Talk:The Verge

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:

"Patel replaced Topolsky as editor-in-chief in mid 2014. Journalist Walt Mossberg joined The Verge's editing team after Vox Media acquired Recode in 2015."

References

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)

 Done. Lordtobi (✉) 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: In May 2018, Verge Science launched a YouTube channel, which had more than 638,000 subscribers and 30 million views by January 2019. The channel received more than 5.3 million views in November 2018 alone.

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:

• "According to Business Insider, Engadget "became the industry-leading gadget site", and AOL's "most popular and important media property." All Things Digital called it "one of the largest in tech"." Aren't these claims more appropriate for the Engadget article?

• "Animosities between Topolsky and AOL developed after AOL's September 2010 TechCrunch acquisition, when TechCrunch founder Michael Arrington made several public remarks disparaging Engadget and Topolsky. When the acrimony between the two editors escalated in January 2011, AOL didn't intervene. The next month, an internal AOL editor training document called "The AOL Way", a new content strategy that prioritized profitability metrics, leaked to the press. The document leaked before Engadget writers and editors saw it internally. "The AOL Way" dispirited the Engadget staff and created an ideological schism between the two entities." 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:

• In December, Twitter and Vox Media announced a live streaming partnership for The Verge's programs covering the Consumer Electronics Show.

References

@Lordtobi: 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)

@Inkian Jason:  Done #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 (✉) 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)

2018 build update

Quick note cuz I can't rn on the 2018 build, he recently did a build on LTT acknowledging mistakes and fixing things, might need to include it.Anon contributor 375 (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)