Talk:Polygon (website)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Polygon (website) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find video game sources: "Polygon" website – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk

Archives: 1

Polygon (website) has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 25, 2014. (Reviewed version).

This article was nominated for deletion on 18 August 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was redirect to Vox Media.

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

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)[reply]

Four years later, I agree. I've removed it. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Original research IgelRM (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.