![]() | This is the
talk page of a
redirect that targets the page: • ProSiebenSat.1 Media Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:ProSiebenSat.1 Media |
![]() | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. |
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.85.120.13 ( talk • contribs)
We have some unreferenced critical content in the article that was removed by somebody who appears to be an insider. That is two big problems in one. Unreferenced negative content is really bad. Insider editing for reputation management purposes is really bad. I'm not sure where to draw the line on this. I have softened the wording considerably and tagged it as needing a reference. I went looking for a reference and found a few non-RS sources grumbling but not much else.
I suggest that we leave it like this for a day or two but if nobody can show an RS reference for the criticism then we should remove it.
I would also suggest that this demonstrates why having a Wikipedia article is something of a double-edged sword and why those who feel they can use Wikipedia as a promotional tool are so often disappointed by the outcomes. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 22:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
This article has been written in marcom speak since its creation (regardless of the recent minor paid activity). Content such as Studio71 develops, produces, and distributes original programming across social media, television and film and Several months after the rebranding into Studio71, Seven Bucks Productions and Studio71 partnered together could have been written by their marketing department (and might have been!), TonyBallioni ( talk) 14:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
@ TonyBallioni: @ DanielRigal:
Hey guys, Studio71 (as you know) is a client of my firm. Would you be open to reviewing a revised draft of this page? I've read your notes and can review to clean up the marketing speak. Let me know. Thanks. JacobMW ( talk) 00:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Since no one has responded to this, I took some time to clean up my formatting a bit. See below for edit requests since I have a COI, thank you!
Extended content
|
---|
References
|
Thanks! There's definitely a little bit more work that could be done to tone down the promotional language, but will just start with these changes.
JacobMW (
talk)
16:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Implemented
Spintendo
ᔦᔭ
13:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks,
Spintendo! Appreciate you taking time out of your day to help out with this. @
TonyBallioni and
SamHolt6: anything else that stands out to you in regards to the tags you guys added to this article?
JacobMW (
talk)
16:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Per TonyBallioni's suggestion, I've added a few more edit requests below and have intentionally taken out or edited phrases involving the words partner or generate. I have disclosed above that Studio71 is a client of mine and I have a WP:COI. Thank you for your time. If I missed anything formatting-wise with this edit request, please let me know so I can fix. JacobMW ( talk) 17:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
References
|
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The reviewer would like to request the editor with a COI attempt to discuss with editors engaged in the subject-area first. |
Hello! Studio71 is a client of my paid editing firm. I've made a couple of edit requests on this talk page to clean up the marketing speak of the article (as you can see above) and everyone has been incredibly helpful which is much appreciated. The final thing I wanted to ask about was just if someone could review the page to see if the tags that are on there still apply and if anything should be cleaned up? Thank you! JacobMW ( talk) 16:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, all. Per the discussion on this talk page, I've taken out some more language that might be seen as promotional. Would very, very, very much appreciate anyone who can get around to reviewing these edit requests. I've also broken up some of the paragraphs and have added in some missing citations. Thank you so much. JacobMW ( talk) 21:46, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Studio71, formerly Collective Digital Studio,
[1] is an
American
media and content production company. The company is a joint venture between
ProSiebenSat.1,
TF1 and
Mediaset and is headquartered in
Los Angeles with offices in Berlin, New York, Toronto, London, Paris and Milan.
Studio71 represents
Lilly Singh,
Rhett and Link,
[1]
Logan Paul,
Matthew Santoro,
Epic Meal Time,
[2] Family Fun Pack
[3] and actors
Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson
[4] and
Mayim Bialik among others.
[5]
Collective Digital Studio was founded in 2011 by
Michael Green,
[6] Reza Izad and Dan Weinstein as a YouTube
multi-channel network.
[7]
Extended content
|
---|
References
|
Technically, you are correct. Information should be placed in the text and given "at-a-glance" in the infobox. "The information should still be present in the main text, partly because it may not be possible for some readers to access the contents of the infobox.
Spintendo
ᔦᔭ
22:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I am willing to implement this proposal, providing it carries the changes I suggested above. If you wish, kindly revise your proposal accordingly, and resubmit it at your earliest convenience. Regards, Spintendo ᔦᔭ 00:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
@ Spintendo: per your suggestions, I've updated my requests in a new format, incorporating some of your notes but also formatting it as I see it working best. Much appreciate your time. Let me know your thoughts.
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Extended content
|
---|
{{{1}}}
|
Implemented History section coverted to timeline. Please note: I've removed the Advert template once again, but as a courtesy,
Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (
talk) will be notified and asked whether or not this is acceptable. If they still disapprove and wish it to remain, they are free to add it again to the page. Striken out section above removed, as these films and their dates already appear in the list of films. 'Further reading' and 'Initiatives' sections removed.
Spintendo
ᔦᔭ
20:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Hello! Almost done here. Just some simple COI edit requests from my end that I hope we can quickly knock out. Normally I'd structure with /code but they're very simple. Thank you, thank you, thank you whoever can help out with this:
"One-sentence paragraphs are unusually emphatic, and should be used sparingly. Articles should rarely, if ever, consist solely of such paragraphs."MOS:LINEBREAKS states
"The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text ... Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading; in such circumstances, it may be preferable to use bullet points."MOS:EMBED also covers the use of lists in the main text. Regards, Spintendo ᔦᔭ 10:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Minor COI edit requests below since Studio71 is a client of my paid editing service. Thank you to whoever can get around to reviewing this. JacobPace ( talk) 16:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Pretty minor stuff, just want to update the 'History' section with the copy below ideally. I corrected some inaccurate information and added some context:
Extended content
|
---|
{{{1}}}
|
Implemented The underlined passage was implemented.
Spintendo
ᔦᔭ
17:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello! Just a few items here. Main things are adding updated information on Studio71's new merger and also adding information to the body in an attempt to get rid of the bullet point format. Thank you! JacobPace ( talk) 17:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
@ Spintendo: thanks for getting back, and sorry for the delay in responding. All answers below. JacobPace ( talk) 16:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
ProSiebenSat.1 Media (70%)
Red Arrow
TF1 (25%)
Mediaset (5%)
Studio71, formerly Collective Digital Studio,
[1] is an American
media and content production company. The company is a Red Arrow Studios company with investments from ProSiebenSat.1, TF1 and Mediaset.
[15]
[16]
In December 2017, ProSiebenSat.1 merged Studio71 with its production arm Red Arrow Entertainment Group to create Red Arrow Studios.Please indicate what is incorrect about this statement.
Collective Digital Studio was founded in 2011 by Michael Green,[3] Reza Izad and Dan Weinstein as a YouTube multi-channel network. Your proposal incates that The Collective begat CDS, but your reference states that one part of CDS was minimized in order to focus on another part, while the individuals involved remained the same. Please elaborate how an internal refocusing of priorities is germane to the article. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 17:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
References
|
Comment: The source explains virtually what is said in the text. Friday the 13th may be added, but you did not specify which Friday the 13th. There were 3 in 2012.}} 17:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello! Just requesting some edits for my client Studio71. Thank you in advance whoever can get around to this. JacobPace ( talk) 21:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Extended content
|
---|
References
|
Partially implemented. Additional changes to the article were made. Please see the
edit summary history for more information. Regards,
Spintendo
ᔦᔭ
10:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I've made some edits to the page in an attempt to make it look a little more like an encyclopaedia article and a little less like a PRNewswire press release; those edits included removal of some gratuitous name-dropping, some trivia, and a good deal of puffery. I re-wrote some of the content for tone, but did not change the basic factual information presented nor check the sources for reliability (and that certainly needs doing). I'm concerned that the article is completely wrong about several of those basic facts:
If the name of the company is now Red Arrow Studios (as this says it is), should this page be moved to that title? Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 12:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC); edited 17:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
A near-universal feature of paid articles is that they include excessive detail on corporate minutiae such as financing and otherwise non-notable personnel. Trouble is, if we cut out that stuff there's not much left. Any ideas? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 17:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
I haven't seen a revised version, unless it's the one that Just was working on before the redirect. That's the only one I saw. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 02:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Spintendo, I think Frmorrison means this version of the page, which added two extra references, one the company itself, and the other something called "Adweek". Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 02:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
...as there are several comparable companies who stand with their own pages...is a classic please-keep-my-article argument at AfD from COI editors. It does not carry much weight, unfortunately. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization.By just a simple Google search, you can find several independent sources discussing this company in great detail? Are there any specific holes in my argument that I can address? I don't understand why this article shouldn't be restored. JacobPace ( talk) 15:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Hey all, just wanted to send through a new draft I've been working on for this article (you can find it here). Frankly, I'm a lot less concerned with having this article published immediately (definitely not the case) and more just wanting to learn how I can improve this draft, why this deserves to be merged with its parent company (or not), etc. In terms of the actual structure of the company, Studio71 has not merged with Red Arrow to create one company but rather it's just a company underneath a new parent organization (underneath ProSieben) called Red Arrow Studios. I want to learn here more than anything. No rush at all, I appreciate everyone's time here. Would love to get some feedback on this new draft and if anyone thinks it'd be suitable for an independent article. JacobPace ( talk) 16:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm proposing that this article and its Talk page be indefinitely fully protected from editing. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 19:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is the
talk page of a
redirect that targets the page: • ProSiebenSat.1 Media Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:ProSiebenSat.1 Media |
![]() | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. |
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.85.120.13 ( talk • contribs)
We have some unreferenced critical content in the article that was removed by somebody who appears to be an insider. That is two big problems in one. Unreferenced negative content is really bad. Insider editing for reputation management purposes is really bad. I'm not sure where to draw the line on this. I have softened the wording considerably and tagged it as needing a reference. I went looking for a reference and found a few non-RS sources grumbling but not much else.
I suggest that we leave it like this for a day or two but if nobody can show an RS reference for the criticism then we should remove it.
I would also suggest that this demonstrates why having a Wikipedia article is something of a double-edged sword and why those who feel they can use Wikipedia as a promotional tool are so often disappointed by the outcomes. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 22:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
This article has been written in marcom speak since its creation (regardless of the recent minor paid activity). Content such as Studio71 develops, produces, and distributes original programming across social media, television and film and Several months after the rebranding into Studio71, Seven Bucks Productions and Studio71 partnered together could have been written by their marketing department (and might have been!), TonyBallioni ( talk) 14:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
@ TonyBallioni: @ DanielRigal:
Hey guys, Studio71 (as you know) is a client of my firm. Would you be open to reviewing a revised draft of this page? I've read your notes and can review to clean up the marketing speak. Let me know. Thanks. JacobMW ( talk) 00:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Since no one has responded to this, I took some time to clean up my formatting a bit. See below for edit requests since I have a COI, thank you!
Extended content
|
---|
References
|
Thanks! There's definitely a little bit more work that could be done to tone down the promotional language, but will just start with these changes.
JacobMW (
talk)
16:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Implemented
Spintendo
ᔦᔭ
13:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks,
Spintendo! Appreciate you taking time out of your day to help out with this. @
TonyBallioni and
SamHolt6: anything else that stands out to you in regards to the tags you guys added to this article?
JacobMW (
talk)
16:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Per TonyBallioni's suggestion, I've added a few more edit requests below and have intentionally taken out or edited phrases involving the words partner or generate. I have disclosed above that Studio71 is a client of mine and I have a WP:COI. Thank you for your time. If I missed anything formatting-wise with this edit request, please let me know so I can fix. JacobMW ( talk) 17:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
References
|
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The reviewer would like to request the editor with a COI attempt to discuss with editors engaged in the subject-area first. |
Hello! Studio71 is a client of my paid editing firm. I've made a couple of edit requests on this talk page to clean up the marketing speak of the article (as you can see above) and everyone has been incredibly helpful which is much appreciated. The final thing I wanted to ask about was just if someone could review the page to see if the tags that are on there still apply and if anything should be cleaned up? Thank you! JacobMW ( talk) 16:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, all. Per the discussion on this talk page, I've taken out some more language that might be seen as promotional. Would very, very, very much appreciate anyone who can get around to reviewing these edit requests. I've also broken up some of the paragraphs and have added in some missing citations. Thank you so much. JacobMW ( talk) 21:46, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Studio71, formerly Collective Digital Studio,
[1] is an
American
media and content production company. The company is a joint venture between
ProSiebenSat.1,
TF1 and
Mediaset and is headquartered in
Los Angeles with offices in Berlin, New York, Toronto, London, Paris and Milan.
Studio71 represents
Lilly Singh,
Rhett and Link,
[1]
Logan Paul,
Matthew Santoro,
Epic Meal Time,
[2] Family Fun Pack
[3] and actors
Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson
[4] and
Mayim Bialik among others.
[5]
Collective Digital Studio was founded in 2011 by
Michael Green,
[6] Reza Izad and Dan Weinstein as a YouTube
multi-channel network.
[7]
Extended content
|
---|
References
|
Technically, you are correct. Information should be placed in the text and given "at-a-glance" in the infobox. "The information should still be present in the main text, partly because it may not be possible for some readers to access the contents of the infobox.
Spintendo
ᔦᔭ
22:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I am willing to implement this proposal, providing it carries the changes I suggested above. If you wish, kindly revise your proposal accordingly, and resubmit it at your earliest convenience. Regards, Spintendo ᔦᔭ 00:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
@ Spintendo: per your suggestions, I've updated my requests in a new format, incorporating some of your notes but also formatting it as I see it working best. Much appreciate your time. Let me know your thoughts.
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Extended content
|
---|
{{{1}}}
|
Implemented History section coverted to timeline. Please note: I've removed the Advert template once again, but as a courtesy,
Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (
talk) will be notified and asked whether or not this is acceptable. If they still disapprove and wish it to remain, they are free to add it again to the page. Striken out section above removed, as these films and their dates already appear in the list of films. 'Further reading' and 'Initiatives' sections removed.
Spintendo
ᔦᔭ
20:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Hello! Almost done here. Just some simple COI edit requests from my end that I hope we can quickly knock out. Normally I'd structure with /code but they're very simple. Thank you, thank you, thank you whoever can help out with this:
"One-sentence paragraphs are unusually emphatic, and should be used sparingly. Articles should rarely, if ever, consist solely of such paragraphs."MOS:LINEBREAKS states
"The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text ... Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading; in such circumstances, it may be preferable to use bullet points."MOS:EMBED also covers the use of lists in the main text. Regards, Spintendo ᔦᔭ 10:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Minor COI edit requests below since Studio71 is a client of my paid editing service. Thank you to whoever can get around to reviewing this. JacobPace ( talk) 16:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Pretty minor stuff, just want to update the 'History' section with the copy below ideally. I corrected some inaccurate information and added some context:
Extended content
|
---|
{{{1}}}
|
Implemented The underlined passage was implemented.
Spintendo
ᔦᔭ
17:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello! Just a few items here. Main things are adding updated information on Studio71's new merger and also adding information to the body in an attempt to get rid of the bullet point format. Thank you! JacobPace ( talk) 17:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
@ Spintendo: thanks for getting back, and sorry for the delay in responding. All answers below. JacobPace ( talk) 16:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
ProSiebenSat.1 Media (70%)
Red Arrow
TF1 (25%)
Mediaset (5%)
Studio71, formerly Collective Digital Studio,
[1] is an American
media and content production company. The company is a Red Arrow Studios company with investments from ProSiebenSat.1, TF1 and Mediaset.
[15]
[16]
In December 2017, ProSiebenSat.1 merged Studio71 with its production arm Red Arrow Entertainment Group to create Red Arrow Studios.Please indicate what is incorrect about this statement.
Collective Digital Studio was founded in 2011 by Michael Green,[3] Reza Izad and Dan Weinstein as a YouTube multi-channel network. Your proposal incates that The Collective begat CDS, but your reference states that one part of CDS was minimized in order to focus on another part, while the individuals involved remained the same. Please elaborate how an internal refocusing of priorities is germane to the article. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 17:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
References
|
Comment: The source explains virtually what is said in the text. Friday the 13th may be added, but you did not specify which Friday the 13th. There were 3 in 2012.}} 17:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello! Just requesting some edits for my client Studio71. Thank you in advance whoever can get around to this. JacobPace ( talk) 21:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Extended content
|
---|
References
|
Partially implemented. Additional changes to the article were made. Please see the
edit summary history for more information. Regards,
Spintendo
ᔦᔭ
10:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I've made some edits to the page in an attempt to make it look a little more like an encyclopaedia article and a little less like a PRNewswire press release; those edits included removal of some gratuitous name-dropping, some trivia, and a good deal of puffery. I re-wrote some of the content for tone, but did not change the basic factual information presented nor check the sources for reliability (and that certainly needs doing). I'm concerned that the article is completely wrong about several of those basic facts:
If the name of the company is now Red Arrow Studios (as this says it is), should this page be moved to that title? Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 12:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC); edited 17:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
A near-universal feature of paid articles is that they include excessive detail on corporate minutiae such as financing and otherwise non-notable personnel. Trouble is, if we cut out that stuff there's not much left. Any ideas? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 17:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
I haven't seen a revised version, unless it's the one that Just was working on before the redirect. That's the only one I saw. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 02:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Spintendo, I think Frmorrison means this version of the page, which added two extra references, one the company itself, and the other something called "Adweek". Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 02:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
...as there are several comparable companies who stand with their own pages...is a classic please-keep-my-article argument at AfD from COI editors. It does not carry much weight, unfortunately. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization.By just a simple Google search, you can find several independent sources discussing this company in great detail? Are there any specific holes in my argument that I can address? I don't understand why this article shouldn't be restored. JacobPace ( talk) 15:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Hey all, just wanted to send through a new draft I've been working on for this article (you can find it here). Frankly, I'm a lot less concerned with having this article published immediately (definitely not the case) and more just wanting to learn how I can improve this draft, why this deserves to be merged with its parent company (or not), etc. In terms of the actual structure of the company, Studio71 has not merged with Red Arrow to create one company but rather it's just a company underneath a new parent organization (underneath ProSieben) called Red Arrow Studios. I want to learn here more than anything. No rush at all, I appreciate everyone's time here. Would love to get some feedback on this new draft and if anyone thinks it'd be suitable for an independent article. JacobPace ( talk) 16:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm proposing that this article and its Talk page be indefinitely fully protected from editing. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 19:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)