Talk:WatchMojo

Photo
This article would really benefit from the addition of a photo or so — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.124.63 (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC) Why does this article not include complaints, or the fact that their videos are reccommended without watching them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.155.69 (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on WatchMojo.com. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.youtube.com/user/WatchMojo

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

IP address 69.70.237.82 in Montreal's edits
An IP address in the same city as the company is based is making quite a few edits on the article. Most of their edits on the site are on this article.

They also re-worded the plagiarism accusations to shift blame away from the company.

It seems suspicious to me. --Kbbbb (talk) 12:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Larry Bundy Jr.
Someone is trying to put blame on Larry Bundy Jr. by describing it as he publishes "fake news". Pretty low, even for WatchMojo... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.238.139 (talk) 11:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 25 January 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) Surachit (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC) Surachit (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

WatchMojo.com → WatchMojo – Per WP:COMMONNAME; "watchmojo" has 50 million Google hits while "watchmojo.com" has 47.8 million Google hits. Most secondary sources also refer to the company without the dot-com suffix. ToThAc (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - primarily because URLs should not be article titles. -- Netoholic @ 22:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - They still refer to themselves as WatchMojo.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minecrafter0271 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support and speedy close. What said.  St3095   (?)  06:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Changes to the first paragraph
Hi fellow editors

I changed the first paragraph to include more current information about WatchMojo and included additional information that is consistent with the rest of the article. Please let me know if there are mistakes or any advise about editing this part of the article.AjLing1501 (talk) 04:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality tag
, you messaged me directly but replying here so other editors can view this. For example, the lead says "They create a very high volume of short videos with low production costs, particularly enticing Top 10 listicles", with enticing liking to "clickbait", which seems more like criticism. Also the Business and Content section don't seem well organized and maybe essay like. Regards IgelRM (talk) 11:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @IgelRM: Thanks for the response! I'll see what I can do to make it more neutral; I admit that I am personally biased against WatchMojo and think of it as a content farm (which probably has gone into the article), and that I have had a lot of trouble organizing the article. However, I do not see what's essay-like about the Business and Content sections. "Business" gives an overview of their operations, and "Content" gives an overview of how their content has changed over the years, along with reception of that content. I used the quoteboxes as a sort-of stylistic choice, but I am not unsure if they should be there. I also don't know if all of the opinions cited should be there, although I have used academic sources mostly. Should I remove The Daily Dot? I'm not sure if it's reliable enough to be cited (although Luke Winkie is an experienced journalist) and I admit that I may have included it because of my own personal biases. — V ORTEX  3427 (Talk!) 12:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)