Talk:Silly Bandz

Silly Bandz

The phrase 'They are distributed by BCP Imports and are normally worn as bracelets' is outdated. Since their introduction silly bandz has become the generic term for these bracelets. Consequently one only has to type 'silly bandz' into google and the results are evident. Much the same as the brand hoover became synonymous with the vacuum cleaner, silly bandz have taken the same route. On that note, the phrase 'they are distributed by BCP imports' should read- originally distributed by BCP Imports, however widely available from alternative suppliers' Also a mention of genericization would be more current to today.

Grade school children?

What are "grade school children", in the first paragraph? Bazza (talk) 12:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The ment like first grade through twelth grade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.192.162 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 1 May 2010

speedy delete of list of styles

Available styles of Silly Bandz has been tagged for deletion because of lack of independent sources. As this info is sourced from the website selling the product, it is probably credible. My opinion is to let it get deleted as it doesn't merit its own article and this article is small enough to incorporate the info. I have added the content of that article here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

response to speedy delete of list of styles

I really don't know how to source this other than something from the only company that has a copyright on the product. I mean all of the news story's give a brief example ie. they come in different shapes and sizes but the website where I got the information is the only manufacturer of Silly Bandz in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtsteele (talk • contribs) 08:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Cruft?

Crufty? It is simply a product list. Toyota's list of models is not cruft. Kids visit this page and this information is valuable to them. You might be right, but I would like somebody else's opinion. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Since there seems to be editors with both opinions, I'm going to post a request for comment so outside editors can weigh in. For those editors, here's the situation: a list of available styles of Bandz was included in the article which I removed this morning. My reasoning is that the list is not encyclopedic because the types themselves have not received coverage. In response to Anna's opinion above, I think car models are different this this situation because the individual models are covered. Mm40 (talk) 11:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with Mm40. This is not terribly important; if someone would like to view a list of what styles are available, they will be able to find one elsewhere, and each item in the list on its own would not be possible to document much more than "it's <color> and shaped like <object>". Shadow148 (talk) 21:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

More information on the Silly Bandz Game

I need more information on the "Silly Bandz" Wii and DS games. It is scheduled to release this (2010) holiday season and there is NO information on what the game will be like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.111.105 (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

SPAM?

Does the following link seem commercial/SPAMmy? http://www.bandzwiki.com/wiki/Origin_Of_Shaped_Bandz

Honestly, would visiting this article NOT enrich the reader's knowledge and understanding of the subject at hand? The link (as a footnote to the "Origins" section) lasted all of 10 minutes. The revert (which I justified by noting that the link cited all its sources) lasted 3 minutes. Fighting obvious SPAM is one thing, but the definition of "SPAM" seems to be growing all-encompassing.

Opinions welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.11.69.17 (talk) 00:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, but that URL 404s so it can't be too much of a loss! (You meant to type an "s" instead of a "z", but I'll leave it alone). The article is decent, and the site is definitely a quality/content (ie, not spam) site, but the article here can live without a link to the site I suppose, if the admins would rather keep externals to a minimum.

Fixed: http://www.bandzwiki.com/wiki/Origin_Of_Shaped_Bands. And their Silly Bandz article http://www.bandzwiki.com/wiki/Silly_Bandz is better (by a mile) than Wikipedia's. Site merits a link/reference.06:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)Baron Nicholas (talk)

Hi there! I'm the main administrator of that site. I noticed some visits from Wikipedia over the last day or two and checked it out. We actually have mixed feelings about being linked here (won't bore with details), but overall we're happy with it. The issue now is that recent edits of the article are obv. using our Origin article as a source, so at this point we want the link to stay, because we don't want to be accused of using Wikipedia as a source when it's the other way around!! We did a lot of research on that article. Also the BW links appear to be okay with the Wikipedia admins or they would be gone by now, so it seems fine. Thanks for the recognition! :)

—Bandzwikiadmin (talk) 23:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

What specifically do you think is sourced to your site? All the references I see are from 3rd party news sites are the mfr's page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

(The username I was using was blocked because it contained the word "admin", and also because it resembled the name of a website, my website, so I had to create a new one to answer you. Anyway, here I am. Sieg heil.)

To answer your question: the information and references from the first paragraph under "Origin and Concept", and the first paragraph under "Distribution and Reception", closely follow our Origin Of Shaped Bands article (which is linked above if you want to see this for yourself).

It looks like the paragraphs were added by the same user who added the link to our site. In other words, while nobody used our site as a direct source, our site is obviously the secondary reference from which the primary references were taken. The ref list in this article is starting to look like the ref list in OUR article (1, 3, and 5 match). Those references weren't there before our link was.

If you don't feel a link to our site belongs in this article, I will not argue. I don't really care whether or not we have a link from Wikipedia.

What I DO care about is protecting the exclusivity of our content, or at least proper recognition for it. Apparently you feel that the facts/sources taken from our site are of sufficient quality to remain in the article, since they're still there, but the site itself is not of sufficient quality to be linked.

If I were to delete the new, added information, I have a feeling the delete would be reverted just as quickly as our link would be removed if someone else added it.

Bottom line: a Wikipedia user made it so that this article piggybacked on our research (which was okay because he linked us), the article was improved as a result, but then the attribution was taken away, leaving only the information. Either the article should be rewritten to remove our "secondhand" contributions or our link should be reinstated.

—Bandz-02 (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Information should not be removed from the article unless it is not supported by the existing sources. As I said, from what I can tell everything that's in the article now has a third-party reliable source associated with it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, they are reliable sources. That's why we put them in our article. And apparently that's why someone saw fit to lift them from our article and add them to this Wikipedia article. Bandz-02 (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, after all of this, I've realized that there is a stupidly easy solution: we can't control this wiki, but we CAN control ours, so we can just put a note on our article that some of our research has apparently been incorporated into the Wikipedia Silly Bandz article. And since everything on both of our wikis is dated, if anyone actually cares they can check it out for themselves. I am satisfied. Bandz-02 (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry bout the edits, just trying to help. Looks like someone has crapped this article up again, which the admins don't seem to care about. I noticed Animal Bracelets Blog was also added to the links, and deleted quickly, even though it's the number one website on this subject. Yet the new crap additions stay! I guess it's okay for the article to be utter shit, so long as nobody links to anything. This is such BS... Baron Nicholas (talk) 08:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Errors

Spelling errors abound in this article; even using your browser's spellchecker would have solved this problem. Please fix spelling!

Why do kids love silly banz this much?

My kids are obsessed with them why do you guys think they like them so much??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.4.122.12 (talk) 22:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC) There just a craze, this time in a few years all those now-NO1 silly bandz fans will be saying "why did we even bother with thst crap?" but for now there the NO1 fad, and are likely to stay that for the next couple years or so. Ive got like 300 of them and i keep most of them in a special packet!--89.241.164.201 (talk) 12:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)