Talk:Kotaku/Archive 1

Archive 1

Criticism

Lots of people have tried to write about their screening of comments. I dunno about you, but if multiple people see them doing this, they they probably are. Try it yourself. Or are you Dreaded Walrus in Kotaku's back pocket as well? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.246.40.5 (talk • contribs).

Not at all. In fact, I barely ever read it. When I do read it, I see that there are very rarely negative comments, which could mean that comments are screened, yes. However, for us to write about this in the article after observing it ourselves, would be original research, and that is against one of our most important guidelines. So, that's why I say, if it's so obvious, then surely there will be some reliable sources for the information, which can easily be cited. Also, please sign your talk page messages by putting ~~~~ at the end. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 21:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

A bigger issue to me is the fact that I got banned for repeatedly pointing out inaccuracies in their stories. Instead of improving their editorial technique, they banned a critic of their inaccurate stories. Personally, thats a lot worse than filtering comments (which they don't do as my original posts stayed) Plkrtn 14:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Quite possibly. I have seen a few forums (NeoGAF being one of them) who ban people who go against the hivemind. Again, if we can find a good reliable source reporting this, I would be all for the inclusion of it. :) --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 14:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

http://kotaku.com/5008653/americans-brag-ps3-no-letdown-kotaku-is-wrong#c5642960 almarota1979 were banned after what they said and so was MizzDiva. What kind of proof ar eyou looking for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.233.38.114 (talk) 08:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

http://kotaku.com/gaming/notag/kotaku-comments-faq-303830.php hows that? "We only approve comments we love — so make sure you're adding something of quality to the post." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.218.230 (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

http://kotaku.com/gaming/notag/kotaku-comments-faq-303830.php A good link to the official commenting policy. 4. Can I be banned from commenting? Yes, if your comments are excessively self-promotional, obnoxious, or even worse, boring. There will be no warning, and no appeal. (For advice on good comment etiquette, check out Lifehacker's guide to weblog comments.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.242.100 (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Even more than the comment filtering, there should be criticism of their journalism. Where I come from, they're a laughingstock. I see that as more important criticism, and I bet there are reliable sources. 99.6.157.136 (talk) 04:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Until you can find a source that meets WP:RS which discusses the issue there is no room for it on Wikipedia. As it stands this constitutes Original Research and the fact that you claim to have been personally banned means your modifications could possibly be a violation of the rules on Conflicts of interest Drewder (talk) 05:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Sony incident

Did a mild write up of it and got the general jist of what happened. --~XHideoNinja 09:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed part of the sentence that says Kotaku was at fault and all that. On Wiki, it's better to just comment on it, not who started, especially such a hot incident. --~Entegy

Fair enough, and will have to keep up with this wiki a bit more over the next few days due for the potential for other vandalism --~XHideoNinja 16:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

That particular bit of the section seems to have been added by User:68.98.207.36. I removed it originally, but it seems to have been readded afterwards, which is when User:Entegy removed it. You're right, Wikipedia should generally just provide the facts, and not tell readers what their opinions should be. And in this case, that particular user was wrong, anyway. No journalist should really be told what they can and can't write by an outside party (in my opinion). --Dreaded Walrus 12:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Those were removed so fast, I didn't even know what reference Entegy was making til after I looked it up. The base of what I wrote up is a neutral as I can make it (nothing I believe, is completely neutral), but because this is a hot topic (thats dying down) you are bound to get those. Thanks for clearing that up Walrus. --~XHideoNinja 18:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, your version of the section is quite neutral, I'd say. I put the tag there before deciding to remove the sentence on it being their fault. I'll remove the POV tag now. :) --Dreaded Walrus 19:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Sony slant

The fact that Kotaku has an anti-Sony slant should be included in this article. It's a well-known fact with many of kotaku's own articles to back it up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.204.26.65 (talk • contribs).

If it is a "well-known fact", with many things proving it, perhaps you won't mind providing citations from reliable sources for such an accusation? :) --Dreaded Walrus 23:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, one of the editor of Kotaku is a PS fanboy, so that is completely unfounded.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by George Leung (talk • contribs).

--Which editor is the sony/ps fanboy, can you provide citations from reliable sources. 67.70.109.9 07:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

--You'll find that a variety of different readers think we have an anti-Sony slant, an anti-Microsoft slant or an anti-Nintendo slant which probably just means we're doing our job and covering all three companies well. Brian Crecente (69.91.71.252 12:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC))

--"The fact that Kotaku has an anti-Sony slant should be included in this article." - I agree. It is very anti Sony (like many other gaming blogs... It's not as bad as Joystiq). We just need someone to cite. 203.55.195.106 12:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

How on earth is Kotaku anti-Sony? I might be a Nintendo "fanboy" myself, but Kotaku is cool because it's not anti anything. It just says things the way they are. If they were any different they would be called IGN or Gamespot. Link's Awakening 22:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Links Awakening your comment means nothing based on a bunch of your previous comments, it's obvious you are here to disagree just because of a petty hatred against the console/company. You admitting yourself that you are a "Nintendo Fanboy" further makes the comment invalid.

Here's a nice little comment from him-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:PlayStation_3/Archive_16#3.07_million_PS3.27s_sold

70.48.32.12 09:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

...Wow... Just WTF are you? A stalker or something? The only reason I can think of, of why anyone would remember a few comments I made that long ago, is if you were such a Sony fanboy that the comments really offended you that much. Of course you would freaking say that my comment means nothing! And I say that your comment means even less than nothing because you're obviously just a little Sony fanatic that can't accept anything negative about the PS3. I said I liked Kotaku because they aren't biased against anything moron. I like that they make negative comments about Nintendo, because they're just doing their jobs right. Sony fanboys like you are just too sensitive and can't take it when something comes up that is anti-Sony, so you come here on the Wiki discussions page and start saying they're biased. They aren't biased. YOU'RE BIASED. And your comment is bullshit because me being a Nintendo fan and my previous comments have absolutely no freaking thing to do with what I was saying NOW about Kotaku. And why don't actually you grow the balls to sign in on your Wiki account when you make a comment against someone, instead of hiding behind anonymity like a pansy? Link's Awakening 22:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking a similar thing. Well, with regards to the bizarre trawl through your contributions, and without the attacks. :P --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 23:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Seriously grow up, it isn't very hard to look at someones past contributions. Less than a minutes reading/searching for someone with average reading comprehension and general internet explorer/wikipedia knowledge. What is so bizarre about it? You see someone completely one siding a discussion, so you would like to see if they have been like this previous to the debate at hand, in this case it's confirmed. 76.64.57.192 09:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh and another note to "trolls awakening" - I did NOT, keyword "NOT", start this discussion topic. 76.64.57.192 09:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict with 76.64.57.192's addendum directly above) I know it's not difficult to look through past contributions, and I do it myself on regular occasions (such as after reverting vandalism/spam, to see if there is any other vandalism/spam from that user that hasn't been reverted yet). I just thought it was a bit strange to go to such lengths to.. well, I don't know what the reason was, actually. Yes, Link's Awakening is a fan of Nintendo, and he doesn't like Sony. That is common nowadays among many gamers, particularly if he is from Europe (I don't know if he is or not), due to how Sony have treat Europe in the recent past. But how does this influence his ability to see whether something else is neutral? In my opinion, Kotaku are definitely not anti-Sony, and I say this as a fanboy of no particular console, who, if anything, had many of their best experiences of the last generation, playing games that were on the PlayStation 2. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 10:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I am still debating on their neutrality myself, it mostly seems like they're out for the ps3. But reading the updated discussion and comment he put there it all seemed too much like some console war tripe. I love my snes and nes, I grew up with them, but in no way is that going to cloud my mind on a media source which seems to have a cloud hanging above it. ALOT of his comments were biased in some form or way, I couldn't find any general positive ones towards the ps3 or pretty much any sony product. I could say the same about you: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dreaded_Walrus#PS3.21" but your discussions aren't slamming the brand/console, which would make my point invalid. By slamming, I think you would understand what I mean. 76.64.57.192 10:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I realise exactly what you mean, and I have no real reason to 'slam' the PS3. The comment you link to is a comment from me, 7 and a half months ago, saying I was looking forward to Wii, and praising Nintendo for releasing the console over here (Europe) relatively soon after the North American launch, for not much more in terms of price, and with no cutbacks on the console side of things. Meanwhile, the PS3 launched over here 6 months after the US launch, for a couple of hundred dollars higher, without the PS2 and PS1 compatibility hardware in it. Add to that numerous comments Sony have made about Europe, and there are many people over here who weren't very happy with the way they treated us.

Still, I am not a man to hold grudges (what is the point?), and I will pretty much certainly getting a PS3 the very moment they release LittleBigPlanet, which I have been looking forward to ever since the announcement. :) --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 11:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone checked Links Awakening IP behind his username compared to the recent vandalism and unrelated topics. I've a pretty good feeling this troll has been weeded out. 76.64.194.250 04:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No, that troll hasn't been weeded out. I know the guy that did that, and he's just a random vandal who lurks eBaum's World's forums.--BaldsRTouching 08:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the second link you post is probably intended more as a satire on the Kotaku's perceived habit of posting obvious things, or endless posts about cakes. But with regards to the IP check thing, the only people able to do that are those with checkuser access, so you would have to put a request there, if that's what you wanted. Though I doubt it would actually happen in this instance, as there has to be a solid reason, as it can be classed as an invasion of privacy in some cases. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 05:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

On a seeming unrelated note, it seems Crecence has been doing some Wikiposting here at Kotaku-Wiki (thank you Wiki-scanner!) Wount release details since he doesn't have a true name and uses an ip (which I whois traced to CO, his home state) But just interesting to see an editor take notice on the site (or someone whose good at faking him). ^-^ --~XHideoNinja 21:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, Crecente contacted me on my talk page back in June (around the time that there was heavy editing on this page, and the article on him at Brian Crecente was deleted. The message can be found in my talk page archives if needed) to explain his version of things. He didn't really try to hide the fact that it was him, although since then he has made three edits last month using that same IP address, one of which was perhaps a bit suspect. The interesting thing about Wikipedia Scanner is that it uses the information that is already made public by Wikipedia, which is pretty much viewable by anyone, and also takes information from WHOIS reports. And then, it compiles those two things into an easily searchable database. The unfortunate thing is, all it will lead to is more people and companies creating throwaway accounts to do their biased editing (as is possibly the case, for example, at StarForce with User:Sopinsci). As Wikipedia doesn't make the IP addresses of registered users public, there are undoubtedly many many more questionable edits being made by registered users from within the related companies. Anyway, I'm rambling now. Goodnight! :P --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 22:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I saw Walrus :P, but if you couldn't tell, I didn't want to overwhelmingly give a ton of details away. One persons ip address is like his or her home address in my mind. With research, it is easy to find, but that still doesn't mean you should go shouting it out to everyone in the world to see and hear. And on a side note, I'm planning a few edits for kotaku, with some content on their newer features (Hyper mutitap and the new justify your game features.) Possibly even make mention that jack thompson is a forum poster there.--~XHideoNinja 20:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I highly doubt that was him, as I've never been banned on Kotaku. Oh and that one suspect edit, yes it was really odd of him to do if it was him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.192.146 (talk) 05:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

What does Kotaku mean?

Otaku means some sort of fanboy I take it, but what does Kotaku mean? 82.166.150.238 14:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

They just made it up. Link's Awakening (talk) 06:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It comes from Otaku and japanese of Ko which means little. --~XHideoNinja (talk) 06:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol, no. They've even said that they made it up. Link's Awakening (talk) 06:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for where they said they made it up? ~XHideoNinja (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Ko does not mean "small" in Japanese (it literally means child, but it has a couple subjective meanings). I don't know if they made it up or not, but Kotaku is not a word that exists in the Japanese language to my knowledge. --Skyoon (talk) 08:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I know this last comment was from 6 years ago, but I just want to address that ko (小) can mean small in Japanese. Hirohiigo (talk) 19:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I′m surprised no-one has run this through Google Translate. There are, in fact, two meanings for Kotaku in two different languages. In Japanese, it means ″to write″ and in Maori, it is the name of a species of white heron native to New Zealand. Ganymede 901 (talk) 06:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Tub girl incident?

Does this really need to be made mention to here? This is an encyclopedia, not a slander form about kotaku. This was trivial at best. The neutrality of it is also REALLY in question. It comes off like someone has a real slant against kotaku. Recommending we remove it. --~XHideoNinja (talk) 06:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Errm? Isn't this basically a hidden attack on joystiq?

"Unlike similar blogs, including competitor Joystiq, Kotaku is known for its practice of requiring editor approval for users to register for the site, and for publicly banning users deemed to be disruptive to the atmosphere of the site's discussions." Oh and, anyone have an opinion on gathering all the gawker sites together for one single article, as this one is pretty bad off... 76.64.192.146 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrong launch date

I've found posts older than 4th October. http://kotaku.com/349947/kotaku-masthead is the first. And the first one relating to any news is http://kotaku.com/gaming/gossip/sequel-to-popular-game-being-made-17815.php so I think that the October date is faulty. Suggest to change it. --JollyRogerSkogh (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. October 4th is just the date the news story in the citation was published...NOT the date Kotaku went online. Until a credible source for the launch date can be found I am removing the text. ^F₄^M !! 15:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Web page Screenshot

I might be wrong, but the screenshot of Kotaku appears to be significantly different than Kotaku looks currently. Maybe somebody should update it. 24.20.219.107 (talk) 07:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree but i'm not sure how..--^F₄^M ! 14:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a screenshot but when I try to upload it I get an error stating that the image is either corrupt of has the wrong extansion. What? _F4^M !!

Notability

I've added a notability tag to this article because, after looking through the references in an attempt to expand the lead section, I didn't come across more than a few passing mentions, aside from some more in-depth information about a controversy. This article might be more appropriate if it were merged into the Gawker Media article. Any comments? Paviliolive (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know. It's got fourteen sources. Maybe I'm biased, as I dredged up most of them, but I think that it looks fairly notable. I'm open to a discussion on the subject, however. For one thing, I think the controversy section was probably a bad idea on my part, and I've been debating integrating it into the site's history. That would not directly address concerns about notability, but it would make the article look less lopsided (a minimal history, followed by a paragraph of criticism). The citations that directly criticize the site itself could be moved into a reception section, which I would also populate with positive press. I've been meaning to find some positive press about Kotaku to balance out the claims of sensationalism, but it's not as easy. People tend to be more vocal about what they dislike than what they like. Also, it's Gawker. Who says nice thinks about Gawker? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

In depth coverage about controversy is still coverage. It was established as notable in an AFD that ended just a week ago. Яehevkor ✉ 09:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The AFD came to a pretty quick WP:SNOW Keep, so I'm against a merge as well. Sergecross73 msg me 19:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I think I may have been hasty with the merge proposal. I didn't see the AfD and would preferably defer to the consensus of that discussion. I'm okay with removing the merger if nobody objects. Paviliolive (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Italics

Any objection to switching the title to italics? I'm looking at WP:ITALICS, which says:

Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized

czar ♔ 01:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I would say probably no; in most cases, italics are reserved for more traditional news sites, such as Slate and Salon. Blogs, such as Gawker and Rock, Paper, Shotgun, are generally not italicized. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I've contemplated doing this, but thought it would require independent sources italicizing it also. I've noticed the site itself to italicize their name, and I've seen others as well, but I didn't keep track of these instances, and it would probably be difficult to locate with a search engine. ₂₃W (talk · stalk) 02:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Here's one, for example. ₂₃W (talk · stalk) 02:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Ugh. Do we really have to turn this into an RFC or something? @Axem Titanium: I honestly don't think this worth edit warring over. If Czar likes it with italics, why not just let it go? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not what I like—it's consensus. As for the explanation that it's based on what the reviews template uses, see its talk page. The MoS makes it very clear. Please revert your revert. – czar 01:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it should go to RFC. WP:VG should have a house style and stick to it. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

RFC Axem Titanium (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Article additions and improvements

• History

The Brian Crecente years (2004 - 2012)

The Stephen Totilo years (2012 - Present)

International sites (Australia/Japan/Brazil/UK)

Gamergate controversy involvement/role

• Main Features

News

Reviews (No score reviews, reasoning)

• Corporate affairs and culture

Employees (Past and present)

Policies/Policy changes due to Gamergate

• Development (How many versions of the site has there been? What tech do they use?)
• Reception

We're talking about 10 years of material that's out there (not limited to the above), I'm sure this article can be of a high quality. Any experts on Kotaku are welcome, I'm not an avid reader of their work, I can do the research but if there's anyone who can point me in the right directions that would be great.--FLStyle (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Controversy

Bilby, why does the Hernandez article violate BLP? Kotaku retroactively added disclaimers, so the fact of conflict of interest is not contentious. Would adding a link to those disclaimers (https://archive.is/DKtkR#selection-3321.0-3346.0, https://archive.is/K9E2b#selection-3093.1-3103.44, https://archive.is/NWiFa, https://archive.is/WhAKI) suffice as far as reliable sourcing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mracidglee (talk • contribs) 23:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

They show that a disclaimer was added, but not that it was particularly controversial. What we lack are reliable sources showing that this was a significant problem. - Bilby (talk) 23:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Would this comment from the EiC, saying Hernandez "had messed up", suffice? https://archive.is/4Tp9N Mracidglee (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't find what you were referring to at first, but I assume it was a comment left by Totilo in the comments section. In which case it isn't what we're looking for. We need evidence - normally given by the existence of coverage in mainstream works - that this was a controversy significant enough to highlight, especially given that we have a living person involved in the issue. From what I can tell, this was a minor concern that was quickly fixed, so I'm not sure it reaches the rank of controversy. I'm not sure that the Forbes issue does, either, given the problems associated with using Forbes. The others do seem more significant. - Bilby (talk) 02:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Reliability

Firstly, I'm not very used to contributing yet, so please excuse me if I make any mistakes. I read the article, and from what it states, Kotaku is a blog. There's an anime called "Yuri!!! On Ice" and I want to reference an article by Kotaku, but I'm not sure if it'll count as a reliable source. Any suggestions? {{SUBST:JackOfTrades1776}} (talk) 16:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Ahh! I'm sorry, I think this should've been posted on the "Yuri!!! On Ice" talk page. Sorry! {{SUBST:JackOfTrades1776}} (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Technically, this isn't the place where you'd want to discuss using Kotaku as a source - this is where you'd discuss editing the Kotaku Wikipedia article itself, but I'll help you anyways. Kotaku is currently considered to be a usable source on Wikipedia, as long as its written by a journalist/writer, and not just a random user on their forums or something. You can see more commonly used sources at WP:VG/S, and discuss whether or not you thinks sources are reliable there on its talk page, though its more based around video games. I don't work on anime articles much, so I don't know if they have their own list. Sergecross73 msg me 16:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Kinja domain registration

Ignoring the fact that DNS records don't show legal ownership of sites and copyrights (only the domain registration itself), these edits about Kotaku being a Hungarian website because of Kinja are ignoring that Univision also owns Kinja. Kinja is owned by Gizmodo Media Group. Gizmodo Media Group also owns Kotaku. Univision owns Gizmodo Media Group. See this link. Univision didn't buy Kotaku, they bought the whole bag. -- ferret (talk) 17:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Kotaku.com is the address and name of the Kotaku site. As the owner of the address and the one-word domain brand that is Kotaku, the domain is part of Kotaku's identity. The forbes article does cite Kotaku, but it does not cite Kinja. Original sourcing should not be used on Wikipedia. The official website is located at kotaku.com and this Hungarian domain is part of the Kotaku identity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:B11F:D300:84E9:BE88:6415:12DD (talk) 21:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't really see what the domain registration has to do with anything. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

IP refuses to understand that domain registration have nothing to do with corporate entities or their legal ownership. Or the simple easily sourced truth that Kinja and Kotaku are both owned by GMG (Formerly Gawker), which is in turn owned by Univision. -- ferret (talk) 22:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

The easily-sourced truth is not sourced in forbes and original sourcing should not be used on Wikipedia. If you want to add to the post, as I would like to, then you may do so. I ask that you allow others and myself to do the same. With it sourced, the Kotaku website would still be hosted by the Hungarian domain. The domain information identifies the site. When you type kotaku.com into a browser, then Kotaku is shown. Kotaku.com is the location of Kotaku and the ownership of that domain is stated as being Kinja Kft or a Hungarian organization or business entity. This information adds to other information about Kotaku, as the site uses it to represent itself to the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:B11F:D300:84E9:BE88:6415:12DD (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Domains are not hosts. Domains do not indicate corporate ownership. Many domain owners obscure their whois information for privacy purposes. Domains are simply pointers to IPs, and a website can have multiple domains. Kotaku.com points to an IP hosted in San Francisco, CA. This article is not about Kotaku.com the domain record. It is about Kotaku the blog and news publisher. It's a fact that Kotaku is owned by Gizmodo Media Group, as is Kinja (Just look at the copyright and legal pages of both). -- ferret (talk) 02:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

When you look at the copyright and legal pages of their websites, to talk about something that they are calling Kinja, you are looking at original sourcing. That type of research should not be used on Wikipedia, because that type of information presents a conflict of interest and is not legally backed or cited.WP:OR Kotaku.com is a domain name that is hosted by Hungary. The domain hosts the IP address and the IP address hosts the files that make up the website. If you wish to add that Kotaku's files are located in California, then please do. Additional information, such as the name of IP the hosting organization, may also help to increase public knowledge about these organizations. The article points to Kotaku.com as the primary domain for this website. If you have knowledge of 3rd party citations for Univisions ownership of Kinja and information about the IP, then can you please add that information to the article in a way that helps to increase awareness of these organizations? I would like to add the support for Hungary and the Kinja Kft that helped to make Kotaku what it is today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:B11F:D300:84E9:BE88:6415:12DD (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

No, you are mistaken. Kotaku and Kinja are primary sources. That is different than original research. Primary sources can be used to source basic facts without commentary. We don't need a third party source, primary source suffice. Besides that, just google "Univision Kinja" and you'll find dozens of news articles discussion when Univision bought Gawker Media (Which included Kinja). -- ferret (talk) 03:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

IP Address - You need to provide a better source that directly and literally says "Kinja owns Kotaku" or "Kotaku is Hungarian owned". If you can, we'll discuss the source, but without a better source, it simply won't be added to the article. The "Who Is" source is not good enough to verify the statement. Sergecross73 msg me 03:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Googling something does not contribute to Wikipedia. I have been requesting that a citation be added, since Kinja is not currently cited to the best of my knowledge. They should receive support and acknowledgement for their contribution to Kotaku. I am not saying that Kinja owns Kotaku and I am not saying that Kotaku is entirely Hungarian owned. Kotaku.com is. It is the domain listed in the article about the website. This is my meaning. The domain registry information is legally binding and a valid citable source for that purpose. If you thought that I was saying that the entire Kotaku identity is Hungarian, then this was a mistake. I mean just the domain aspect of the website, which is listed in this article. I am trying to contribute more information about Kotaku to the article and the domain used in the article is Hungarian, while ferret claims to have knowledge of associations to California as well. I think those should also be added to the article to show further support for organizations supporting Kotaku.

Well, whatever changes you want made to the article, you need to directly state the change you want implemented, and give the reliable source that directly states the idea you want implemented. Sergecross73 msg me 04:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Since kotaku.com is used as the website link for the article, I'd like for it to be cited that Kinja Kft (with a note about it being Hungarian for people that are unfamiliar with Kfts) is reported to be the owner of the domain. I'm a little confused about Kinja as a platform and Kinja as a Kft, so any clarification about the role of both might help. Ferret also mentioned that the site is hosted in California. If there are citations about that, then I'm also curious to read a mention about the organization or person that hosts the website's file structure. Maybe something like "Kotaku.com's domain is operated by Kinja Kft (a Hungarian Company), while the content of the site is presented by [insert Ferret's organization in California]?" I think that would be interesting and that it would add to the article's information about Kotaku and it's supporters. It'd also be good to add a citation somewhere that includes Kinja in the list of things owned by Univision. Is the California place also owned by Univision Ferret? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:B11F:D300:84E9:BE88:6415:12DD (talk) 04:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, in theory, if you want to propose content for the article, the burden would be on you to come up with the sources and wording. That being said, I just did a spot check of 5 or so website Wikipedia articles, and it didn't seem that any of them really seemed to cover who owned the domains or what country they were from. I'm not sure this is something Wikipedia would usually cover, nor does it particularly seem to something of interest for the average reader. Is there a particular reason you find it important to add any of this? Sergecross73 msg me 20:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Kotaku is mentioned in relation to Gamergate and that is also mentioned here on the talk page. I don't know a lot about it, but the subject seems to be of interest. The average reader for topics relating to these articles would likely be interested in structural or political information that is publicly available and clearly cited by the owners itself. This kind of information would add to the articles and contribute to their growth here on Wikipedia, while increasing the understanding of what Kinja is and how the company relates to Kotaku. Kfts are not a common type of business format in English-Speaking countries, so a notation for Hungary would be helpful for readers to understand Kinja; and how this type of business supports Kotaku. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:B11F:D300:84E9:BE88:6415:12DD (talk) 22:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Kinji's HQ being located in Hungary is of no relevance or significance to Kotaku. Kinji's HQ is likely located in Hungary for corporate tax reasons and nothing more. I'm not sure what you're goal is here or why you're are obsessed with adding Hungary to this article. You haven't provided a single reliable source to support your edits, and every argument you've made for including it is either wrong or doesn't make much sense. --The1337gamer (talk) 22:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean? I cited the official registry and have only tried to add one thing. You erased it and I've been discussing the addition here now. I wasn't aware that Kinja's HQ was located in Hungary. Do you have a citable source? I just tried adding information about the site and the Kinja business that Kotaku uses. Why are you talking about obsession and taxes? Do you have a citable source about the tax issue? I would like to add information to the Kotaku article about their Kinja platform and the Kinja business. Why are you saying that I didn't add a citation after you erased the citation? Can I please add to the Kotaku article information about the site that is interesting to learn? I didn't know that Kinja was also headquartered in Hungary and that it owned the kotaku.com domain. It seems important. Ferret also mentioned that Kotaku works with an IP in California as well. It's interesting to read and I think others would be interested in learning more about Kotaku. If you think this has something to do with taxes, then can you please add that with a citation to your source? I don't mean any offense and I'm sorry if my addition has triggered or caused you a disturbance in some way. May I please add my contribution to Wikipedia in a way that doesn't offend you? I think other readers would enjoy the addition, because they could also learn about Kinja, what a Kft is, while learning about Kotaku. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:B11F:D300:84E9:BE88:6415:12DD (talk) 01:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The information you want to add is essentially considered trivial technical data that holds no encyclopedic value. You aren't asking to add anything meaningful about why Gawker created Kinja, why their sites were migrated to that platform, or its goals. Kinja would be the place to expand on those details, but they would require a lot of sourcing. The whois record doesn't provide anything useful here. -- ferret (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I think that a full article about Kinja should contain more information about Kinja. However, Kinja is not mentioned here and it seems to be the kotaku platform and owner of the kotaku.com domain. I don't think that's trivial, since it plays a major role in organizing and presenting Kotaku to the public. Kfts are not common in English, because it is a Hungarian business form. That's interesting or should be interesting for the average English reader. The Whois record notes that Kotaku.com is owned by Kinja Kft and Kotaku also reports that Kinja.com (or the site) manages it's policies. I don't want to add a whole bunch about Kinja on the Kotaku page. A page on Kinja Kft can be linked with this information. I'm asking to add these notes on Kinja Kft, because I believe that others would also feel this way, given the amount of involvement this has with Kotaku. I'm not sure why I'm being told that the entire Kotaku platform and owner of kotaku.com are insignificant and I'm not sure why you are telling me that I'm not writing about Gawker. I know I'm not writing about Gawker or why Gawker created Kinja. Why are you telling me what I'm not doing? I don't mean to be offensive. I feel confused by your statement. May I please add the information? If the note doesn't look good, then it can be reworded. I just want to add that Kinja Kft owns the Kotaku domain and that Kotaku also runs on this company's platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:B11F:D300:84E9:BE88:6415:12DD (talk) 01:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Again, you need to start providing sources (besides the Who Is one) or any of your edits have a zero percent chance of being added or staying in the article. The whole premise of Wikipedia is adding content according to what other third party, reliable sources state. You can write all the long rambling posts you want, if there's no sources presented, the answer will be "no". Sergecross73 msg me 14:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I added the source that you are now using for your own addition and I can find a similar source again for myself if that's ok. I can cite Kotaku's policies or pages about Kinja, but I need the Whois one to cite the registry for the comment about Kinja Kft's stake in kotaku.com's ownership. Would you like for me to first post the addition here for approval or if you'd like to use any more of my sources for your own additions, so that there are no mixups? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:B11F:D300:84E9:BE88:6415:12DD (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, this is the last time I'm requesting this, as I've done so multiple times and you've yet to provide any further sources. I can't break it down any simpler than this:

1. State the exact content you want added to the article.
2. Provide a source that directly verifies the content.
3. Provide the except from the source that literally and directly backs the entirety of your content addition.

For example, I'll show you how it's done. Let's say I want to add a sentence about Jason Schreier being a staff member. Here's what I would do:

1. Content Addition: "Jason Schreier is the News Editor for Kotaku."
2. Source: http://kotaku.com/about
3. Excerpt from source that verifies this: News Editor: Jason Schreier, Email | Twitter

This is what you need to do. If you do this, it will be discussed, and if its deemed appropriate, it may be added to the article. Sergecross73 msg me 19:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

What about this?

• Kinja Kft manages Kotaku.com's domain, blogging platform, and site-wide policies.

You skipped step #3. Sergecross73 msg me 19:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry: 1. Content Addition: Kinja Kft manages Kotaku.com's domain ..

2. Source: http://www.whois.com/whois/kotaku.com

3. Excerpt: Administrative Contact ... Kinja ...

1. Content Addition: blogging platform

2. Source: http://kotaku.com/welcome-to-the-new-kotaku-better-graphics-more-intera-458370679

3. Excerpt: you now have your own blog in our Kinja network

1. Content Addition: site-wide policies

2. Source: http://legal.kinja.com/kinja-terms-of-use-90161644

3. By using Kinja (including by simply viewing content on Kinja.com (the “Site”)), you are agreeing that you, and each person you allow to access Kinja through your account, will abide by the terms of the following User Agreement, which is summarized here, and set forth in its entirety below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:B11F:D300:84E9:BE88:6415:12DD (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I think we're getting closer, but I'm still puzzled by your wording. Why is it worded "Kinja kft manages Kotaku's etc etc". Isn't Kinja a platform Kotaku is using as a medium for displaying their content? Your version kind of sounds like Kinja is controlling Kotaku. Shouldn't it be more like "Kotaku utilizes the Kinja platform for their website" or something more to that capacity? Sergecross73 msg me 20:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I thought the same way before I bumped into the company. But, according to kotaku.com, the registry information they added, it isn't just a platform. Kinja's a company and network that administrates or manages sites like Kotaku. If we just talk about the platform, then the company gets ignored. From what I understand, Kinja has an office with workers, computer equipment, etc. which makes it more than a platform. That's why I worded it that way, so that it's clear that Kinja isn't just a platform to anybody like myself that thought so earlier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:B11F:D300:84E9:BE88:6415:12DD (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Alright, then lets see the 1/2/3 breakout for the "Kinja manages Kotaku" aspect then. Sergecross73 msg me 20:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean? "Kinja manages Kotaku" isn't in the addition and I don't think it would be right to say that alone, since I don't know a source for the lone statement. It manages the domain, blogging platform, and site-wide policies. Do you think "manage" should be changed to "is responsible for?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:B11F:D300:84E9:BE88:6415:12DD (talk) 21:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The opening part of your proposed sentence goes "Kinja Kft manages Kotaku..." - You have not demonstrated how any given sources have directly sourced this part of it. Sergecross73 msg me 23:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Nothing conclusive seems to have been brought to the table at all, there's a pretty firm consensus for the status quo. I think we can shelve this discussion until some concrete sources are found. Яehevkor ✉ 19:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

That's not true, Rehvkor. Sergecross just said that we're getting somewhere and asked me about Kinja managing Kotaku. The sentence doesn't say Kinja manages Kotaku. It only refers to the domain, blogging platform, and site-wide policies. I source Kotaku's entry in the registry, Kotaku's introduction of their blogging platform, and Kotaku's policies.

• * Kinja Kft manages Kotaku.com's domain, blogging platform, and site-wide policies.

The discussion here has improved the addition immensely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:B11F:D300:84E9:BE88:6415:12DD (talk) 21:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, you're both right. On one hand, discussion has improved, but on the other hand, you still have not managed to successfully source a complete sentence yet. And it's a short sentence. And there now seems to be yet another person who seems to be against whatever you're trying to convey as well. Sergecross73 msg me 15:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Why are you against adding Kinja Kft to the article? Do you not like this company? It seems to play a significant role in Kotaku, since it seems to be heavily embedded into Kotaku's technical and political side. Kotaku even redirects to Kinja.com when you look at the policies. I source the domain, introduction of Kinja, and the policies. How else should I word the addition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:B11F:D300:84E9:BE88:6415:12DD (talk) 19:03, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to keep trying, but so far nothing you have stated has verified the first half of the sentence. Sergecross73 msg me 22:11, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

What about the registry citation? Doesn't it show that Kinja Kft manages kotaku.com, because Kinja Kft is listed as the administrator for kotaku.com?

1. Content Addition: Kinja Kft manages Kotaku.com's domain ..

2. Source: http://www.whois.com/whois/kotaku.com

3. Excerpt: Administrative Contact ... Kinja Kft... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14D:4101:BEB0:2C17:9CB2:D2F2:D36F (talk) 22:51, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

The DNS record is a primary source, and you're interpreting it to say things that it doesn't explicitly say. This is known as original research. It's like linking to a YouTube clip of a film that shows a scene where someone is killed, then saying, "This proves it's a horror film." The source doesn't explicitly say that it's a horror film; you'd be interpreting the source itself to come to that conclusion. You could use the YouTube clip to say that the character is killed in the film, and you could use the DNS record to say that Kinja is the administrative contact for the domain. However, then you run into problems of undue weight. Unless some independent, secondary reliable source has written about this, why would we include it in the article? It seems like trivia. If Kinja is so important, why isn't there an article in The New York Times about how important Kinja is to Kotaku? If you read our article on Flickr, you'll see news articles like that have been cited, such as this article from BBC News Online about how Yahoo! handles Flickr's login authentication. Are there news articles that discuss Kinja's importance to Kotaku? If not, why is it important enough to include here? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

No, The "Who Is" source does not verify that wording. Please try again. Sergecross73 msg me 00:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's a horror film because somebody died. I'm saying that an administrator manages the site by the definition of the word. That's not original research. It's English and I can also cite an administrator in the dictionary if I need to cite every word in this darned sentence for you. Sheesh. We can stick to "administrator" if there's a problem with manage and I did already ask if there was a problem with manage before this horror film business. The registry explicitly says that Kinja Kft is the administrator for kotaku.com and there is a New York Times article that claims Kinja is important. Kinja's already talked about in my second source and Kotaku.com, but if you want the New York Times article, then we could replace it with the New York Times mention of Kinja instead. Do you think this would be a better way to write it to avoid ambiguity between managers and administrators?

• Kinja Kft is the administrator for kotaku.com and Kinja or kinja.com is also Kotaku's blogging platform.

Same sources except swap Kotaku's announcement of Kinja for a New York Times article that mention's Kinja's importance for a sale.

The entire Kotaku website sends you to kinja.com and Kinja Legal if you look at the Terms. I feel this is important since Kotaku relies on Kinja for all of these things. I guess I just wasn't sure how to word it and your adjustment's make this look so much better. Thank you so much for helping me to contribute to Wikipedia and Kotaku! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:B11F:D300:84E9:BE88:6415:12DD (talk) 04:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

When every single person disagrees with your content additions then yes, you need to cite literally every part of your addition. Nothing you have presented supports your current combination of content and sourcing. It's hard to help you with the wording when there is a strong consensus against your understanding of the relationship between Kinja and Kotaku, yet you refuse to change your mind, and keep failing to prove your point with sources. As you've been told many times, you're current sources do not sufficiently support this content. You need to find new sources or alter your sentence. Sergecross73 msg me 12:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you've been so opposed to adding Kinja Kft or what relationship you mean.

Kotaku was pretty excited. They made a whole post where they called it Kinja. "We call it Kinja. It takes the place of our previous commenting system." http://kotaku.com/5922754/about-commenting

Kinja Kft even announced that the Kinja platform was created and owned by Kinja Kft in it's policies. Excerpt: "the Kinja platform, which is created and owned by Kinja KFT" http://legal-supplemental.kinja.com/privacy-policy-90190742

And Kinja Kft is the administrative contact for kotaku.com. Excerpt: "Kotaku.com | Administrative Contact | Organization: Kinja Kft" http://www.whois.com/whois/kotaku.com

Do you know something about the relationship that I do not?

The entire Kotaku site links to Kinja at the bottom, so I don't understand why you working on this addition with me has been so disagreeable to you.

I came here with information about Kotaku and I was told "Don't add it. It's not important." So, I noted why all of this Kinja stuff is important and I was told "You just won't change your mind."

I already changed my mind. I didn't want to add all that other information in the first place, but you're saying that we have to be clear as to why all this Kinja stuff is important.

I'm doing my best to work with you and I'm doing all this other research even though I already thought the one thing was interesting to begin with >_<. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:B11F:D300:84E9:BE88:6415:12DD (talk) 16:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

If you want to add a sentence about Kotaku using Kinja as a platform for their blogging, you've probably scrounged up enough sourcing for a sentence on that. But it's your whole Kinja Kft manages Kotaku wording you have failed to provide adequate sourcing for. Which is why I keep saying, you need to change your sentence, or change your sourcing. Sergecross73 msg me 17:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I already changed it for you. It doesn't use the word manage at all. ^_^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:B11F:D300:84E9:BE88:6415:12DD (talk) 22:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Subbing in "administers" for "manages" leaves you with the same issue as before. I'm starting to think you don't understand the issue here.... aplease stop using the "Who is" source, as it doesn't convey what you think it does. Please use a different source. Sergecross73 msg me 14:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I think that it means Kinja Kft is the administrative contact for kotaku.com and that it also created it's blogging platform. What's wrong with my sourcing? It says that exactly and I changed it for you, so that it would be accurate.

We go to kotaku.com in the article. It seems like Kinja Kft should be mentioned due to it's part in what Kotaku is to us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:B11F:D300:84E9:BE88:6415:12DD (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

If your stance is correct, you should have no problem finding another source. Sergecross73 msg me 21:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Gamergate

Do you think there should be a reference to the Gamergate controversy on this article? Kotaku seems to have been central to the controversy. For the record, I am not pro-Gamergate, but I feel there should be a reference on the Kotaku article. Sega31098 (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

As much as I agree Kotaku was inadvertently part of it, the article is too small to really say anything about it. Kotaku just really sorta exists and I'm not sure what we would say. Got a one-liner that might fit? Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 21:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe one could write something like "Kotaku gained attention with the Gamergate controversy" or something like that.Sega31098 (talk) 02:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Not sure that works really since it's "attention" if you will was already fairly prominent before any of this even happened. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 02:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Some note would be appropriate. In particular the gamergate subreddit being KotakuInAction? Why that name? Is Kotaku seen as friend or foe?Nickpheas (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

How about "Kotaku was also heavily criticized for lacking journalistic integrity in the Gamergate controversy." ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.121.114.42 (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Persona 5

Given the fact they had to write an apology for their previous article on Super Smash Bros Ultimate and the unsubstantiated claims of mocking the disabled,https://www.kotaku.co.uk/2019/04/19/we-screwed-up-with-that-persona-lyrichttps://www.kotaku.co.uk/2019/04/19/we-screwed-up-with-that-persona-lyric. This should be included in the controversy section since many gamers and commentators have critiqued Kotaku on their poor editorial standards and reactionary stances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metrotitan (talk • contribs) 19:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

They chose to write an apology. They didn't "have to", and were not "forced". Why is this particular retraction worth noting here over any others? Is there coverage from anywhere else about the apology? -- ferret (talk) 19:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes this was covered on multiple other sites and Persona fans were quick to critique the original article, the backlash preceded the apology.

http://www.weareresonate.com/2019/04/kotaku-uk-accuses-nintendo-and-persona-5-for-disability-slur-gets-slammed-for-racism-instead/

https://gearnuke.com/kotaku-uk-misinterprets-persona-5-song-lyrics-publishes-an-aplogy-after-fan-backlash/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metrotitan (talk • contribs)

Don’t get me wrong, it was a stupid article, for sure, but it was hardly a website-defining moment. Neither of those websites are noteworthy, reliable sources, and there being a bunch of angry people on social media is hardly indicative of it being a big deal. And ironically, as unforgiving as you are being about bad writing, what you’ve written us just awful. You do a terrible job of summarizing the situation.

1. No one “forced” them to apologize. They did it of their accord.
2. You don’t cover things in chronological order, confusingly starting with the apology and then explaining why.
3. Your summary is short, vague, and inaccurate. A more accurate description would be that they falsely accused a song from Persona 5 of having lyrics using the term “retarded” in a derogatory manner. Atlus informed Nintendo this was false, and Nintendo informed Kotaku UK, who issued a retraction and apology.
4. At no point do you mention it was their U.K. offshoot.

If we were to add it, it would need to be completely rewritten, but first you need to do a much better job proving that it was a noteworthy incident at all. Did it receive any attention from any reliable sources? If you don’t know what that means on Wikipedia, see WP:VG/S for a list of usable and unusable sources. Sergecross73 msg me 11:58, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

To add into the Kotaku section "Kotaku UK falsely accused Nintendo and Atlus of using a song in Super Smash Bros Ultimate from Persona 5 of having lyrics with the term “retarded” in a derogatory manner. Atlus informed Nintendo this was false, and Nintendo informed Kotaku UK, who issued a retraction and apology."

https://www.kotaku.co.uk/2019/04/19/we-screwed-up-with-that-persona-lyric — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metrotitan (talk • contribs) 18:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

"Falsely accused" is again loaded language. "incorrectly claimed" would be a more neutral and level headed statement. Either way, I still don't see it as an important event in the site's lifespan. -- ferret (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. He can’t seem to escape the informal “angry guy venting on social media” tone. And I still feel it’s not an important incident either, especially since, as he proved on a separate talk page discussion at my talk page, that zero reliable sources reported on it, just a bunch of obscure amateur bloggers. Sergecross73 msg me 21:57, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Can we please keep to a civil discussion. There is no need for ad hominem remarks i.e. "angry guy". It is not conducive.

If the wording is unsatisfactory, there is no objection to rewriting a singular sentence.

The importance of the article is provided through the following:

• Importance due to the parties involved. Nintendo which is an extremely influential video game company with net sales of 1.2 trillion yen.https://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/pdf/2019/190425e.pdf Atlus is a company which has existed for over 33 years.
  • Importance through the number of occurrences. It is not usual practice for publishers to dedicate entire articles for an apology. Please provide a comprehensive list of video game apology pieces from a single publisher as counter proof.
    • Importance due to the reaction. As noted in the Kotaku article itself:

We would like to apologise to Atlus, Nintendo, and the many Persona fans who were angry about this piece. It looks like we got it wrong. We screwed up: sorry.

— https://www.kotaku.co.uk/2019/04/19/we-screwed-up-with-that-persona-lyric

Clearly many felt this was important as the Kotaku article refers to numerous fans and that they felt strongly about the original article.

If you can provide objective, fact-driven counter points. Then yes, Kotaku's own article should not be included on their wikipedia page. Otherwise the objections are purely subjective and unmerited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metrotitan (talk • contribs)

A common and valid way of deciding whether or not any content is added to Wikipedia is whether or not third party reliable sources cover the content in articles they write. That’s why we keep bringing it up. And so far, objectively, not a single website classified as reliable at WP:VG/S has covered this incident. That’s an objective reason to leave it out. (And the comment about you sounding angry was not meant as an attack on you - the point was that your prose suggestions have not read like professional, neutral, encyclopedia writing, but rather, very informal and angry sounding. It doesn’t read like you’re able to separate your personal feelings from writing a neutral sounding encyclopedia entry.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Kotaku is listed as a reliable source and the reference to be used. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources https://www.kotaku.co.uk/2019/04/19/we-screwed-up-with-that-persona-lyric. Wikipedia commonly uses 1st party content especially if it is deemed reliable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources

If the language is objectionable then perhaps "Kotaku UK incorrectly claimed Nintendo and Atlus of using a song in Super Smash Bros Ultimate from Persona 5 of having lyrics with the term “retarded”. Atlus informed Nintendo this was false, and Nintendo informed Kotaku UK, who issued an and apology."

If the statement needs reworking, that's fine. Please suggest a suitable alternative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metrotitan (talk • contribs) 21:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Please read policy more closely, especially WP:PRIMARY. Yes, 1st party sources are usable, but in a limited manner - for basic facts. They cannot be used to “analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize“ information. Claims of “importance” or “impact” would violate this. You need third party source(s) to prove such a claim. Sergecross73 msg me 21:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I believe the statement "Kotaku UK incorrectly claimed Nintendo and Atlus of using a song in Super Smash Bros Ultimate from Persona 5 of having lyrics with the term “retarded”. Atlus informed Nintendo this was false, and Nintendo informed Kotaku UK, who issued an and apology." is just a description of past events. There is no analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis. Willing to rewrite the statement to be as factual as possible.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Metrotitan (talk • contribs) 18:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Those statements don't match the source though. Kotaku asked Nintendo to confirm, who asked Atlus, and then Kotaku made a retraction and apology. Reversing this as you have gives the false impression that Atlus acted first, telling Nintendo about it, who then told Kotaku they made a mistake. Either way, nothing has changed during this discussion. No one else has covered it, it's gotten no other attention from other sources, etc. Still just a blip in the site's history, and unimportant in the long run. -- ferret (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

There’s no way around it - you need third party coverage to indicate importance. Kotaku can not dictate the importance of Kotaku. Sergecross73 msg me 19:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Rephrase to "Kotaku UK incorrectly claimed Nintendo and Atlus of using a song in Super Smash Bros Ultimate from Persona 5 of having lyrics with the term “retarded”. Kotaku asked Nintendo to confirm, who asked Atlus, and then Kotaku made a retraction and apology."

As stated before there are three points that denote the importance. Please provide substantiated counterpoints to each of the previous three points.

If importance was such a large factor, then why have the line in Kotaku's wikipedia article "Its name comes from the Japanese otaku (obsessive fan) and the prefix "ko-" (small in size).[11]"? The reference itself is from Gawker media. Thus the arguments for lines of importance, seem highly inconsistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metrotitan (talk • contribs)

Look, we already told you that's not how you prove something is worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. Find third party coverage. You're not going to convince anyone with the same flawed logic above. When content is challenged, you need a WP:CONSENSUS in your favor to include it. They way to do that is showing that third party sources found it important enough to report on. What the JP WIkipedia article does has no bearing on this situation, its completely irrelevant. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Sergecross73 msg me 19:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Please address the points made. If importance and third party references are such large factors, then why have the line in Kotaku's wikipedia article "Its name comes from the Japanese otaku (obsessive fan) and the prefix "ko-" (small in size).[11]"? The reference itself is from Gawker media. Thus the arguments for lines of importance, seem highly inconsistent.Metrotitan (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Please actually read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you did, and understood it correctly, you’d know why your randomly selected example means nothing here. Why would the fact that you observed something on a different article somehow automatically be a reason to allow it here? If someone randomly wrote the word “poop” at the end of the Japanese Kotaku article, would that justify writing it here too? Of course not. All you’ve done is identified another potential problem. If no third party sourcing covered that content on the JP Wikipedia, and no one can find any, then it could mean that should be removed as well. Identifying an error doesn’t justify implementing another error. Sergecross73 msg me 19:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Is for use in arguments for in the case of consistency. Why resort to such crude examples as human waste, it is very distasteful. Let's put this to bed; find the exact wordings which say that only 3rd party references are valid and 1st party are not.Metrotitan (talk)

Look, I'm done arguing with you. The problem is that you fundamentally don't understand policy or how the website works. There's a reason not a single person has supported you over the course of the last month or so. You are incorrect in this situation. Furthermore, please read WP:NOCONSENSUS. If you don't have a consensus supporting your edit, the change isn't made. Unless you can muster up a persuasive argument, your addition is not to be in the article. Sergecross73 msg me 14:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

You fail to answer many of the points and use the Argumentum ad populum fallacy which is why you are unable to continue. If you were honest in your intent you would have deleted the line "Its name comes from the Japanese otaku (obsessive fan) and the prefix "ko-" (small in size).[11]" when it was first brought to your attention. Tellingly you have notMetrotitan (talk)

Covering the origin of the name has an encyclopedic value to the topic. Covering one article retraction does not. WP:DROPTHESTICK. -- ferret (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

One final recap, since you've conveniently forgotten many points already made above:

1. I've already explained to you why third party sourcing is necessary to illustrate something such as importance. WP:PRIMARY. We don't use first party sources to make subjective claims such as proving whether or not something is important. Its not about sourcing the content, its about proving that it was a notable occurrence. It's the same premise as is found in Wikipedia's standard for whether or not something is notable enough to have its own article.
2. WP:UNDUE Kotaku has existed for almost 15 years. This occurrence took place over the course of a couple days. It only affected only one of its multiple branches (UK). And not a single major reliable video game or tech website covered it - only obscure, no-name bloggers. And it disappeared from headlines days later. And yet you want to devote a an entire subsection of the article about it? That's an UNDUE violation.
3. If you truly believe that the meaning of the website's name is not of importance, you're technically free to remove that content - no one has objected or undone your edits on this point so far. That said, unless you've got a better explanation, you're likely to be reverted and accused of a WP:POINT violation as well. Sergecross73 msg me 19:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Gaming blog vs Activist blog

It’s generally considered a video game website. An IP keeps making this change without a source or consensus. Is there one? And even if there is, I don’t believe “activism” is a more prominent label over “video games”. Sergecross73 msg me 18:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed; needs substantiation with a source, and I'm not sure where it's coming from. It's gone from one IP to three making this same edit, and none are engaging on this talk page, so I've requested semi-protection on the article. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

This is essentially a repeat offender, they've been at it for a while on other pages. Several of the IPs blocked but since they hop so much I've just protected the pages. It's clearly one individual, there's specific ranges involved. -- ferret (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies: Your "friend" from earlier this month at slut-shaming. -- ferret (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Someone really needs to talk to someone. Thanks ferret. Wait: a ferret and a hamster on the same talk page? Sergecross needs to consider a name change. Drmies (talk) 20:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)