This is the talk page for the article "Kenner Products."

This space is used for discussion relating to changes to the article, not for a discussion about the topic in question. For general questions about the article's topic, please visit the Knowledge Bank. Please remember to stay civil and sign all of your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Click here to start a new topic.


Can we accurately say that the initial batch of figures debuted in 1977 when they weren't available on the market -- or even sent out from the 'Early Bird' offer -- until the first half of 1978?

--Chachap1 20:40, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

I see my comment/question from three years ago remains unanswered; so anybody care to chime in on an answer re. what the basis would be for the term "debute"?

Personally, I think that should be the date available in the marketplace, aka. 'street date,' although, it looks like the author of the chart list gave a date that reflects when the figures were announced. I think the most accurate measure would be when these showed up at the store… And in the case of the first 12 figures, that wasn't until we were into the Spring of 1978. --Chachap1 (talk) 20:38, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

  • A similar question arose regarding whether the "publication date" for the Marvel comics should be that of actual release, or the date printed on the cover of each issue. These dates were typically a couple months apart. It was decided that both dates should be listed (and sourced appropriately) as they both constitute relevant information. I would say the same principle should apply here to announcement dates and street dates, if that level of detail can be found in verifiable sources. Right now, only the year is listed (and even that is unsourced), but that could be made more precise if the information is out there. (For things released in the '70s and '80s, it's much easier to find the announcement date or cover date than the actual release date, which I suspect is why this wiki has historically reported only the former.) Asithol (talk) 06:40, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

Not just figures Edit

Kenner didn't just do action figures. It would be nice to have a list of other Star Wars products by Kenner, or at least a link to another page listing them respectively. O.W.L.

Moving to "Kenner Products" Edit

"Kenner" is more of a brand that was used as recently as 2012 (by Hasbro) -- the company's actual name was "Kenner Products," so I am moving it accordingly. --Chachap1 (talk) 03:29, April 9, 2013 (UTC)

  • What is your source for this? The main image displays "Kenner(r)". Rokkur Shen (talk) 03:51, April 9, 2013 (UTC)
    • The main "Kenner" image is the company/division brand trademark, just as Hasbro, Inc. is represented by the company brand that only reads, "Hasbro." Look at the back of any (original circa 1978-85) vintage Star Wars figure -- the name "Kenner Products" appears near the bottom of the package -- or is that not a 'legitimate' source? The Wikipedia:Kenner Products page also supports this company name. During the General Mills era, Kenner Products was actually a division of CPG Products Corp., which was a subsidiary of General Mills, Inc.; I'll incorporate that information into the article as well. --Chachap1 (talk) 06:48, April 9, 2013 (UTC)
      • I too am requesting verification of this name. If this can be verified by Star Wars toy packaging, then please post a picture for confirmation. The Kenner article on Wikipedia by itself is not good enough. The only seemingly legitimate thing I can find on that page is reference number 2, which cites the title of some article written for DC Comics in the 1950s. Given that none of us here probably have access to this article, that really doesn't serve as verification either. The only other mentions of "Kenner Products" I can find from an Internet search are websites copying the Wikipedia article verbatim and some fan site on the history of Kenner toys, which also doesn't count as verification. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 05:57, April 26, 2013 (UTC)
        • It is impossible (for me, anyway; maybe someone with a high-quality camera can pull it off) to take a legible photo of the tiny type on the packaging. But I'll tell you everything it says. Five of the six sides of the box I'm looking at (that of the ATL Interceptor) have the Kenner logo followed by a registered trademark symbol and an asterisk. The side containing the UPC bar code has two lines of text. The top one reads: "(R), TM & (C) Lucasfilm Ltd. (LFL) 1985. All rights reserved. Kenner Products, a Div. of CPG Products Corp., Authorized User." ((R) and (C) represent the letters inside a circle.) The second line is the footnote correlating to all those other asterisks: "*Kenner is a trademark of CPG Products Corp., by its Div. Kenner Products, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202. MADE IN MACAO."

          This appears to be in line with what Chachap1 said at the beginning of this thread: Kenner Products is the company, and Kenner is the trademark under which it marketed its toys. Which is more appropriate for the article title? My inclination would be the latter: the name highly visible on all the logos is a better choice than the name only visible to those who squint at the fine print. It seems to me that the page could live at "Kenner," and then in its text somewhere, explain the distinction between this trademark name and the company name. But "Kenner Products" is a legitimate (if, arguably, inferior) choice. Asithol (talk) 09:33, April 26, 2013 (UTC)

          • I'm okay with changing the article title back to "Kenner" for brevity's sake, however, the full name of the company SHOULD be stated in the FIRST sentence, as in "Kenner Products…blah, blah, blah." 'Toprawa and Ralltiir' regarding 'PROOF' of the company name (then division of CPG) actually being "Kenner Products" -- Keep searching; I'm sure you'll find something. Your ignorance on the topic needn't translate to a burden being placed on ME to provide a photo to you; anybody with an original packaged Star Wars toy, or Indiana Jones toy can simply scrutinze the carton text to see that for themselves. (I'm not saying that to be 'smart ass' or disrespectful, it's just that somethings can be take at face value without having to be proven -- it's NOT a disputable fact in need of support. The fact that the trademark 'brand' may appear in a slightly more stylized way than the actual company name is farily common business practice.) --Chachap1 (talk) 13:22, April 26, 2013 (UTC)
            • Thank you, Asithol, for providing that. And yes, "Chapchap1," you are being a disrespectful smart ass. You needn't take it as a personal slight when someone asks you to provide a source or evidence for any type of information you add to this wiki. This is the very foundation of what Wookieepedia stands on. The burden will always be on you or anyone to provide evidence for suspect information, and no one will ever take your word at face value just because you assure us that your information is accurate. I suggest you learn this now before you potentially get yourself in an uglier situation. As for the name of the article itself, I think I would also be in favor leaving the title at "Kenner" while mentioning "Kenner Products" (with attributable sourcing for that name) in the introduction. I'll invite others to weigh in on this as well. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:04, April 26, 2013 (UTC)
              • I suppose the most technically correct action would be to split the article: Kenner would be about the toy line, and Kenner Products would be about the company. That's probably overkill, though. Asithol (talk) 19:44, April 26, 2013 (UTC)
            • 'T&R' I don't consider your request for sourcing a personal slight, or the debate on the necessity of citing a source for the Kenner unit name to be 'ugly' (apparently you do, though); I'm not the slightest bit emotional about the subject. I also don't require schooling on the value of citation and attribution (I've done plenty of edits here and on the Wikipedia site), but in this case, THOUSANDS can flip their (original) vintage carded figure (or vehicle box) over and read the information on back -- there is no debate -- it's a self-evident fact that IM(less than)HO needs no verification (regardless of your ignorance in the matter). I suppose I don't view it any differently than having to source the name "Darth Vader" every time it appears in an article. There are many, MANY more esoteric bits of information that rightly need vetting & sourcing here on the Wook; why not focus your energies on something that really needs it? Cheers. --Chachap1 (talk) 21:28, April 26, 2013 (UTC)
            • 'T&R' I'm gonna throw you a bone on this one: In Steve Sansweet's new book entitled Star Wars: The Ultimate Action Figure Collection (by Stephen J. Sansweet; © 2012, Lucasfilm. Ltd.; Chronical Books, San Francisco), in the introduction, page 6, 5th paragraph, "Kenner Products" is explicitly referenced as the entity responsible for creating the original Star Wars action figure line (of course, Sansweet hasn't footnoted this claim, so who's to say ;) ). I still contend that the 'fine print' appearing on the packaging for millions of toys produced by "Kenner Products" negates the need for sourcing in this case. Perhaps a line of text can be added to the article indicating that the company legend can be found on most toy packaging from the 1978-85 era. --Chachap1 (talk) 21:54, April 26, 2013 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Disclosure: Some of the links below are affiliate links meaning, at no additional cost to you, Fandom will earn a commission if you click through and make a purchase

Stream the best stories.

Disclosure: Some of the links below are affiliate links meaning, at no additional cost to you, Fandom will earn a commission if you click through and make a purchase

Get Disney+