Template:Did you know nominations/Grimace Shake

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: rejected by reviewer, closed by BorgQueen talk 16:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Grimace Shake

(
)
Grimace Shake
Grimace Shake

Created by Endof (talk). Self-nominated at 15:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Grimace Shake; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

  • per What DYK is not we should not be advertising for McDonalds on the main page. I'm not commenting on the editors who wrote the article or the nominator, but the effect of this being on the main page, is the same as if they were paid. It is an advert for McDonalds.
  • under "Content" on the same page is another rule "The hook should refer to established facts that are unlikely to change, and should be relevant for more than just novelty or newness." In this case the hook does not refer to "established facts" rather it refers to some fork of a commercial fantasy universe, i.e. nobody involved was murdered. The so called facts will not be relevant for more than novelty or newness after a few months when the ad campaign ends. It certainly will not be of any interest after a year, not after 10 years, not after 20 years. I will put a "recentism" tag on the article. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  • I'm with Smallbones. No free advertising; violates WP:NOT. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:41, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Just hopping in here to say that all of these proposed hooks are unacceptable by the mere fact that they are untrue. No one has died from drinking a grimace shake, striking Hook 1 and ALT1 and 2 out. ALT3 is just jargony nonsense that has no informational content for people who don't already know what these terms mean already. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
  • @Endof: Per the above discussion, all hooks have been struck. A new hook is needed if this nomination is to proceed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:48, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
  • ALT4: ... that although McDonald's released the drink Grimace Shake and video game Grimace's Birthday to celebrate Grimace's birthday, the exact date of his birthday is uncertain? Source: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2023-07-12/what-is-going-on-with-the-grimace-shake-let-us-explain
  • ALT5: ... that McDonald's paid Fandom to replace its wiki page about Grimace with an advertisement promoting the Grimace Shake and Grimace's Birthday, upsetting fans who've contributed to the original article? Source: https://www.insider.com/grimace-superfan-upset-by-characters-mcdonalds-wiki-page-becoming-ad-2023-6 https://kotaku.com/mcdonalds-grimace-wiki-ad-happy-meal-fandom-history-1850552640
  • Comment: I prefer alt5 over alt4 since sources seem to conflict on Grimace's birthday (see the footnote at Grimace Shake) Endoftalk 01:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
    • Nomination is on hold until the merge discussion has concluded. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
    • I also prefer ALT5 over ALT4. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
      • This is kind of an unusual nomination. Grimace's Birthday has been shoehorned into this nom, and does not meet the newness requirement (created July 15). I'm okay ignoring that and going with bundling the articles, but something to note for promoter.
      Review for both articles: Did some copyediting while reading and removed from Birthday one unimportant unparaphrased sentence and one questionably sourced (not clear whether YouTube channel GameXplain actually interviewed designer). Both articles long enough, no glaring neutrality issues, no other sourcing issues (current VG-specific sourcing seems ok, PR Newswire ok as primary source). Suggesting a revised hook like:
      • ALT5a ... that McDonald's paid Fandom to replace a user-written page about Grimace with advertising for the Grimace Shake menu item and Grimace's Birthday video game? Source (Kotaku): "McDonalds paid the site's owners to temporarily replace Grimace's biography with a paid advertisement ... Nathan's research wiped and replaced with reminders that people can go buy a Grimace meal at McDonalds and play a video game based on the character"
      Approve everything except the hook which I have just proposed and needs another set of eyes. If this runs, Vrxces should receive DYK credit for writing Grimace's Birthday, and Arconning for starting Grimace Shake. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 21:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Personally I think two separate hooks for the two articles have more potential. Some possible alternatives:
All citations are in the article. There is so much potential here for great quirky hooks...don't waste them! Cielquiparle (talk) 08:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Request review of new ALT hooks by Hameltion or another reviewer. Or maybe more workshopping of new ALT hooks. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
  • With this stagnant for weeks I will take these on for review. It seems like everything is fine with both articles as the discussions have concluded and there's been no substantial changes since Hameltion approved them on August 27th. Frankly, I think the original concerns about advertising were extremely overblown - The existence of an article about a product is not inherently advertising and neither is mentioning a product on the front page. I am approving ALT7 and ALT8. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 12:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
  • The advertising concerns have also abated with distance in time from the product and its campaign. If we go forward with this, ALT8 seems more grabby to me. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

reopening due to issues raised at WT:DYK#Grimace's Birthday (nom)  — Amakuru (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussion can now be found at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_195#Grimace's_Birthday_(nom). BlueMoonset (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
  • The nomination has been stuck for a while now, are there any updates? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
  • As an uninvolved editor for the articles associated with this nomination, I would not support this nomination because it inherently advertises McDonalds. I have little confidence that any amount of rewording would resolve that issue. --Minoa (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
  • I'll have to disagree that this advertises McDonalds, especially since that new better hooks have been written to avoid appearing promotional and that this DYK has been in limbo for so long that the shake isn't even being offered anymore and the ad campaign ended, further making this DYK less promotional. Of the approved hooks, I prefer (in most prefered to least) ALT5, ALT8, ALT4, ALT7. ALT5 especially so since it seems the least promotional of hooks.Endoftalk 07:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
  • . I'm rejecting this because there seem's to be community consensus that the article is too promotional to appear on the main page. I also note that the article contains needs expansion tags in two sections, and we don't promote articles that have tags of any kind to the main page. I personally am uncomfortable placing a product of this kind on the main page; particularly since so much of the article is essentially a rehash of the promotional tools used by McDonald's and its online fan base. When we actually consider that the product itself is just a berry flavored milkshake; what makes the product unique is entirely its branding within the McDonald's fictional universe. By necessity any article on the product is going to focus on the marketing narrative and by extension act as a proxy of sorts for marketing McDonald's as a brand. For this reason, it is best to decline this nomination because the topic itself is inseparable from the product's marketing campaign. I also think the product itself might be better covered in an article on Grimace (character) which is currently a redirect rather than having its own separate page. Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
I have to disagree with the above. I don't think that an article about a promotion would inherently be "marketing by proxy". Otherwise, that would be like saying 1984 (advertisement) is a proxy advertisement for Apple. My point is that, just because an article is about an advertisement or a promotional campaign does not necessarily mean that the article is inherently "a rehash of promotional materials", especially if the coverage is still largely third-party. Such articles should instead stand on their own merits, and if the articles have issues like promotional tone, that's an issue with the article writing itself and can be resolved, rather than being something inherent to articles about campaigns. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
You are welcome to that opinion, but enough editors have expressed concern that articles of this type do not belong on the main page both here and in the conversations linked above that I don't think it would be possible to promote the article. Not every permissible topic for article inclusion is necessarily editorially appropriate for the main page. I'd also note that your comparison to the 1984 commercial is a false analogy; as that particular topic wasn't about a product but the commercial itself. It also involved the promotion of a unique product that had a broad and lasting impact on the personal computer and was a major moment in the history of technology. Comparing it to a berry milkshake is just laughable. That topic also had the benefit of years of distance between the creation of the article and its use as an advertising campaign, and included diverse sources (including academic books) and media coverage over a 25 year period. This article is built entirely from a flurry of recent media coverage during McDonald's limited run of the Grimace Shake. There's no comparison to be made here between those two articles. The main concern here is one of perception, and following the spirit of WP:NOTPROMO as it applies to the main page. Recent products that are un-original beyond their branding are particularly susceptible to not be featured at DYK for this reason. A recent McDonald's product where the product itself is not unique (berry milkshakes have been around for a long time) and which is supported by only recent media coverage related to a McDonald's ad campaign isn't going to make it to the main page because of NOTPROMO policy. 4meter4 (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)