Talk:Disney Digital Network

Edit request on 12 December 2012
October 2012, Ray William Johnson left maker studios.

86.179.112.176 (talk) 00:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 16:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Could've just researched some yourself. http://newmediarockstars.com/2012/12/why-i-left-maker-studios/ 178.73.28.126 (talk) 18:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The article isn't protected anymore, so you can do it yourself (but watch out for reverts). - a boat   that can float!   (happy holidays)  16:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Controversy section
The controversy section is definitely WP:UNDUE. Probably the first best step is to strip out the long quotation; then remove about half of the material. The length of that section makes it seem like this is the primary issue for which the company is famous. I don't have the time to do it myself, but concur that it needs to be shorter. Note that I am not recommending that we remove it or whitewash anything, but merely that we present it appropriately per WP:NPOV. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * How much of this, if any, is necessary here? How important an event was this in the scheme of the studio? For instance, not even here does the Letterman/Leno business get as much coverage. What's there now is pretty clearly a soapbox on behalf of Mr. Johnson, complete with the gratuitous note regarding a convicted felon. To remove most or all of this isn't whitewashing, but an effort to insure that a Wikipedia article isn't used to air personal grievances. My instinct is to cut it to the bone, to one or two neutral sentences if need be, and remove the separate header. 99.136.255.134 (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but the Leno/Letterman controversy wasn't the biggest thing to ever happen to either show. Unfortunately for Maker Studios, the Ray William Johnson controversy is the biggest thing to ever happen to the studio. Other than that, the company has barely gotten news coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afropuff76 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean, though, that the section isn't excessive. The question to ask is this: in ten years time, will this one dispute about one ex-employee be so critical to this company's story? If nothing else, as I said, there is no justification for the long quotation. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Here are Google News hits for Makers Studio, and Google . This incident may have created some heat, but there's no indication that it's 'the biggest thing to ever happen'. 99.136.255.134 (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course it's not at the very tip top of Google search; the controversy happened months ago, and Google search algorithms prioritize things partially by current relevance. That doesn't suggest we should simply sweep it under the rug. The story was the most news coverage the company has gotten. Again, count the amount of sources talking about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afropuff76 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The Ray William Johnson controversy should be at the top of this article.
The Ray William Johnson controversy should be at the top of this article. It is by far the biggest and most-covered thing to ever happen to Maker Studios. It has definitely garnered more media attention than any of their "content" or "success". I understand that the Maker Studios PR team edits this Wikipedia page for them, but they can't sweep the RWJ fiasco under the rug. This is THE BIGGEST thing to ever happen to the company. The amount of sources in the RWJ section alone are telling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afropuff76 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned, Afropuff, about your edit history and lack of neutrality. I'm happy to say that I'm not associated with anyone in this article, and find this sorely wanting re: WP:NPOV. 99.136.255.134 (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I only write the facts, ALL of which are properly sourced. If something isn't sourced then let me know. Otherwise, I'll keep editing the pages that pertain to my interests. It is not my concern if the aforementioned properly sourced facts happen to paint this company in a negative light, but they themselves seem to have a somewhat long and controversial history with their artists. Again, if something isn't properly sourced then let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afropuff76 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not censor, and it doesn't cut content because it's negative. But what's there now is an embarrassment to all parties, a high school pissing match. There is a Wiki guideline that makes clear that not every sourced fact belongs in an encyclopedic article, and this is a textbook example. And nobody who comes upon this can take it seriously, it's written from the point of view of somebody with an axe to grind. The best thing you can do--as an editor and a person--is to let go of this and allow uninvolved editors to reach a consensus. Please. In the end that is what will happen anyway..... 99.136.255.134 (talk) 00:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh I see. You're part of the Maker Studios PR team whose job it is to make their Wikipedia page a bit more positive. Nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afropuff76 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Not even remotely. Right now I see one account here that's steeped in conflict of interest. 99.136.255.134 (talk) 00:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Right! You see YOU and your account, because YOU are the one trying to soften this company article. The facts are all there, and in some cases, are lifted word for word from the primary source. You can't argue with facts, no matter how bad they make your company look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afropuff76 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * (For general consumption) There are several admins who can attest that I am not affiliated with this, or for that matter any studio or production company. Nor have I edit warred at the article--my edit history speaks to my having no dogs in any fight. 99.136.255.134 (talk) 01:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This point isn't even negotiable. There is never any circumstance in which the first thing after the lead of an organization article would ever be a controversy section. In fact, we would never follow the lead with an immediate section on a single, specific incident, unless there literally were nothing else in the article (and that would probably be an error of omission anyway). We always provide background information, general history, etc. first. As to whether or not this deserves a separate section...I'm actually inclined to think it does. The amount of press received does seem to indicate that this is an important part of their history, important enough to be called out separately (just not as extensively as now). This, of course, is a judgment call, and so reasonable people could disagree. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Shall I propose a revised version, and submit it here, rather than in article space? 99.136.255.134 (talk) 01:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Re: Johnson also claimed that Maker Studios CEO, Danny Zappin, is a convicted felon, a charge which Zappin later publicly admitted to. What is the relevance of the CEO's having been convicted of felony drug possession, and how does that relate to a contract disagreement and separation? 99.136.255.134 (talk) 02:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * For the record, the CEO was convicted and imprisoned for DRUG TRAFFICKING not drug possession. It's relevant, because it was a major part of the controversy between Ray William Johnson and Maker Studios.
 * The use of caps for emphasis is not supported for talk page discussions, and was something Afropuff did persistently....now, perhaps others will agree that it's relevant, and that's fine. To me it's worthy of a gossip rag, and here serves mostly as a pointed justification on behalf of one party. 99.0.83.243 (talk) 03:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Maker formerly known as The Station
This reference: http://www.tubemogul.com/company/blog/2009/08/youtube-stars-join-forces-for-the-station/ is used to source this statement: Maker Studios, formerly known as The Station, however there is not one single mention of Maker Studios in that reference. I have removed it twice, but "Afropuff76" continuously re-adds the reference. I will remove it again, and I ask Afropuff76 to not re-add the statement unless a source properly referencing the statement is added. I do not care if Maker was formerly known as The Station or not, I just care that it is properly sourced. Soulbust (talk) 00:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It is properly sourced, Einstein. Look at it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afropuff76 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This: http://www.tubemogul.com/company/blog/2009/08/youtube-stars-join-forces-for-the-station/ is not a proper source. The Tubefilter reference you added AFTER I posted my concern on this talk page, is. Soulbust (talk) 00:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with the two editors above: tubmogul is the blog of a private company, and so definitely does not meet WP:RS. I've re-removed it. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It was back in, but the sources used indicated that Station was a prior project that really had nothing to do with Maker other than the people involved collaborated there first (which is already mentioned in the lede), so I have removed it once again. MSJapan (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

RWJ controversy
The RWJ controversy was just blanked out of the article without discussion, and without a reason, by an unregistered user. After looking at the IP that made the edit, one can see that no previous edits by them were made. The information has been out of the article since May 21, and has seemingly been unnoticed and just thrown under the rug. I have added back the information. Bobcatwaterlion (talk) 12:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Change names to channel names
In the "Polaris" subsection, it lists the name of some of the top channels on the the network. Many of those listed are not the actual channel names (ex: "Dodger" should be changed to "Press Heart to Continue", "John Bain" to "TotalBiscuit, The Cynical Brit" etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AzureNinja (talk • contribs) 22:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Key Members Section
Considering creating pages for Courtney Holt and Ynon Kreiz, both notable enough in the entertainment world for entries. Have been reading about Holt, whose career started at Interscope Records with Jimmy Iovine, and Kreiz who was CEO of a number of major corporations. At a minimum Kreiz warrants a page, wondering if Holt meets notability, probably so just as CEO of Makers TotoroRules (talk) 03:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC) Made the page Kreiz, will follow with Holt TotoroRules (talk) 02:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Success
It seems odd - even biased - to have a section called 'Success'. In looking at other company pages it doesn't seem to be a WP convention. The entire article has grammatical issues and many awk sentences... I guess I should stop complaining and do something about it... TotoroRules (talk) 03:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

More red links?
Please read WP:RED and be persuaded to have red links to anyone or anything in this article that doesn't have an article but maybe should. Chrisrus (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Disney Digital Network
Now that Maker Studios is Disney Digital Network, does it deserve its own article? ThaiTee (talk) 17:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

My story
Piyara doston my ek story likna Wala artis ho lakin ma ander matric ma ho to ma story's ceart ma soch raha Tha Kahan sa asa ho ka ma story's creat kro ga I'm Urdu speech Muhammed ali khorpa (talk) 14:32, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Ambiguous link to Marvel
I recently attempted to disambiguate the link to Marvel but my edit was reverted by. What should the word "Marvel" link to in this instance? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 14:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Movie channel
I have movie channel I make partnership with mcn 103.153.38.97 (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Disney Digital Network doesn't exist anymore. Need help for update
DDN isn't a brand anymore. Its old website redirects to a Disney website for advertisers, and its Twitter (@DisneyDN) hasn't been updated since May 2018. I'd like to update the article, but I can't find any current information on what happened and when. The only thing I got was "On April 30, 2019, the division has been completely disabled and it was transferred to Disney Advertising Sales (now merged into Disney Advertising Sales)." on the Audiovisual Identity Database wiki, but there's no source.

Has anyone got any more info?

Edit: Wait, that 2019 info was also on Wikipedia until December 2022, but deleted by Olivierjohnston (rightly so) because there was no source.

Hadrien01 (talk) 09:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2023
Maker Studios originally started as a incubator for new YouTube talent by using channels like The Station to introduce new potential influencers. Maker pivoted from its original business model after a visit from entrepenuer Jaseem Masood who suggested that the company focus on helping to build individual channels in return for a portion of the individual's adsense. Following this advice Maker went on create the first MCN and become the largest and most successful Multi-Channel-Network. 208.196.97.209 (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  JTP (talk • contribs) 03:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)