Talk:The Verge/Archive 1

Move? 2011

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The Verge → The Verge (website) –
 * And redirect The Verge to Verge. Is the web site a dominant meaning? (I have history-merged to mend some outstanding cut-and-paste moves: see Cut and paste move repair holding pen). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support not the dominant meaning. 65.94.77.11 (talk) 03:56, 3 November 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge
This Is My Next should be renamed, and the content from The Verge merged here, to preserve its edit history. There is a great deal of overlapping content in the two articles, and The Verge appears to be the new name for This Is My Next. Gurt Posh (talk) 06:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * According to a discussion on a recent podcast it was announced that This Is My Next would not be retired but would be spun off as a separate website from The Verge. These articles therefore should not be merged. (see here: http://thevergeremixed.com/2011/07/in-brief-this-is-my-next-not-disappearing-into-oblivion/ and here: http://thisismynext.com/2011/07/22/podcast-016-07-21-2011/) Douusskamika (talk) 11:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well maybe, but that's not what all the rest of the references say, nor thisismynext.com. So I'm merging the two articles, and hoping to put an end to all the bizarre page move renaming that's going on with this. Gurt Posh (talk) 11:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, if you look at what thisismynext.com actually says it reads "In early fall, we'll be launching our new home: The Verge". Not that This Is My Next is going to be renamed 'The Verge' please find a source which says This Is My Next is being renamed The Verge. Additionally, 'blog' is an inaccurate descriptor for The Verge for a number or reasons: 1. there is an attached television show which will be globally syndicated 2. The Verge is better described as a media organisation not a blog - it will output both entertainment and news. Douusskamika (talk) 11:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Verge (website) then? Gurt Posh (talk) 11:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And no, they don't say "we'll be renaming it", they say "we'll be launching our new home". What's the difference? Gurt Posh (talk) 11:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As I've tried to explain This Is My Next is not being retired so it doesn't make sense to say they'll be renaming it. The website is being spun off as a separate website. This is why I thought it made more sense to keep the articles separate because the two websites are going to have different trajectories from now on. As with renaming The Verge article, it would seem to me that The Verge (theverge.com) is now the primary article for the term The Verge. It makes more sense to place disambiguation in The Verge (disambiguation) Douusskamika (talk) 12:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * How can it be the primary article, if it's a new site which hasn't even launched yet? Please note that you moved The Verge to The Verge (shopping mall) to make way for this. Your page move broke the many existing links to the shopping mall article, which I had to then go and fix. This was rather poor etiquette on your part. If there's any candidate for primary article, it's the mall one. Gurt Posh (talk) 12:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Gurt. It can be considered the primary article on the grounds that exceptions are made when 'recentism' is taken into account. In such a case it may make more sense for the article to be "treated as the primary topic regardless of whether it is the article most sought by users". See: (shortcut|WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). This is based on the fact that The Verge (website) has received alot of press recently and will continue to do so in the coming weeks. Additionally, This Is My Next which is featured in this article "has 1 million unique visitors and 3.4 million page views, rating #15 on Techmeme’s ranking of tech authority" - (http://www.edelman.com/speak_up/blog/archives/2011/08/the_verge_is_co.html) which actually makes it a strong candidate for being the primary article. Douusskamika (talk) 11:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We have no idea whether it will continue to receive press in the coming weeks. The article's currently an orphan; the site hasn't launched yet. It may well one day be a better candidate for primary article than the mall, but there's no evidence that it is yet. Gurt Posh (talk) 11:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added references and details with respect to the upcoming show "on the verge" and added the official VergeCast name to the podcast subsection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sqreone (talk • contribs) 19:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested Move 2012

 * The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. Primary usage demonstrated. DrKiernan (talk) 09:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The Verge (website) → The Verge – I think 'The Verge' is primarily used to refer to this publication. There is currently a redirect on this page to 'Verge'. When you do a web search with Google 'theverge.com' is the first website that is listed and this is followed by a news section in the search results that list a whole bunch of websites referencing 'theverge.com' and additional results from the website. The term has also been trademarked by this publication's parent (Vox Media Inc.) in Europe and stands as the only trademark of the term in any class there (search here http://tmview.europa.eu/tmview/welcome.html) this is of course in addition to trademarks owned in the US. In the last 90 days this page has received about 27,000 views - vastly more than any of the other related terms currently listed at 'Verge' - see http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/The%20Verge%20(website). When you take into account that the publication reaches 5.9 million people each month and is ranked well within the top 1000 websites in the US (578) - see http://www.quantcast.com/theverge.com - it does seem a little surprising that it is not listed a s the main term. Douusskamika (talk) 10:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose The Verge is also an XM satellite radio station -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 13:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment 96.6% of the time people looking for 'The Verge' are looking for this publication on Wikipedia. In the last 90 days The Verge XM's Wikipedia page has only been viewed about 1,000 times compared to almost 30,000 times for The Verge (website). The Verge XM's official website is ranked at 15,597,848, two orders of magnitude below the traffic ranking for this publication (578) - http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/The%20Verge%20(XM). It would make more sense to move The Verge (website) to 'The Verge' and place a disambiguation link to the term 'Verge' at the top rather than keep the redirect. Additionally The Verge XM only broadcasts domestically. It has a comparatively small subscription base and caters to a very small niche. The Verge (website) on the other hand is an international publication with journalists based in the US and Europe producing content on a much, much larger scale. Douusskamika (talk) 16:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Definitely should be moved and have a redirect link at the top of the page pointing to the disambiguation page at Verge. I don't think there is a particularly strong case for The Verge (XM) really. I ran a search as advised and there was no mention of The Verge (XM) until the bottom of page 3. Oxxoxxxxxoxxo (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support A year ago, this website was not the dominant meaning of "The Verge," but it is obvious to me that it is now. Douusskamika's numbers back this up. DillonLarson (talk) 06:17, 15 November 2012 (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.

This Is My Next merge
Why was the This Is My Next talk page merged but not the article? Is there a rationale for keeping TIMN independent from The Verge's History section? czar  &middot;   &middot;  00:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Since TIMN was an interim site/name for The Verge, I think it's appropriate to make this article link to that part of The Verges history section. The TIMN article once did this, but the redirect was boldly removed and the little current article still stands (though TIMNs talk page still forwards to The Verge). czar   &middot;   &middot;  03:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Regardless of why the name was changed, it has changed, and there's no point in keeping the old site article here. Captain Conundrum (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ czar   &middot;   &middot;  07:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Verge causes Scientist to get Harassed
I think there should be a "Controversy" section for this, seeing as this article some trite got a scientist harassed to the point of tears. --DSA510   Pls No H8 17:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You could, if there was actually a controversy. Point me, please, to reliable sources indicating that his shirt was found to be appropriate? Noting that you're not a reliable source ;p. Ironholds (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that someone cried during a heartfelt apology indicates to me that the person is genuinely sorry for their actions, understands why people viewed wearing the shirt during a very public workplace function as inappropriate and unprofessional behavior and is undertaking to be more considerate going forward. I fail to see what is "controversial" about that. Dr. Taylor appears to be handling his mistake appropriately and thoughtfully. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * DSA510, you might check out Reason Magazine, which wrote a couple articles not very sympathetic to The Verge. . DonPMitchell (talk) 07:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Criticism
A possible section for criticism? A lot of people on sites like Reddit, and sometimes it can even be seen in the comment sections on various articles themselves, have pointed out that writing style of The Verge which tends to be heavily bias in terms of supporting Apple products, and specifically harping on Android, with an indifferent attitude to other platforms such as the BlackBerry and Windows Phone markets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.55.234.74 (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I added the advert tag on this because there is SO much overwhelmingly positive info on this page and when you compare it to similar articles (For instance, I was just editing Mashable's page which is a much bigger site that's been around for a lot longer and you don't see nearly as much writing or formatting or all that there). I get the strong sense that someone with a COI has been "improving" this page for the last year. The Verge is a great site and this Wikipedia seems as well-produced as the site itself. Dabramsdt (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

There definitely needs to be a criticism section. The moderators and writers on that site are terrible. It's not just Apple products, either. When it comes to films they've got a real bias against DC Entertainment, to the point of inventing "facts" to argue against there films. On a broader scope, their comment section are by default locked to prevent criticism, their forum moderators routinely delete posts that accuse them of bias or point out errors in their writing. The social media manager held an AMA on Reddit and the majority of the questions were directed at the poor ethics maintained by Verge's writers and moderators. 2602:304:CE8B:5410:2CB2:4ADC:E4FB:B569 (talk) 08:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We generally avoid dedicated "Criticism" sections, though there is room for reliable, secondary sources that discuss the site's actions. – czar   18:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Progressive?
The first sentence of the article just now was: "The Verge is an American politically progressive technology news and media network operated by Vox Media."

"Politically progressive" was tagged with a citation needed tag. Since the lead should really just summarize the rest of the article, and there doesn't look to be anything about it being "politically progressive" elsewhere (nevermind with a source), I went ahead and removed it.

I don't think I've read enough Verge to have an opinion on the matter myself, but it stuck out. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 13:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on The Verge. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140202100721/http://winners.webbyawards.com/search?keywords=the%20verge to http://winners.webbyawards.com/search?keywords=the%20verge
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.adweek.com/news/technology/staff-aol-s-engadget-leaving-en-masse-126144
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://allthingsd.com/20110312/engadgets-top-editors-topolsky-and-patel-exit-from-aols-giant-tech-site/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://allthingsd.com/20110403/sb-nation-sacks-aol-in-raid-of-former-engadget-team-for-competing-new-tech-site/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.businessinsider.com/aol-michael-arrington-2011-1
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.businessinsider.com/arrington-rips-engadget-2011-1
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.businessinsider.com/engadget-paul-miller-aol-2011-2
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.businessinsider.com/engadget-arrington-2011-1
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.businessinsider.com/engadget-editors-quit-aol-2011-3
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.businessinsider.com/the-aol-way
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.businessinsider.com/engadget-sb-nation-2011-4
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.businessinsider.com/vox-2012-1
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/10/26/the-verge-sb-nation/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.edelman.com/p/6-a-m/the-verge-is-coming/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2011/04/04/aol-defector-blasts-content-farming-and-seo-spam/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gigaom.com/2011/04/04/engadget-defection-exposes-aols-major-weakness/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2011/04/aol_loses_original_endgadget_t.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2383012,00.asp
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2075431_2075447_2075480,00.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://marketing.voxmedia.com/2015/12/22/10652002/the-latest-news-from-vox-media

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality and Objectivity
Since conservative media sources like Fox News and National Review are labeled "conservative" on Wikipedia, it is only fair to label progressive/liberal media sources like VOX and its subsidiaries like The Verge "liberal". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.72.199 (talk) 19:04, 7 August 2018‎ (UTC)


 * The lead summarizes the article. If content about its politics does not exist in the article, it should not be in the lead. National Review and Fox News have content about their politics because Wikipedia summarizes what reliable sources say about those subjects, and in those cases editors have included a bunch of reliable sources saying as much.
 * I've reverted your edit not because I think you're necessarily wrong, but for these reasons. The first step would be to present an argument showing that reliable sources generally consider this publication to be liberal/left-leaning/whatnot, and editors will discuss how best to introduce that into the article if there's consensus to do so. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 19:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Request to update Trei Brundrett's role
Hello! On behalf of Vox Media, I'd like to suggest some ways to improve this Wikipedia article, as part of my work at Beutler Ink. I've disclosed my conflict of interest above, and on the talk pages of several other articles related to Vox Media. Instead of editing the article directly, I'll rely on volunteer editors to review talk page suggestions and update the article appropriately. Thanks for any assistance in advance. I'd like to start with a very simple update:

Currently, the article says, "" This sentence should be updated because Trei Brundrett was promoted to the chief operating officer role in early 2017, per this article. I propose changing this sentence to the following: ""

Following is markup for the inline citation, if helpful:

Thanks for your consideration. I am "pinging" you because you've helped with several Vox Media-related requests, and I just wanted you to know I'm working on this article as well. Inkian Jason (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , I believe the original statement intended to say what role Brundrett held at the time, however, it was sourced only by now-dead primary sources. I reworded the statement a bit, added his current position, and removed an unsourced statement. Regards. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 08:20, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Inkian Jason (talk) 16:04, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Request to remove "Verge Video" section
Hello! I have an additional request, this time to remove the current "Verge Video" section, which has a single sentence ("") sourced by Vox Media's website. Furthermore, the site no longer exists. I don't think this content is helpful for the article, but I'll let other editors make the final decision. Thanks for your consideration. Inkian Jason (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Unless May 8th, 2013 saw Topolsky launching another website containing the video backlogs of another company than Vox Media, there is nothing counterfactual here to remove.  Spintendo   13:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Spintendo, my goal here was to remove outdated information and reduce the article's reliance on the company's website, but I'll move on to other requests. Inkian Jason (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * IMO, the section could probably be updated instead. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 18:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I plan to share some updates for this section. Thanks for weighing in here, Lordtobi. Inkian Jason (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Request to update leadership in introduction
Hi again! I am back with another request to update this page, which I'm submitting on behalf of Vox Media. Currently, the introduction says:

""

I propose removing mention of the network's content being financed via advertising and sponsorship, as this seems like a very generic statement (don't most media-related platform generate revenue in this way?) sourced by the company's website. I propose changing this sentence to focus on The Verge leadership, adding mention of the editorial director. I suggest the following:

""

I am "pinging" you since you've helped with other Vox Media-related requests. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 17:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing and updating the article. Inkian Jason (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Request to update "Product database and articles"
Hello again! I have an additional request, this time to update the (currently unsourced) "Product database and articles" subsection.

Currently, the section says, "" None of this is sourced, and actually the product database is defunct.

I propose changing the section title to "Product reviews and articles", and replacing the aforementioned content with the following:



I'm sure there's more to be said about the Guidebook, but for now I'm just trying to improve this article by sharing an update and replacing outdated, unsourced content with a sourced and more accurate claim. To be clear, I'm not proposing any changes to the current text, "The Verge also publishes features, including interviews, editorials and news items." While an inline citation is not included here, this is an accurate and general summary, arguably supported by the article's surrounding content. Thanks for your consideration, Inkian Jason (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the section was entirely unsourced. However, I feel like that one tiny sentnce is not enough to justify a section on its own. I removed the offending section and added the sentence in question to the History section. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 19:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Lordtobi. Inkian Jason (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Request to remove company-sourced claim about advertising
Speaking of poor sourcing, I'd like to submit a request to remove the following sentence from the "Official launch" section: "", which is sourced by TheVerge.com and seems like unnecessary detail, if not slightly promotional. Thanks, Inkian Jason (talk) 19:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , a lot of content regarding internal matters can be sourced through primary sources, so that's not the problem. Apart from a slight rewording, the content itself is also fine. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 20:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. I'm not sure I fully understand when company-published sources are appropriate or not, but I defer to the community for these sorts of decisions. I just assumed content sourced by the company's website should be removed. Thanks again for replying. Inkian Jason (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , obviously it would be better to have a reliable source in place, but this sort of information (something only the company would know) can, if necessary, also be sourced through primaries. We could still go look for a reliable source on this, of course. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 22:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Request to update "Official launch" section
Hello again! Thanks for all your help thus far. This time, I'd like to submit a request for the "Official launch" subsection, which now has content spanning from 2011 to 2017. I don't think content from 2017 or later is really related to the site's official launch, so I propose creating a new subsection for post-launch content.

More specifically, I propose converting the current "Design" section, which has just 2 sentences, into a subsection of "History" called "2016 redesign – present". This means the "Official launch" section would end with the sentence, "By 2016, the website's advertising had shifted from display advertisements, matched with articles' contents, to partnerships and advertisements adjusted to the user." This would also mean moving three sentences to the new subsection:
 * 1) "Vox revamped The Verge's visual design for its fifth anniversary in November 2016."
 * 2) "In September 2016, The Verge fired deputy editor Chris Ziegler after it learned that he had been working for Apple since July."
 * 3) "In 2017, The Verge launched "Guidebook" to host technology product reviews."

For easier implementation, I'm sharing markup for what I have in mind, which can be copied and pasted appropriately:

The Verge launched November 1, 2011, along with an announcement of a new parent company: Vox Media. According to the company, the site launched with 4 million unique visitors and 20 million pageviews. At the time of Topolsky's departure, Engadget had 14 million unique visitors. Vox Media overall doubled its unique visitors to about 15 million during the last half of 2012. The Verge had 12 former Engadget staffers working with Topolsky at the time of launch. By 2016, the website's advertising had shifted from display advertisements, matched with articles' contents, to partnerships and advertisements adjusted to the user.

Vox Media revamped The Verge visual design for its fifth anniversary in November 2016. The Verge logo featured a modified Penrose triangle, an impossible object. On November 1, The Verge launched version 3.0 of its news platform, offering a redesigned website along with a new logo.

In September 2016, The Verge fired deputy editor Chris Ziegler after it learned that he had been working for Apple since July. In 2017, The Verge launched "Guidebook" to host technology product reviews.

===Official launch=== The Verge launched November 1, 2011, along with an announcement of a new parent company: Vox Media. According to the company, the site launched with 4 million unique visitors and 20 million pageviews. At the time of Topolsky's departure, Engadget had 14 million unique visitors. Vox Media overall doubled its unique visitors to about 15 million during the last half of 2012. The Verge had 12 former Engadget staffers working with Topolsky at the time of launch. By 2016, the website's advertising had shifted from display advertisements, matched with articles' contents, to partnerships and advertisements adjusted to the user.

===2016 redesign – present=== Vox Media revamped The Verge visual design for its fifth anniversary in November 2016. The Verge logo featured a modified Penrose triangle, an impossible object. On November 1, The Verge launched version 3.0 of its news platform, offering a redesigned website along with a new logo.

In September 2016, The Verge fired deputy editor Chris Ziegler after it learned that he had been working for Apple since July. In 2017, The Verge launched "Guidebook" to host technology product reviews.

Note, I've not introduced any new content/markup here, apart from changing "Vox" to "Vox Media" in the first sentence to avoid confusion with Vox (website). I've only moved content and added a new subsection heading. If either of these sections look too short, please keep in mind I plan to submit a couple requests with new content to add to both sections. Does this structural change seem appropriate? This should make adding future updates easier, and reduces the need for a 2-sentence "design" section. Thanks for your consideration. Inkian Jason (talk) 22:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , reorganized as requested, though I simplified the headings. "Official launch", for example, was already misleading because there was no inofficial launch. Regards. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 22:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your help. Inkian Jason (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Launch of science section
Hello again! I'd like to request adding mention of the site's launch of a new science section in 2013, per this Adweek article. I propose the following content, immediately following the sentence "The Verge had 12 former Engadget staffers working with Topolsky at the time of launch" (to keep content in chronological order):


 * In 2013, The Verge launched a new science section, with former Wired editor Katie Drummond leading the effort.

Thanks for your consideration, Inkian Jason (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I am "pinging" you in case you're able to review this request as well. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 17:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Lordtobi ( &#9993; ) 17:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. Inkian Jason (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Clarification and updates for the "Podcasts" section
Hello again! I have another request, this time for the "Podcasts" section. The below request has one clarification and two updates.

1. Currently, the section starts with: "" The Verge broadcasts multiple podcasts, so can an editor please clarify that this is referring to The Vergecast? I propose changing the sentence to: ""

2. The last episode of The Verge Mobile Show was broadcast in March 2014. I propose changing the sentence "" to "" (Tense change in bold text.)

3. Finally, I propose adding mention of another podcast broadcast by The Verge, per this Adweek article. I propose the following sentence: "" I suppose the best place for this before the last sentence, "The Verge's What's Tech podcast was named among iTunes's best of 2015.", in order to keep content in chronological order.

I am "pinging" you in case you're willing to help with another request. Thanks for your consideration, Inkian Jason (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Lordtobi ( &#9993; ) 21:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Inkian Jason (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Why'd You Push That Button?
I'd like to submit another request for the same section, this time to add the following text about another one of The Verge podcasts:



I struggled to find a newspaper article confirming the launch year, so I added one published by The Verge to verify the launch date and hosts. The launch year seems worth noting, but if you disagree or don't prefer to add a Verge source to the article, the content "launched in 2017 and co-hosted by Ashley Carman and Kaitlyn Tiffany" can be removed from the proposed sentence. Either way, I believe the article should mention the podcast Why'd You Push That Button? in some capacity, especially since the program won a notable award. Do you mind updating the existing article? Inkian Jason (talk) 18:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. Also reformatted the section because it had an akward format. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 20:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your help. Inkian Jason (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Request to update introduction
Hello again (and Happy New Year)! I am back with another request, this time to update the introduction.

Currently, the introduction says: "" "Entertainment show" is ambiguous. Which show? What format? I propose changing this sentence to: "", which is actually supported by the article body.

Additionally, the next sentence reads: "" I'm not sure what "with video content" means here. I propose changing the sentence to: "", per this source. Chorus is mentioned in the article body, as well as here, so I don't think a brief mention in the introduction is inappropriate.

Finally, I have a potentially controversial request. Currently, the introduction says, "It has offices in Manhattan, New York City." Vox Media has requested the sentence be changed to: "" I can find sourcing to confirm Vox Media's offices in San Francisco, but I'm struggling to find secondary coverage specifically confirming that The Verge has offices in San Francisco. Is it appropriate to take Vox Media's word here?

Thanks in advance for any feedback. I am "pinging" you since you've helped with previous requests. Inkian Jason (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I implemented the first two changes as requested, though I opted not to update the source for the second claim as the existing one already covered this information. For the third claim, I noticed that the location is not covered anywhere in the body neither is it sourced, so I removed it instead. Vox Media can make this claim verifyable should they chose to publish a primary source that any random person could check on their own (such as a blog post, a location overview, whatever); quasi-verbal sources are never verifyable and thus not acceptable. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 20:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding to this request. Inkian Jason (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Requests for "Video content" section
Hello again! I have some requests for the "Video content" section, which is quite out of date:

1. The sentence "" is unsourced, and I'd argue the comparison is not particularly helpful, especially since the Engadget blog is not independently notable.

2. Under "Video content", but before the "On The Verge" and "Video Verge" subsections, I propose adding mention of "Circuit Breaker". I propose adding, "" I'm open to other wording, but my goal here is to add mention of "Circuit Breaker" and its live show for Twitter, provide viewer statistics, and the name of the current editor-in-chief. Thanks!

3. I should also note, currently the "On The Verge" section describes Marty Moe as the "publisher and co-founder of The Verge". He currently serves as president of Vox Media. I realize the content was added before the title change, but I think some clarification here would be helpful.

I may have a few other updates for this section, but I prefer not to ask too much at once. Thanks for helping with these requests. Inkian Jason (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello! The holidays can be quite distracting, so I am just posting a reminder about this request in case you are available to help. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 19:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing this request, Inkian Jason (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Update for "2016–present" section
Hi again! I'd like to propose an update for the "2016–present" section: ""

To keep things in chronological order, I propose adding this sentence after "In September 2016, The Verge fired deputy editor Chris Ziegler after it learned that he had been working for Apple since July", and before "In 2017, The Verge launched "Guidebook" to host technology product reviews."

The Guidebook was launched in July, after Havlak was promoted in June. Many publication articles mention who serves in the editorial director role, and when they started and/or left the position, so I believe this is a fairly straightforward request. Thanks for your consideration, Inkian Jason (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * ✅. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 19:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your help, Inkian Jason (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Request to update "Video content" section
Hi again! I have another request, this time to add mention of another of The Verge web series to the "Video content" section:



The Verge also has a series called "The Future of Music". There's not a lot of secondary coverage, but there's a brief mention here, and official evidence here, but I don't know if this amounts to enough for inclusion. Similarly, there are series called "Processor" and "Workflow", as seen here and here, but neither has received a lot of secondary coverage. I will let editors decide if the series are worth mentioning briefly. Since there's not a lot of detail to add about these web series, passing mentions might be better under the general "Video content" banner instead of creating new subsections for each series. I am "pinging" you in case you're willing to review again. Thanks, Inkian Jason (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Done, and applied some reorgannization to avoid too many one-sentence sections. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 17:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for helping. Inkian Jason (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

"Mr. Robot Digital After Show" and "Next Level"
I'd like to submit a request to add two additional updates to the "Video content" section, this time for the series "Mr. Robot Digital After Show" and "Next Level":



I'm keeping you in the loop, but invite any editors to offer feedback. Thanks again! Inkian Jason (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 10:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Inkian Jason (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Request for "Launch" subsection
I have another request for this article, this time to mention the editor-in-chief transition from Joshua Topolsky to Nilay Patel in July 2014, as well as Walt Mossberg's addition to The Verge after the Recode acquisition in 2015. I propose adding the following sentences to the "Launch" subsection:



More specifically, to keep content in chronological order, I propose adding these two sentences after "In 2013, The Verge launched a new science section, Verge Science, with former Wired editor Katie Drummond leading the effort", and before "By 2016, the website's advertising had shifted from display advertisements, matched with articles' contents, to partnerships and advertisements adjusted to the user."

Topolsky's and Patel's first names are mentioned earlier in the article's prose, hence why I did not include them in the proposed text.

Editor-in-chief transitions are often mentioned in Wikipedia articles about publications, so I think this is a fairly straightforward request. Walt Mossberg is independently notable, so his contributions to The Verge are worth noting. I don't edit articles directly because of my conflict of interest, so I'm hoping an editor can review the proposed change and update the article appropriately. Thanks for your consideration, Inkian Jason (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 10:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Inkian Jason (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Requests
Hi! I'd like to propose three changes to this article

1. I propose the following update for the "2016–present" section:

These seem like helpful viewership statistics. There may be some other helpful content in this Digiday article, but some content can only be seen by members.

2. Next, I'd like to propose some trimming to the "Origins" subsection. Is there away to cut down the drama around AOL and Engadget? Is all this content helpful for an article about The Verge? Specifically, I'm referring to the following claims:


 * "" Aren't these claims more appropriate for the Engadget article?


 * "" This is a long explanation leading up to the first sentence of the "Vox Media / SB Nation" subsection, which reads, "Between March and April 2011, Topolsky and up to eight of Engadget's most prominent writers, editors, and product developers left AOL to found a new gadget site that would become The Verge." Given my COI, I hesitate to propose specific text, but ask editors to consider a shorter summary to keep focus on The Verge and not AOL or Engadget.

3. Finally, I have an update for the "Other video content" subsection, following the sentence, "Also in 2016, USA Network and The Verge partnered on Mr. Robot Digital After Show, a digital aftershow for the television series Mr. Robot." I propose adding:



Thanks again for your help. This may be my last request for this article. Either way, you've been very helpful reviewing requests. Inkian Jason (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ #1 and #3 as requested. For #2, upon review, it seemed as though the entire Origins section only covered Engadget-realted news and had little to no significance for The Verge, wherefore I scrapped it. Things like Topolsky having been its EIC have been carried over to the "Vox Media / SB Nation" section, which is now more adequately named "Origins", to reflect the site's origins within Vox Media. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 20:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your help. Inkian Jason (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Additional Request
I recommend adding more to the controversy section. There are numerous issues that the verge has been involved in. For example the misreporting of pewdiepie as not reporting sponsored video content when he had in fact done so. It helps the reader to establish the quality of the content they report on. By limiting the controversy to a single issue it gives the reader a false impression that the verge has only ever been involved in a single issue rather than a long string of controversial problems.

The above statement is true. We do need more in the controversy section. The Verge's behaviour of spreading false information against individuals like PewDiePie and their own failure at making articles with correct information is obvious.Brownques (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)