Draft talk:Makeship

advertising?

Isn't this just advertising, in the sponsorship sense? -- mikeblas (talk) 04:48, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I see where you stand here, but it might not be. This is Wikipedia, of course, some site curators might have just seen it on Makeship's page and wanted to shout it out, or this is a sponsorship. It is really cute though! Theonethatknowsyouripaddress (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I wrote this article, and Makeship didn't pay me or ask me to do it. I just wrote the page because I felt like it deserved an article, and I included the Baby Globe image because I think it's cute. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 12:39, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

there's the answer lol Theonethatknowsyouripaddress (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Sorry--I wasn't specific at all. I'm more worried about the placement for DYK on the main page for this article given the business/service relationship mentioned in that very DYK fact. The DYK positioning seems far less than neutral and just really rubs me the wrong way. -- mikeblas (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Even if this is not a paid advertisement, it is advertisement. From what I can gather, it was approved for DYK by a single editor/admin (Chaotic_Enby). I'm fairly new, so I'm not sure if this is common, but it really stands out and I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed it. Bocanegris (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

True, I saw it from the "fun fact" angle, but I can very much see how it can also be read as promotional/affiliate. I'm more than okay with it being pulled. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:00, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

No money or contract was involved, but the impression of impropriety is something that should be avoided, and I understand that I should have been more careful regarding that aspect.

Pinging @Zzz plant (who promoted the hook to the prep area) and @HurricaneZeta (who moved it to the queue) if they wish to comment. Noting that it is the usual process with one editor approving it, another promoting it to prep, and a third one moving it to the queue. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:06, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I promoted because I thought the self-referential angle was fun and unique; I also didn't see it as super different from the baby globe that appears on the site with birthday mode enabled. However, I can certainly see now how it could come across as promotional to others, and obviously we want to avoid even the appearance of that if possible. I'm fine with whatever the consensus is here and I'll be more cautious reviewing hooks involving extant commercial products in the future. Zzz plant (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Now that I look back on it, I'd say the biggest difference is that the baby globe is just that, the baby globe, while this one highlights the company making it. We'll always be highlighting fun facts about subjects at DYK, but linking it to Wikipedia's product might give it an air of official backing which we may want to avoid. Especially since, in the meantime, the Baby Globe Makeship campaign got a reboot and is active again. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:47, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby I am more worried about notability tbh. Did you happen to find a WP:BESTTHREE? Polygnotus (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't know if this is explicitly required in DYK nominations (famously, it isn't for GA either), and I did note that the article relied too much on primary sources, something which @ArtemisiaGentileschiFan ended up working on.

Looking more closely, I do agree that the sources still aren't ideal. is pretty clearly a press release, and are interviews from Makeship co-founders, and I'm unsure about the independence of . Meanwhile, , , , and are all about a specific Makeship product each, and don't go in-depth about the company itself. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:47, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Hmmmm thanks @Chaotic Enby. I am not gonna nominate it while its on the frontpage but I did a quick Google search and I don't really see a WP:GNG/WP:NCOMPANY claim. Polygnotus (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2026 (UTC) (edit: struck through, nominated.) Polygnotus (talk) 20:35, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't know if this requires its own topic, but I'll start here:

- In my opinion, this issue risks violating NPOV and NOTADVERTISING policies on the Main Page.

- The article describes a product that is currently launching. Highlighting it on the Main Page during a promotional window (anniversary celebration) creates an appearance of corporate sponsorship or paid placement (even if it's not paid, as has been clarified).

- The product itself isn't even available, it is accepting pre-orders and does not ship until June. For all intents and purposes, it doesn't exist yet. Whats more, in the product page, it lists its creator as "Wikipedia", making it look as if it was an official product.

- While the article itself may be mostly neutral and well-sourced, featuring it as a DYK fact right now could lead readers to interpret Wikipedia as an advertising platform for this specific brand.

I am not challenging the quality of the article, merely the timing and visibility of the hook.

I suggest pulling this from the Main Page (if that is an option). Bocanegris (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

To clarify, the Baby Globe plushie was available and shipped previously. The campaign was re-launched a second time after the DYK nomination was reviewed, and we didn't know at the time that this would happen. Not sure about "the product page", as the page we're discussing is about the company, and Baby Globe doesn't have a standalone Wikipedia article.

Agree with the appearance of corporate sponsorship, although, to clarify, the plushie is an official product launched by the Wikimedia Foundation in collaboration with Makeship. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:55, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, no nobody here has been paid by the WMF or Makeship. I did not know that they were reviving the plushie until somebody mentioned it in passing wrt to a unrelated comment. Sohom (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. Taking that into account, I think it makes sense to promote it... and as weird as this sounds, I think it should even have its own special section on the Main Page. It's the placement in the DYK section that makes it look sketchy, like it's stealth advertisement (even if that wasn't the intention). Bocanegris (talk) 23:45, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Bocanegris. I think it captures my negative reaction to the DYK very well. The whole thing is very dubious. It's itchy when some artist has a featured article on the day their next album drops, but this is even more egregious product placement. It erodes trust and can't possibly be neutral. -- mikeblas (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Is there a way to take it off the Main Page following protocol and not being hostile? I'm kind of new, so I don't know if that would be unnecessarily argumentative (especially since it was clearly nominated and approved in good faith). So I wouldn't make a formal proposal myself but I hope someone can.

Also, it's not that big of a deal, to be honest. I just wouldn't like for this to become a tradition. It's a slippery slope. Bocanegris (talk) 23:33, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

DYK links are only on the main page for about 24 hours, so it's already gone from there. But the damage has been done. I don't know the process by which DYK links are added, but in this case, it seems like there was no evaluation for bias or neutrality whatsoever an dI think that's very troubling. -- mikeblas (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

For the future, should we open a discussion about adding this as a criterion to avoid similar cases? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:11, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, and it may be good idea to think about notability as well. Polygnotus (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

@Mikeblas Could you point to the part of the WP:NPOV policy do you think is broken in the usecase of It's itchy when some artist has a featured article on the day their next album drops or even this specific instance where a independent user created a article about a company that happens to have a relationship with the WMF. You insinuate that it seems like there was no evaluation for bias or neutrality whatsoever. Could you explain what policy backed changes would be required in your eyes to better abide by our WP:COI or WP:NPOV policies? My current reading here is that everything was done in a above the board manner (minus us being more diligent about sourcing/notability through DYK). Sohom (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

I never said that it broke any specific policy. Before I fully respond to you, can you point to the place where I say it did? That will help me frame my response. -- mikeblas (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

This (sub-)thread is about neturality of the DYK posting under a sub-thread about how the specific DYK risks violating NPOV and NOTADVERTISING policies on the Main Page. My assumption here was that you agree with that in this context. Sohom (talk) 01:26, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I think it's very obvious that linking this article from DYK on the main page comes off as promotional, and the relationship of the subject company with the Wikipedia over the highlighted plushie product sets the stage for significant bias. Because of the promotional nature of the DYK link from the front page, it feels like advertising. And the relationship sets the stage for bias to enter.

Let me stress to you that it's your assumption that I said the article violates COI or NPOV or NOTADVERTISING or any other Wikipedia policy. It's objectively obvious that I did no such thing. Here, I'm talking about the feeling I get from reading the article: that it is promotional, that it comes off as biased, and why didn't the review processes catch or address that? I have made no claim whatsoever about a specific policy violation.

Words like "neutrality" and "bias" and "advertising" have meaning outside Wikipedia's policies, and that's what I am applying here. If the processes and polices here don't prevent this kind of promotion and apparent bias, then they probably should be updated and strengthened. The optics here are very poor, and I think they impugn the project's integrity.

I hope that makes things clear for you. In the future, I'd thank you to not put words into my mouth in the future. Maybe something I wrote was ambiguous (and my first statement here certainly was) but I feel like it's undeniable that I did not say any specific policy was broken. -- mikeblas (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

@Sohom Datta, to be fair, there's an argument to be had that hooks promoting a specific product are best avoided at DYK, even if the article itself isn't promotional. Just offhand, Template:Did you know nominations/Samsung Galaxy S26 and Template:Did you know nominations/Lumentum Holdings were recently rejected at DYK over concerns about the hooks being too promotional. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:32, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Interesting, there's a site-sponsored WP:G11 page that may not be created, haven't had Makeship made one specific plush toy. ~2026-17552-11 (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Wouldn't call it site-sponsored as much as a volunteer being interested thanks to this. But yeah, the optics aren't great. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:18, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:G11 is for advertising and promotion. This page is not advertising or promotion. It's a normal article about a notable subject. I received no sponsorship to create the page. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

This is going nowhere, and very fast. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:28, 20 March 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@ArtemisiaGentileschiFan about a notable subject Did you happen to find a WP:BESTTHREE? Polygnotus (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

How about the sources cited in the article. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@ArtemisiaGentileschiFan As discussed above those don't count. See WP:GNG. Polygnotus (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

You don't need to patronize me and tell me to "see WP:GNG" as if I'm some newbie that doesn't know how this website works, I've written almost 50 articles and have four GAs. I know what notability is. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@ArtemisiaGentileschiFan If you are already familiar with GNG and already know that the sources in the article don't count then I am not sure why you wrote this comment? Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 18:48, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I disagree with your claim that the sources "don't count". I assume you're capable of having a discussion without resorting to patronizing insults, yes? ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@ArtemisiaGentileschiFan Sometimes. But I don't think "see WP:GNG" is an insult.

Linking to PaGs is usually not considered insulting on Wikipedia. Polygnotus (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Behaving in a patronizing manner usually is. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@ArtemisiaGentileschiFan I could explain that this is a diverse community and talk about templating the regulars and all that but you would probably consider that patronizing as well. Polygnotus (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Are you going to pretend that you're not being patronizing? Because you would probably consider that patronizing as well is like, a textbook example patronizing. I literally did nothing to you for you to start acting like a jerk for no reason. I have not once insulted or slighted you. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and if you can't bear the idea of treating others with respect maybe you should pick a different website. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@ArtemisiaGentileschiFan I like you. You are my friend now. Polygnotus (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Polygnotus, I'm sure you are capable of commenting on the content without being sarcastic towards Artemisia. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos Me too! I am working on a new version of my User:Polygnotus/Scripts/SourceTable script. Polygnotus (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Wonderful. Since you are capable of self-restraint, please exercise it if you plan to comment further. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

To be fair, @Polygnotus raised an issue and @ArtemisiaGentileschiFan hyperfocused on an accusation of being patronizing, without actually acknowledging the issues presented. In a further thread, he stated I was making arguments in bad faith when they were presented in a respectful manner, making it clear I wasn't making any accusations and that it was a personal opinion.

Now I would like to know if this page should still be on the front page and for its content to be scrutinized, because this is no longer an objective conversation. Bocanegris (talk) 19:51, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@Bocanegris: I think the way it has occurred previously is that folks have nominated the article for deletion once the article is off the main page. For content problems like source-to-text-integrity or small changes, it is typically done by individual editors and follows normal WP:BRD. You are free to nominate the article for deletion at any time (including now) or bringing specific pieces of content under scrutiny. Wrt to whether it should be on the Main Page, the correct place to discuss it is Talk:Main Page or WT:DYK. Sohom (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Polygnotus was being patronizing, and there's no need for it, which is why I stepped in. As for your comment, it seems like you may not be familiar with the DYK process, leading you to suggest Arte was acting inappropriately by nominating the article for DYK. As others have said, it is almost always the primary author who nominates any given page to DYK. Leaving aside any concerns about the sources or notability, for them to nominate an article they wrote for DYK was quite typical and in no way inappropriate. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:05, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos How was I being patronizing? Polygnotus (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

The CN tag, the reminder to review GNG, the passive aggressive "but you would probably consider that patronizing as well", and the sarcastic "I like you. You are my friend now". All of that comes across as clearly condescending and intended to raise the temperature rather than discuss the content. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos As you can see above I got randomly falsely accused and attacked by someone who I never interacted with before, and instead of calling them an idiot, like most people would, I gently poked fun at the situation. And then you jump in to attack the victim.

Which ironically raised the temperature and isn't great adminning. Polygnotus (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Pointing out inappropriate behavior and politely asking you to stick to commenting on content instead is not attacking you. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos Saying "See WP:GNG" is not inappropriate behavior and what they did is not politely asking you to stick to commenting on content.

Do me a favour, reread the above while putting yourself in my shoes. Polygnotus (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I could give you the same advice regarding your own comments towards Arte. To be clear, my comment starting with "Pointing out..." was a response to your accusation that I have "jump[ed] in to attack the victim". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos You don't see the problem here?

You don't need to patronize me and tell me to "see WP:GNG" as if I'm some newbie that doesn't know how this website works, I've written almost 50 articles and have four GAs. I know what notability is. I assume you're capable of having a discussion without resorting to patronizing insults, yes? Behaving in a patronizing manner usually is. Are you going to pretend that you're not being patronizing? Because "you would probably consider that patronizing as well" is like, a textbook example patronizing. I literally did nothing to you for you to start acting like a jerk for no reason. I have not once insulted or slighted you. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and if you can't bear the idea of treating others with respect maybe you should pick a different website.

As I am terrible at mindreading I don't see why you keep digging this hole. You made a whopper of a bad faith assumption, your misjudgement raised the temperature in an already heated discussion and now you are posting riddles. Do you want to keep going or should I just throw a whale on your talkpage so we can move on, ideally to something more productive? Polygnotus (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Even if you weren't sponsored to create the page, the fact that you are the primary contributor and then nominated it for a front-page feature promoting their product doesn't feel appropriate for an encyclopedia.

I'm not accusing you of being paid for this. I'm convinced you did all this in good faith to support a company you like. But in my opinion, it is still not appropriate, and apparently I'm not alone in this regard.

I don't mind the page itself, but I don't think it should be in DYK. I don't know if there is a process to remove it from that list, but if there is, I think we should consider it. Bocanegris (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

the fact that you are the primary contributor and then nominated it for a front-page feature is how pretty much all pages on DYK work. Every single time a new page is made, it has a single primary contributor until other people come along and contribute, and the creator of a page is pretty much always the one to nominate it for DYK. If we needed to wait for other people to nominate new pages for DYK, there would be no DYK articles. And no, I am not "promoting their product" and that's a bad faith way to interpret my actions. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• As Artemis said, the vast majority of DYK nominations are submitted by the person who writes the article. That is simply how the process works, just like how Featured Articles are generally nominated by the main contributor. As for the purportedly "advertorial" content, some of the information removed should have been reframed rather than simply removed. For example, "In 2025, Makeship reported that it had distributed over CAD$20 million to creators." to make it clear that it's sourced to a primary source and thus should be taken with a grain of salt. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Crisco 1492 Nah you can't make that claim without being promotional. Mentioning the overall revenue would probably be valid tho, if a WP:RS can be found. Polygnotus (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

the fact that you are the primary contributor and then nominated it for a front-page feature
Actually, DYKs are generally supposed to be nominated by the primary contributors of articles. If you're not the primary contributor, that is fine, but I'm just saying that most DYKs appear on the front page because the page's nominator improved them. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:52, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Why is nomination by the primary contributor a requirement? -- mikeblas (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

It's not a requirement, it's just the case 99% of the time. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I must be misunderstanding what you mean by "supoosed to be". (Oh, wait: You're not Epicgenius.) -- mikeblas (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Yep, as Artemisia said it's not a requirement, but the vast majority of nominations are put forth by the same editor(s) who improved the article in the first place. Per WP:WIADYK: Any registered user who is at least autoconfirmed may nominate a DYK suggestion; self-nominations are encouraged (emphasis mine). It's just that there isn't a group of editors going around looking for newly expanded articles to nominate. Nine out of ten times, a DYK nomination is going to be initiated by the editor responsible for the article. (And, if you're not the person who improved the article, it's a good idea to see if the major contributors are fine with the idea first.) – Epicgenius (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2026 (UTC)