Talk:Pillow Pets

Image
An image of Pillow Pets should really be added to this article. Can anyone find and upload one with free use? I have already expanded on it, but this could be a future good article. Bulldog73 (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Official Website
Can anyone confirm that the official website is indeed the one listed? I have looked around and found three very similar websites, and the one listed does use some JS Popups, unlike the other two.

99.55.149.71 (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * That is the official TV site. Their official website is listed before the TV site. Bulldog edit my talk page da contribs review me 06:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Spam?
Why hasn't this page been flagged as blatant advertising? There are few references to sites other than those of the company; of the external references, there is only one that isn't linked from the company's website press page. AJTH (talk) 04:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I have added an external link to the press page. What makes this article blatant advertising? Bulldog edit my talk page da contribs review me 09:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's blatant advertising, but the lack of independent sourcing is a bit troubling. Unforturnately, a quick google news search didn't come up with many additional souces. But this article is quite typical of articles on specific, contemporary toy brands. Often you can't really find much negative commentary to "balance" out an article. This article also to me gives more of the impression of being made by a fan, rather than directly as advertising (also pretty common among toy articles.) If you want a few constructive ideas on making it less so, issues I see include tone and an excessive focus on product information. The laundry list of products and associated sports teams is more the hallmark of fansites or collector sites, but not really appropriate for a general overview encyclopedic article. Examples of tone issues: the counterfeiting is given a positive spin by being qualified with the vague peacocking of "due to their popularity"; the fabric they are made of is peacocked with what sounds like marketing speak: "soft, high-quality" and "entirely machine-washable." Removing the word "success" and variants (used way too many times, not really independently qualified anywhere) and instead describing events by just the plain facts would also help. But what mostly is needed is more independent sources. Some sources I found that aren't already used:, , Siawase (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your help. I tried to make the article as encyclopedic as possible, but your advice and sources will help me make it more encyclopedic. I will try to acknowledge your suggestions in separate edits. Bulldog edit my talk page da contribs review me 21:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm glad that my advice was helpful, it does looks a bit better. Just in case I sounded a bit overly negative, this is a pretty good article. It does a good job of explaining the who, when, where, and what of what makes this toy different from other similar toys, basics a lot of toy articles struggle with. One other general piece of advice I can give: try to use the independent sources you do find as much as possible. Even if the same information is available from official sources, use newspapers or magazines instead wherever possible. There wasn't a lot in the sources aside from the coverage of the counterfeits and hospital donations already covered here, but some of them had basic descriptions of the toys, and could be used as sources for that at least. Siawase (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * As a, so far, uninvolved editor, I find that the term "Pillow Pets" appears too many times in the text. This is what to me seems to give it an unintended promotional feel. I count ≈45 mentions, apart from those absolutely required, quotes, and in the references.  Some short sentences have it twice, eg.
 * "Some toy companies have taken advantage of Pillow Pets' popularity by manufacturing and selling counterfeit Pillow Pets.", fix?
 * "Some toy companies have taken advantage of Pillow Pets' popularity by manufacturing and selling counterfeit s . Pillow Pets "
 * I'll see what I can do along these lines.
 * I also count 10 of 24 references (though only 11 of 37 actual cites as some refs. are used several times) being 'self published' at least they are linking back to the pillow pets website, I think more independent sources are needed. (as Siawese has already mentioned, I note) - 220  of  Borg 13:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've had a go, let me know what you think. I found a few names in the article that I've linked to their WP pages too. --220  of  Borg 15:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The article looks good, but I removed some of the redlinks. I appreciate your help! Bulldog73 talk da contribs  go rando 07:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Real Pillowpets
There was a time where there were two websites selling virtually the same product. One of them billed itself as the Real Pillowpets. I can't find any mention of it here. It was as if creators in the company split and both were trying to sell. Any ideas? StarHOG (Talk) 18:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The bias on here is insane.
There is so much biased language with positive connotations as well as useless pieces of information that sound like they're trying to sell me on the products. In addition to this, nearly every source on this article is from the company itself or people closely involved with it. With the lack of outside sources, I have to wonder if this is even notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article at all. ChainSmoker82 (talk) 07:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)