Talk:List of McDonald's products

After the promotional content is removed from the Grimace Shake article, there is little actual substance being reported. The product (and the fact that it had a viral marketing campaign) can be adequately summarized in the existing list section with no loss of fidelity. czar 12:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds ok to me. We should make sure that the amount of coverage is due, i.e. there should be less than on Shamrock shakes and the Bicentennial shake. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I support a merge, so long as it's only a couple of sentences per Smallbones. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 11:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I support this merge as well. Aside from being meme it isn't that notable. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I kinda oppose a merge. There's many reliable secondary sources discussing the shake and the bizarre trends the shake has caused — enough for an article. Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't seen it already, there's some discussion at Talk:Grimace Shake which explains why the existence of secondary sources isn't the main concern here. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It'll be a week tomorrow since this merge was proposed. I'll merge the shake article to here in 2 or 3 sentences - sometime in the next 2 days. Unless some more comments are made here. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support it was a brief thing, that doesn't merit a standalone article. Could be re-spin out if it's annual ala McRib. Star Mississippi 14:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I appreciate someone has done good work to try and describe the internet phenomenon. But the subject matter is not notable: the secondary sources describe either its relationship to the broader Grimace's Birthday release, which has a strongly promotional tenor, or the social media trend, which is so far short-lived and relies on description by a collection of fluff pieces by tabloids. Regardless, the shake itself has no particular notability that couldn't be briefly covered under a merged list of products. Besides that, the article is not in a good state. It has sourcing issues, particularly the odd reliance on social media posts and trivia. When four of the article's sources are to cite a tweet McDonalds posted, it's not a good sign. Vrxces (talk) 01:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I fixed the sourcing issues you've mentioned; I replaced the tabloids and now most of the sources here are

  generally reliable in its areas of expertise according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

  . And those "four sources" should be really read as two, one from the NYT and the another from USA Today. The remaining two are the TikToks and Tweets from McDonalds that should be seen as augmenting the other two sources (which is why I classified those social media responses as primary sources).

  It doesn't matter that the Grimace Birthday release "has a strongly promotional tenor" because then so does every product made by a company. Like other products with a Wikipedia article (say, Big Mac or Grimace's Birthday), we can cover those products with a non-promotional and objective tone. Endoftalk 05:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for updating - I agree that this page is in a much better place now and as such a merge is not necessary. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 12:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose – among the hardest products on the internet to ignore. The article could be better, but I do think that this product independently passes the GNG. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There are enough independent secondary sources that are outside of McDonald's PR to justify the existence of the article. In addition, there have been even some more coverage of the shake even though the promotion already ended. I've added more of those sources to the article. I've also removed the promotional tone in the article, and I invite anyone else to remove any promotional tone that somehow escaped my eyes. Endoftalk 00:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate on the above, List of McDonald's products seems to only give a plain description of each product and just the product itself. The Grimace Shake has gotten significant media coverage by many reliable independent sources for not just the shake and Grimace Birthday promotion itself, but also the TikTok trend and the Fandom controversy. I don't think we can adequately cover the trend and the controversy in just a few sentences in List of McDonald's products because in a article listing and generally describing the product, they would be too out of place and inappropriate. If we were to merge the Grimace Shake article to there, we'd miss the full image about the shake, that is, how the public recognizes the shake. Endoftalk 05:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This stands article stands well on its own and has good sources. I don't see what the objective of removing it is, as it has been shown to be notable enough by the amount of independent sources publishing articles about it.

talk) 05:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Oppose Notable product with decent amount of advertising. Chicken4War (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Grimace Shake is pretty notable, also has an Nice amount of advertising, as @Chicken4War said above. Iyusi766 (talk) 23:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t merge it Coltshark (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The Grimace Shake article is bloated with mostly unremarkable trivia and suffers from
  WP:RECENTISM-bias. It only meaningfully needs a few sentences of coverage, and nothing worthwhile is lost when merging it here. --Jayron32 15:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Oppose clearly meets
  WP:GNG with multiple relevant sources about the topic, plus the article has enough content to be standalone. Skyshifter ^talk 21:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]