Talk:S.W. Randall Toyes and Giftes

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that S.W. Randall Toyes and Giftes, Pittsburgh's oldest specialty toy store, is reportedly haunted and sells nostalgic toys? Source: here, here, there "oldest" 185–186 finally
  • ALT1:... that Pittsburgh's S.W. Randall Toyes and Giftes – in business for 50 years – is a specialty toy store that is reportedly haunted and sells nostalgic toys? Source: "fifty years" here "founded in 1970" and there"haunted" here and there
  • ALT2:... that after 50 years, S.W. Randall Toyes and Giftes is a Pittsburgh landmark?
  • ALT3:... that after 50 years, S.W. Randall Toyes and Giftes is both a landmark and a stop on the 'haunted Pittsburgh' tour?

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Phil Lyne
• Comment: author6 has been blocked as a sock. But he started the article, and it was the subject of an AFD. The deletion discussion link Article has been collaboratively improved, and AFD was withdrawn.

Created by 7&6=thirteen (talk), GreenC (talk), Lightburst (talk), Meatsgains (talk), Dream Focus (talk), and KittyCatRosco (talk). Nominated by 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:11, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry; I have re-nominated this article at AFD. – Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:15, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

We're sorry, too. I've replied at your latest hit job/chop job. Ink wasn't even dry from the last AFD, which you sat out. We'll just have to let that play out. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Saying that the toy store is "reportedly haunted" implies that someone/people in fact saw some sort of apparition or other surreal occurrence. For all we know these claims are something of a promotion ploy. Ie. staff members feeling "drained". The staff? Unless this a big or highly controversial issue, with numerous people claiming that the store is actually "haunted", it seems we should not placate the employee rumors and just mention that the toy store is a half century old and is a landmark of sorts, which is more than interesting enough. It's understood that the "haunted" claim is an attention grabber, but here at WP it seems sort of a sappy way to get people to read the article. This is not my review, but another basic hook would be in order and in that event, imo, the article would be good to go on all other accounts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:Snow Keep 2nd deletion nomination. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomomination is not the place for AFD rebuttle, and accusations. Please take this stuff to the article talk page.

Don’t lie. It wasn’t snow. And while you and your ARS canvassing club might be able to block-vote promotional articles and prevent them from being deleted, I still hope someone in the DYK chain has the good sense not to allow this toy store advertisement on the main page. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 15:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC) There is community consensus from two AFDs the article is notable ie. not an advertisement. The consensus of over 15 people should be honored, even if the losing AfD nominator doesn't like it. The article is extremely well sourced and has been worked on intensively by many people who have no COI with the store. -- GreenC 17:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC) Apparently you can't count either. 13 KEEPS vs. 4 DELETES, and disregarding the First AFD. You wouldn't know a snow storm/blizzard if you were in one. The second AFD was patently abusive and a waste of a lot of valuable editor effort. That there were coincidental article improvements does not justify it. Your other remarks here are just irrelevant B.S. You continue your disruption. Sour grapes for the outcome. WP:Dead horses. Indeed, User: Levivich the nominator fancies himself as a would be WP:RFA. I know I will keep that in mind. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC) Ipse dixit and Liberum veto have no application here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• Great article. Notable Pittsburgh landmark. I do not believe in ghosts, but I think the ATL3 is great. With respect for Gwillhickers opinion on the "haunted" tag. Lightburst (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• ALT3, with the phrase, "...a stop on the 'haunted Pittsburgh' tour", is fair enough. At least we're not saying as fact that the store is haunted or citing someone who said it was haunted. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Article is new enough and long enough. Hooks are interesting but ALT3 is neutral and most appropriate if we are going to mention the idea of haunted. There are more than enough sources to support the hook, as well as the article. No close para-phrasing. QPQ done. No dup links. Photo of store has a creative commons license. However, the logo/image in the info-box is a fair use image. It was my understanding that fair use images are not allowed in DYK nominations. Will need a second opinion before I pass the nom'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. So far as I know, nobody has asked to post the photograph or the logo on the main page. Did I miss something? Or is this part of the review and the lack of a green tick in error? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• After checking, a fair use image is allowed in the article so long as the image is not not displayed on the main page in a DYK presentation. Good to go. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

oldest

The sourcing for oldest claims are a bit weak IMO. The "inyourstate" source doesn't look reliable and I don't see the source for oldest in the state, though it might be there in Google Books (anything at Internet Archive?). It is the crux of the article's notability should be shored up if possible. -- GreenC 17:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I deleted that claim. I may have confabulated it, although it might be true. sorry. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

This is still problematic. Onlyinyourstate.com is an advertising service. It uses the same model as the Yellow Pages where everyone gets a free listing and if they want extras (larger graphics etc) they pay extra. Note that WP:YELLOWPAGES concerns something different and is not relevant here (the article has plenty of reliable sourcing to demonstrate notability). But as a reliable source for the oldest claim, Onlyinyourstate.com is problematic and may be causing harm. We might need to tone down or remove the oldest claim without better sourcing. I said before "It is the crux of the article's notability" but that is no longer true. -- GreenC 15:12, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The "King" source confirms oldest, removed onlyinyourstate and replaced with it. -- GreenC 15:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree, neither Only In Your State nor Squirrel Hill History are independent. We use independent sources not just to verify that the information is factual but also to establish that it meets WP:DUE. Sykes appears to be independent but it's unclear whether they've fact-checked the claims in their listings or simply repeated what was said by the business. –dlthewave ☎ 15:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Why don't you go ask Sykes? WP:Verifiability; not WP:Truth But then again, your talking to her would be WP:OR. You are fly specking. There has got to be something amongst all those pepper grains. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Squirrel Hill neighborhood

Where Fred Rogers of Mr. Rogers Neighborhood is from. -- GreenC 21:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Deletion discussion template error

Not linking to the deletion discussion. There was a name change. The deletion discussion link needs to appear in the template. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Infobox question

What is | fate = isbn? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

"Fate" of the company when it goes defunct. Isbn might be shorthand for still in business? Parameter is only used when a company is defunct so it can be removed. -- GreenC 16:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Attribution

Text and references copied from Hamleys to S.W. Randall Toyes and Giftes, See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:32, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The passage "Founded in 1760 as "Noah's Ark", London's Hamleys is the oldest continuously operating and largest toy shop in the world" seems to be WP:COATRACK, it's unclear how this is relevant to the topic. –dlthewave ☎ 16:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

It provides context for our readers/users. It is relegated to a footnote. WP:Not paper 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

FWIW the spelling of Toyes and Giftes was in currency in 18th century London. In the Historical Society video, he noted how people from England working on the Batman film came to the store because of the spelling. It's very tangential and shouldn't be in the article, without better sourcing, but I think the Olde English spelling echoes the oldest toy store in the world being in London, and this being the oldest store in Pittsburgh. But regardless, whenever you say "oldest" some context how old that can be would be relevant enough for a Note. -- GreenC 17:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's a very tangential connection to the London store and doesn't merit mention in this article. –dlthewave ☎ 19:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

You didn't read what I wrote correctly. Please read it more carefully. I said two things. One is very tangential and probably doesn't merit a direct discussion, but I also said "Regardless" (of that) the oldest store in the world "would be relevant enough for a Note". -- GreenC 19:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Historic society video

I restored the historical society source. To remove this would be to remove all local historical societies from Wikipedia - it is true both the historical society and the toy store are in the same neighborhood, but this doesn't make it a dependent source. It is true the video is of Cohen giving a history of the store, but there is also introduction material by the historical society - the video is produced and published by the society not Cohen. The audience of the video is a historic society, not to advertise but to record a history, this context is important in determining its value. I guess if there is still concern it might be moved into the external links section as basically there is nothing in the video that isn't already covered in other sources. -- GreenC 16:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The video is the owner of the store giving a history of the store, this is not independent. The introduction material is unrelated, it's just someone talking about the historical society for several minutes and giving an extremely brief (20 seconds or so) introduction of Cohen. It might be appropriate as an external link as you suggested. –dlthewave ☎ 17:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

It is a WP:PRIMARY the owner talking about the store and Primary sources are perfectly acceptable so long as they do not overwhelm the article and the cited fact is not too controversial or surprising. Stuff like "We opened a store on Third Ave in 1979" is type of basic factual content that can be cited to a primary source without trouble. We use primary sources throughout Wikipedia, so having a few here wouldn't be a problem. I think the part about his wife's involvement in the store founding could be relevant. -- GreenC 17:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

ASTRA membership

American Specialty Toy Retailing Association membership is currently sourced to EdPlay, which should be removed because it does not mention membership at all, and the ASTRA Membership Directory which is self-sourced and therefore insufficient to establish due weight for inclusion. Although the factuality of the claim is not in question, we should be using independent secondary sources to show that this is significant enough to include.

This is another WP:PRIMARY source. It is not a controversial or surprising fact, though if it needs to be in Wikipedia at all is another question. Typically when we talk about "independent" sourcing it is for purposes of notability, since primary sources are not a sign of notability - but they are OK fine for citing a fact, within the rules of PRIMARY. -- GreenC 17:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

This is controversial? Indeed, for this information, the primary source is more on point and trustworthy than third parties. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The question of whether this fact should be included in the article is what I was getting at.

Again, I'm not questioning the accuracy of the claim, but the lack of coverage beyond the directory is a strong sign that it's trivial. At the very least the EdPlay cite should be removed since it doesn't mention membership. –dlthewave ☎ 18:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The issue doesn't seem very important to me, membership in a trade association is a given for most established companies. If there was some reason for stating it that would be different. -- GreenC 19:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

New potential sources

(copied from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request#S.W._Randall_Toyes_and_Giftes )

• His store shelves are packed with classics (first page)
• His store shelves are packed with classics (second page)
• New-Age Ads
• Toy Store Decides to Leave Troubled Station Square
• Pittsburgh's Toy Connection
• The Gifts that Keep Going Around

Those were the easy ones to find; future searchers note that including the owner's name helps filter the advertisements out, however the annual 'yup we are selling toys for Christmas' articles still clog up the results. Kees08 (Talk) 15:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, @Kees08: ! -- GreenC 20:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)