Talk:Play-Doh/Archive 1

I don't think plasticine is the same as play dough

I would query the entry that in Britain play-doh is plasticine. In the UK we simply spell play-doh as play dough. Though plasticine is used for modelling I don't think it is really the same thing as play dough at all – surely it is the trade name for a different type of modelling material that comes in strips?

I think plasticine is specially treated to stay pliable for weeks whereas play dough quickly dries out if not kept in an air-tight container.

Sex Toy Information Removed

I removed the following: "Many people have been known to use Play-Doh as a sex toy. It easily molds to anything it touches, and if dried in the right shape, can be sexually arousing and/or stimulating."

sure, just about anything could be used as a sex toy, but that doesn't mean such a statement belongs on any of the thousands of pages of things that could also be used as a sex toy. I've never heard of playdough in particular attracting attention as a sex toy, and I don't think this statement is founded. Let's see some references backing it up before it's added back in.... TheBilly

Play-Doh/Plato Disambiguation

Should there be a disambiguation notice at the top with a link to Plato? 153.104.16.114 18:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

surely someone put that in as a joke. Made me laugh!

Non-Working Patent Office Link

I have removed the link to the Patent Office publication again; it's expired and does not work. If someone knows how to link to the document in a persistent way (ie. one that will work for everyone forever, or at least a long time), please put it back in. I must add that it annoys me a little that someone put it back in, marking me as a vandal in the comments, apparently even without taking the effort to look at page in question to see if I might have had a reason to remove it in the first place. 130.89.167.52 01:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Petroleum Distillate Toxicity

The reference to a deodorized kerosene derivative or petroleum distillate is unlikely because it must be food grade. It is more likely a vegetable oil derivative.

No, it's a petroleum distillate all right. That's what gives Play-Doh its characteristic smell. The amount used is small enough that Play-Doh is non-toxic (not sure it would be considered "food grade," but Play-Doh isn't food, and presumably doesn't have to meet the requirements of food -- simply has to be nontoxic as some kids certainly do ingest it in small amounts). A question for whoever wrote: Borax is used instead of taik-8 so that Play-Doh isn't toxic. What the heck is taik-8? I googled it and found zilch. I'm removing the sentence entirely, please be more specific if you put it back. Kiscica 19:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Final frontier

I've read it was taken on one of the Apollo flights. Can anybody substantiate & ID? Trekphiler 06:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Smell

I don't think it smells the same. I just picked some up in Australia, expecting it to have a memorable smell, but it doesn't. Bipedia 10:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

"In Australia" That could be the problem. Not sure but they could have different compounds for different regions. 66.215.20.28 (talk) 04:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought I heard long ago that the scent of Play-Doh had some kind of trademark protection. Has anyone heard this? I was unable to find anything on the web. 220.76.15.206 (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

As a little kid in the late 1950s, I found a can of wallpaper cleaner in the house and the stuff within seemed to be virtually identical to the Play-Doh with which I was familiar. (The article mentions the similarity.) I'm pretty sure that the formula has changed since then (bought some for my own kids years ago). It used to be foamier with little air pockets, like bread dough. It's smoother now. Smells different too. WHPratt (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The new stuff most definately has less (hardly any) smell compared to what we had in the 70's. Seems to dry out faster too. I came here thinking there would be some info on what.when the formula was changed. 134.131.125.50 (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Play-Doh Toys

Somebody with a better knowledge of the subject should probably add a section about Play-Doh toys (such as the accessory extruder in the article's picture). From what I've seen, these sort of toys are certainly important enough to merit inclusion in the article. — Matthew0028 20:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed Timeline

I removed the recently added timeline section, as it was copied verbatim from the Hasbro website (presumably without permission): [1] — Matthew0028 07:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This is on hold because the timeline section was brief. One or two more pictures would be nice.

Timeline expanded and image added. ItsLassieTime (talk) 08:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Not an editor doing the GA review, but as a general comment I think the article could use some appropriate headers that break up the text, like "History of development" and/or "Cultural significance" (for the part at the end) or something like this. As is, the text is slightly difficult to read because the numberous citations distract the eyes. (Note: I'm not saying the citations should be removed as they clearly shouldn't.) Breaking the text up with a couple of section headers would make it easier to read I think. Your mileage may vary, however. (Nice job on the article, by the way.) --Craw-daddy | T | 17:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Second the need to break up the article with section headers, and the overuse of citations (their frequency distracts from the text). Try to write your sentences so they only need a footnote at the end. Try to limit the number of footnotes in any one place to 2. (And watch out for WP:SELFPUB, try to limit references to Hasbro's page.)

More stuff while I'm here:

• The article assumes that anyone coming here already knows what its primary use is. Someone from a country with little exposure to the product might not know. You start with a relatively technical, presumably accurate, description of what it is. Tell me what it's for, and who (at least typically) uses it, and summarize the current packaging and distribution, before you get into the technical bit and the history.
• Are there any notable uses of it (the world's largest Play-Doh <thing>)? Users notable for their use of it (well-known artists, for example)? Notable references to, or uses of, it in culture?

(I think I only played with it a bit, myself.) -- Magic♪piano 23:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Play-Doh/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

The "Creation" subsection should contain references. Beyond that, this may be a quick pass. I will now take some time to examine the sources. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I am uncertain whether several web-based sources used here meet WP:RS. I'm also concerned with the choppiness of sections. Unfortunately I may have to withdraw from this review due in part to computer problems (slowness.) Not sure exactly how to go about that without leaving a mess. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, I can take over from here. Hello, I'm Weebiloobil (talk · contribs), and I will be continuing this review. Feel free to prod me ask me relevent questions. The review should be ready within a week; we'll see how things go from there. Hello again! - weebiloobil (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

The reviewed version can be found here

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Good, if a little basic. One issue around WWII I fixed myself

   B. MoS compliance:

   Shame about the lack of an external Links section, but not required at GA stage

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   The lead could do with a couple of references; "a considerable amount of ancillary merchandise" would at least require a citation

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Ideally, there would be a 'Usage' section, describing its main properties; this should not be restricted to the lead

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I'm putting the article on hold until the lead recieves a citation. Feel free to contact me when you think you have done; if not, I shall return in 7 days. Auf wiedersehen! - weebiloobil (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Outcome

Well, it seems that you've done everything I asked for, which means that this article has succesfully passed as a Good Aticle. Well done! But the fun doesn't stop there. As always, Good Article nominations has a backlog, so it would be really great if you could help out by reviewing an article or 20. The Spring 2009 backlog clearance drive is not yet over! </plug> Once again, well done on the article - weebiloobil (talk) 09:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Generic playdoh

I know one can buy play-doh type products, and something very similar can be made simply at home (water/salt/flour/food-colouring): Is there a name to call these things other than "generic play-doy stuff"?YobMod 07:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Cultural Impact

In late 2009 or early 2010, some toddler's stash of Play-Doh was confiscated by airport security somewhere, due to new anti-terrorist restrictions on carry-on items. The security official thought the stuff might be an explosive. Perhaps this item should be covered in the article. WHPratt (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC) [2] WHPratt (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Palitoy

...manufactured and sold Play-Doh in the UK, don't know about elsewhere. Everyone in the UK remembers Play-Doh adverts which all ended "from Palitoy". Maybe someone can do research and add this to the article. 91.85.37.229 (talk) 12:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Play-Doh and a movie dialogue

Play-Doh's origin is the subject of a three-minute dialogue in a 116-minute film. Is this sufficient to include mention of said dialogue in the Play-Doh article's "Cultural impact" section without reliable sources? 71.234.215.133 (talk) 23:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Long version

In the past month three editors (Blakegripling ph, 71.234.215.133 and Fat&Happy) have removed two unsourced items in the Play-Doh "Cultural impact" section as "trivia": a mention from "The Simpsons" of Madge using Play-Doh to make a golem, and a mention of the dialogue from the film How Do You Know. Philkon originally added the film mention, and has reverted the deletions each time. When asked to supply reliable sources, Philkon replied, I saw the movie and the story about Play-Doh plays a significant part. Watch the movie yourself and see for yourself. Please provide sourced material which proves PlayDoh is NOT mentioned.[3] When removals of the material continued, Philkon supplied 9 blogs, 3 clip sites (including YouTube), a real estate agency page, and the dialogue converted into a monologue as reliable sources.[4] They have since defended these as reliable sources against two editors (71.234.215.133 and Fat&Happy) who disagree. Philkon's last edit to the article before the posting of this RFC removed the "Simpsons" mention, which their previous restorations had also restored.

I doubt that the film's Play-Doh dialogue has had sufficient cultural impact to be common knowledge, but maybe I am living in a cultural bomb shelter. (I cannot speak for Fat&Happy or Blakegripling ph.) So:

Survey

Ref: the film's Play-Doh dialogue is not well-known and a reliable source is required for inclusion

Common: the film's Play-Doh dialogue is common knowledge and it does not need a reliable source for inclusion

Feel free to state your position by beginning a new line in this section with #Ref or #Common, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons.

Ref

1. Ref: The film mention appears too trivial to include in an encyclopedia without a reliable source indicating its cultural impact. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 01:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
2. Ref: The issue is not whether Play-Doh is mentioned in the movie. The question is whether such mention is sufficiently significant to Play-Doh or its image to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia article about the product. I'm sure any of us could find dozens of movies in which Coke, Pepsi or Bud Light appear and are mentioned; that does not mean each such movie needs to be included in the respective articles about those beverages.

   If this were an article about the movie, then the movie itself would be considered a reliable source for its contents. That's not the case here. The movie is a primary source for the inclusion of a mention of Play-Doh in the movie; in establishing whether that inclusion of is "a significant plot point", we need to rely on secondary sources – such as, perhaps, a few reviews by well-know film critics – not the opinion of one editor. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

3. Ref:I agree that we need to find out if the mention is significant enough to Play-Doh and if it should be included in the article. If it appears necessary to include, it should definitely be referenced. - Camyoung54 ^talk 19:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Common

1. Common: I consider the movie itself to be the "reliable source." It was released by a Columbia. It featured four of the most well known actors in Hollywood at the present time: Reese Witherspoon (Academy Award winner), Paul Rudd, Owen Wilson, Jack Nicholson (Academy Award winner). It was directed by James L. Brooks (Academy Award winner). The Play-Doh story was not just a casual mention in that movie, but a significant plot point. While the movie and/or the Play-Doh speech may not be common knowledge in the sense that it is known by the majority of people throughout the world, it seems appropriate to add to the Play-Doh article. Play-Doh itself may not be common knowledge. However, anyone reading the Play-Doh article might find the use of the Play-Doh story in a major Hollywood release as informative. The movie also has a Wikipedia article. The extended list of "ref" links can be significantly reduced (if not completely) if the mention of the movie is retained. Phil Konstantin (talk) 14:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I concur. The movie itself is a reliable source with respect to the content of the movie. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Note: The article is now locked in its current version, to prevent further edit warring. I thought this more conducive to discussion, rather than blocking both parties for violating WP:3RR. This should not be seen as an endorsement of the current version. When the RfC has concluded, the protection will be lifted so the article can be edited to comply with consensus. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number}

03:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment about the movie

The plot summary of the movie doesn't mention Play-Doh. Maybe someone should add a mention of it to the article about the movie. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Trivia

A mention of the dialog in the movie might be more important in a Trivia section than in a Cultural Impact section. A Trivia section is common in many Wikipedia articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

salt dough

It says modelling clay, but isn't it salt dough?

Homemade Recipe Removed

I removed the recipe for homemade playdough because this article is about the name-brand stuff. I'm just not sure it belongs here, but I'm not especially adamant. Joyous (talk) 01:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Is there a page for the homemade playdough? I found an article called "Salt dough", is that the only page for the generic playdough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.68.105.132 (talk) 14:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

"For the ancient Greek philosopher, see Plato."

This disambiguation is really necessary? Are people so commonly happening by looking for the "filosophy of Play-doh" and maybe some "storeys by Marshall?" AnyyVen (talk) 04:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd just cut this, before noticing this thread. Unclear whether it's attempting to cover something that redirects here or was just a joke, but I can't see any evidence of the former. --McGeddon (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

It was added by this edit. So, not a joke. CWC 05:20, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

It is highly unlikely that someone looking for an article on Plato would end up at "Play-Doh". Possible? Sure, in the same sense that someone looking for Donald Trump might end up at Dump truck. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Meters (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Or [Tronald Dump]. But I don't feel strongly on this. EEng 19:31, 20 November 2016 (UTC)