in the see also section, i think it is unnecessary to put it in again. Also calling Barbenheimer one of the major societal and historical events to occur about Barbie is, in my opinion, an overstatement. [[User:NowInHD|NowInHD]] ([[User talk:NowInHD|talk]]) 16:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)


== Please add, in the section "Role model Barbies" ... ==
== Please add, in the section "Role model Barbies" ... ==
Line 46: Line 39:


{{Talk reflist}}
{{Talk reflist}}

== Early Japanese manufacturer ==

Which Japanese company produced Barbie dolls in the early days? Well, the [[Japanese Wikipedia]]'s [[:ja:バービー|{{Lang|ja|バービー}}]] article names [https://www.kokusaiboeki.co.jp/ Kokusai Boeki] ({{Lang|ja|(株)国際貿易}}) as such. But, as with many other articles in that edition, the article does not provide enough sources.

I know blogs cannot be cited as sources, but [https://unseen-japan.com/barbie-first-wardrobe-was-made-in-tokyo/ this post] from ''Unseen Japan'' describes how the first Barbie dolls and wardrobes were made in Japan, and it too names Kokusai Boeki. The post additionally mentions a book, the title of which can be literally translated as ''Barbie and Me'', written by Fumiko Miyatsuka who designed Barbie's clothes during that period. Japanese Writer's House has a [https://jwh.trannet.co.jp/works/view/10043 detailed summary about that book in English]. [[User:JSH-alive|JSH-alive]]/<sup>[[User talk:JSH-alive|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/JSH-alive|cont]]/[[Special:Emailuser/JSH-alive|mail]]</sup> 05:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2023 ==
== Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2023 ==

Revision as of 01:02, 4 November 2023

Template:Vital article

Please add, in the section "Role model Barbies" ...

To the sentence that begins ...

"In 2020, the company announced a new release of "shero" dolls, including Paralympic champion Madison de Rozario ..."

the following:

and world four-time sabre champion Olga Kharlan.[1][2]

2603:7000:2101:AA00:68FC:A954:FFAA:2DFD (talk) 06:08, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Paper9oll (🔔📝) 13:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Toma Istomina (March 5, 2020). "Barbie launches doll inspired by Ukrainian fencer Olga Kharlan". Kyiv Post.
  2. ^ "Fencing focus: Olga Kharlan". FIE official website. June 30, 2020.

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2023

In the history section of the article the first sentence of the second pararagraph is "During a trip to Europe in 1956 with her children Barbara and Kenneth, Ruth Handler came across a German toy doll called Bild Lilli." the name Kenneth should link to the page Kenneth Handler. Can someone please add this edit? 2601:806:8300:D0D0:7480:6009:E69F:BEB8 (talk) 21:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Pinchme123 (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Top (toy sales info)

Regarding this

"In 2020, Mattel sold $1.35 billion worth of Barbie dolls and accessories, and this was their best sales growth in two decades. This is an increase from the $950 million the brand sold during 2017."

Can this be removed? The Bloomberg source cites Mattel's annual reports but I can't find where this is info is mentioned in those reports. Timur9008 (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Paper9oll What do you think? Timur9008 (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the doll of the judge is so important it requires a mention in the lede section

regarding this reversion: the state judiciary is incredibly relevant in the context of women’s history and at least two cast members (Ana Cruz Kayne[1] and America Ferrera[2]) of the 2023 film have publicly discussed the depiction of women in the judiciary in the Barbie franchise and its relationship to the Roe v. Wade and Dobbs v. Jackson decisions. in my view, this merits a mention at the minimum. isadora of ibiza (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:LEAD is a summary, it should not include things that are not discussed later on in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

yes, Barbie generates revenue, not Mattel

i understand the instinct behind this change. but there is a certain subtlety here: Barbie is not a single product, but a gestalt system of related products and services. it is not incorrect per-se to say Mattel generates the revenue. but it is more informative to say that Barbie generates the revenue. it is like saying iPhone generates much of its revenue from smartphone sales and app store fees. you could also say Apple generates the revenue. but why say that and not iPhone?

isadora of ibiza (talk) 06:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re this edit: the wording is unencyclopedic. Barbie is a plastic toy doll, not a real person. Mattel is the company that makes the money.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i’m well aware Barbie is not a real person, and it seems you have a somewhat incorrect assumption of what i am trying to argue here. let’s replace Barbie with something less entangled in the current culture war, like Epcot. the Walt Disney Company is the company that owns Epcot. the Walt Disney Company is the company that makes all the money. but the Walt Disney Company makes money from a lot of different properties besides Epcot. it’s not really helpful to the reader to frame everything about Epcot in the context of the Walt Disney Company. and if you take a look at the article for Epcot, in the lead section it says:
In 2019, Epcot hosted 12.444 million guests, ranking it as the fourth-most-visited theme park in North America and the seventh-most-visited theme park in the world.
it does not say
In 2019, The Walt Disney Company hosted 12.444 million guests at Epcot, ranking it as the fourth-most-visited theme park in North America and the seventh-most-visited theme park in the world.
because Epcot is a business of sufficient complexity to be the subject of an article in its own right, and not just as a venture of the Walt Disney Company. you can observe similar wording in other systems of products, like iPhone. does this make sense?
isadora of ibiza (talk) 03:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]