Talk:Polygon (website)

Controversies
Should a controversies section be included to detail, for example, the SimCity review score or the alleged $750,000 sponsership deal from Microsoft? CaptainPedge &#124;  Talk  &#124;  Guestbook  23:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Any major controversies may be better explained in the context of the site's history rather than its own section, which could be a magnet for junk. These controversies would also need abundant coverage in reliable secondary sources to be notable enough for inclusion in the article. czar  ♔  23:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Criticisms
Since the section does not exist, I would like to make a start. Unfortunately, I have neither the time or experience to do so, but have found several  criticisms of the site. 124.171.70.238 (talk) 09:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Why even care? Is just another worthless click-bait site, it will be dead in no time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.114.66.85 (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Improvements for consideration
Hello! On behalf of Vox Media, and as part of my work at Beutler Ink, I'd like to suggest a few improvements to this Wikipedia article. I acknowledge this article has been promoted to "good" status and has therefore been vetted by the volunteer community for quality. However, the article was promoted back in 2014, so I think a few updates may be appropriate. I don't edit the main space directly, and I'm seeking editors to consider these improvements and update the article appropriately:


 * 1) There are 6 times Vox Media is referred to as simply "Vox". The preference to abbreviate is understandable, but in this case, might actually confuse readers. Vox Media owns Vox (website), so readers may be confused when an article mentions both "Vox" and "Vox Media" throughout. If editors agree some disambiguation would be helpful, "Vox" should be changed to "Vox Media" in the intro's last sentence, 4 times in "History", and once in "Business".
 * 2) Currently, the "History" section has the following sentence: "" This is not entirely correct. Vox Media is headquartered in both New York and Washington, D.C., per this source. I propose updating the sentence to the following: ""  The "Poynter" reference is defined in the existing article, and here's markup for the Inc. magazine article, if helpful:
 * 3) The "Content" section could be updated by adding mention of the website's podcast (The Polygon Show) and YouTube series ("Brand Slam"). I propose the following addition: ""  Following is markup for the Daily Dot and Advertising Age sources:

Is an editor willing to review these 3 requests and update the article accordingly? I think they are fairly straightforward, but of course I'm happy to address questions or concerns here. Thanks for your consideration! Inkian Jason (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for getting in touch. Most of the proposed changes seem pretty uncontroversial, but what I feel is missing is an introduction for The Polygon Show. Presently, the sentence states that there is a podcase by that and that it received an award, but possibly it should first be mentioned what kind of podcast it is and when it was started. It'd be great if you could find a source for that and add the information to your proposal, placing the received award into a second sentence. Regards. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 18:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing. Sure! I found this source, so how about updating the proposed text to the following:



If this source and text is appropriate, here's markup for the first inline citation:

Thanks again. Inkian Jason (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Cool, good job! I've implemented the changes like you asked, though applied a small rewording to the locations sentence, since there was no contradicition. Cheers. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 19:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for updating the article. Inkian Jason (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Design section
The site was programmed to use HTML5 standards with a responsive design that adapts to the screen dimensions of laptops, tablets, and smartphones.[2] This is partially to remove need for a separate mobile version.[31] — This is, literally, pointless information that can be said about nearly every single website that has been updated within the past decade.  Nixinova   T   C   03:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Factual informative descriptions reverted. What does the site primarily publish/cover TODAY, right now? (not 12 years ago)
Someone reverted the change that had expanded the old description of the site (a description that is over 12 years ol now) with a description of what the site now covers. The reverter called the edit “personal research” yet millions of articles contain the same kind of true obvious factual observational statements, for example that the sky is blue or literally every Plot Synopsis of every movie and TV show page plus the description of every videogame on wikipedia.org. (Or for example, the wiki page for the band Nirvana “Characterized by their punk aesthetic, Nirvana's fusion of pop melodies with noise, combined with their themes of abjection and social alienation […]”

The fact is Polygon’s bulk of material now (today) is coverage of press tours, product announcements by publishers, and coverage of marketing (trailers, etc) of soon-to-be released studio shows, studio movies, and videogames, and editorial-like articles written entirely from the messaging/perspective of studio reps on a press tour. So why would the edit, observable from Polygon’s front page at any time, be reverted while misleading statements about the sites “intentions” in 2012 (over 10 years ago) continue to inaccurately define the subject and the entire rest of this wiki? RandomEditor6772314 (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)


 * See Original research IgelRM (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The person who posted "See: Original Research [link policy]" is confused and wrong since the above discussion clearly refers to millions of articles that are built from non-controversial factual observation by the writer, with no citations given and not demanded by would-be-editors either.