Talk:Internet forum
|
|
Template:Facfailed Template:Oldpeerreview
| Contents |
Notable communities
Re: "Notable communities", the main problem with this is that it advertises a few sites at the expense of other notable communities. We could easily get into a situation where everyone thinks their community is "notable" and adds it here. Let's not get on this slippery slope. If one wants to create a "List of Internet forums" (or equivalent) article, create that (and risk VfD), but don't put it here.
Further, the "Notable communties" text blatantly advertises for big-boards.com, which really shouldn't be referred to here as this site doesn't as of yet have encyclopedic relevance.
From What Wikipedia is not, the "Notable communities" text violates #18 of "What Wikipedia entries are not," that is "A vehicle for advertising and self-promotion." -- Stevietheman 14:57, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Ah, got it. Thanks for your explanation. -- 67.161.57.4
Article Name
For an article named "Internet forum", it doesn't make sense to me that it focuses on just web-based software. Discussion forums existed on the Internet before the Web, and they will after the Web too. If this article needs expansion, it sure doesn't need a list of obscure web packages. It needs historical context. --Amillar 18:23, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Links to the forum software listed
I noticed that, at some point, someone added a long list of software. How are those in the list chosen? I write forum software (Simple Machines Forum from that list) and I've never even heard of a few of the ones on that list.
You can find a listing of most every internet forum software available here: The Forum Insider Directory (http://foruminsider.com/index.php?act=directory&show=all)
However, that is indeed a long list, and many of those listed are not very popular nor very active. I also noticed, surprisingly, that while software I had never heard of did show on the list, other software such as YaBB (which sees significantly more widespread usage) did not.
If so many are to be added, perhaps a list format more like the PHP page's library list could be used.
-Unknown 06:25, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
- I concur that the list needs to only include only notable forum products. One way to test notability (beyond looking at facts like widespread usage) is whether they have articles in the Wikipedia. Many of the current red links may not ever have sustained articles for them, due to their lack of notability. I've also noted in my personal talk that I've also never heard of some of these products.
- I agree that YaBB should be added to the list, and I don't object to a reformatting that you describe. I also wouldn't mind to see some defense of the entries that are currently listed.
- At any rate, after a while, we should remove the links that don't get articles, as if they're notable, they should have an article. -- Stevietheman 16:47, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Looks like Dengar (JeffG?) decided to add a page for YaBB. I also updated it with the tabular format you said you were not against. As they're removed, it can be removed....
- As for Simple Machines Forum, I don't believe I could write such a page without being biased... -Unknown 01:20, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
Stevietheman, could you tell me which ones you have and have not heard of? Andros 1337 21:26, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
What if....?
How would it be if I added links to some of the software currently not on wikipedia? For example:
|
|
I didn't do all of them, but that's the idea...
-Unknown 07:02, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
- No comment? I guess that means no - I know the link style is kinda a no-no. -Unknown 02:01, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
Request for expansion?
I could probably make this article longer, but I'd need to know what it should talk about it. I'm "in the field" so to speak, because I do write forum software, but I would be biassed - both on what I think is important for forum software, and etc. I'm more than willing to draft additions to make it longer (or is the request for expansion only for the software listed?) but it would be very helpful to know what subjects or areas are considered lacking (in a less biassed person's opinion.)
-Unknown 02:01, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
Searching for Internet Forum Software With Odd(?) Features
I'm wondering if people have seen Internet forum software with any of these (perhaps hairbrained) features:
- Users can edit their posts *after* they've been submitted -- so each post is like a wiki page
- It's possible to manually "rethread" conversations -- if, e.g., it's discovered that two "different" threads are about exactly the same topic
- Users have their "views" of each thread. Thus, for example, she could delete messages that she didn't like from *her* view of the thread without this affecting anyone else. Or, combined with the previous idea, she could rethread the conversation in a way more logical to her, without screwing up anyone else's view.
- Threading needn't be strictly hierarchical. Stuff like this: A) a message can reply not just to one previous message but to a whole collection of previous messages, B) loops in the reply chain -- e.g., message 1 is in reply to message 2 which is in reply to message 3 which is in reply to message 1
- Private (perhaps also public?) annotations of posts
In short, I'm trying to find (or, short of that, design) an ideal combination of Wiki-type environments and Usenet-type environments. Any hints?
--Ryguasu 08:05, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Edit own posts - most forum software allows this. Most forum software these days isn't threaded, I don't know about that second one. Read/unread messages generally replaced number 3.
- Again, threading is going out. To address your fourth point, many have simply dropped threading entirely.
- The last is often available in many softwares, often as a mod. However, all this you request is generally not very available.
- This is not the right place for this sort of discussion, as far as I understand... sorry. I suggest you search google for forums about forum development (which would be much better for this discussion.) If you could please, I would ask that after you've read my message, you remove this from this page - any response can be added to my talk page.
- -Unknown 23:10, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
- UBB.threads has a threaded display mode, and Infopop's next generation product will have threaded display. vBulletin 3 also has threaded display btw. Andros 1337 02:29, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- While that is true, it's not really used on those systems. Those softwares include it mainly because some people (like this fellow) still want it. And, again, even if you use the threaded mode, it doesn't solve the problems (some of which were mentioned) that exist with it. -Unknown 04:18, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
- UBB.threads has a threaded display mode, and Infopop's next generation product will have threaded display. vBulletin 3 also has threaded display btw. Andros 1337 02:29, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Big-Boards Link!
Will you please keep up the big boards link!
IT's not spam
The link doesn't make wikipedia a "link farm" as one user put it!
You know I could say the same thing for the dmoz.org link!
Reasons to back this up:
- It's ON topic
- It's a LISTING of boards/FORUMS not to a DIRECT FORUM/board
- IT'S NOT ADVERTISING!
(the above posted by Kmg90)
- I agree with having this external link; however I don't think your shouting and excessive usage of bold is the best way to go about having it readded without controversy (also please sign your messages). :) [[User:Talrias|]] 19:50, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I vote against. There are all kinds of sites listing message boards. I will fight against any such links in here. Besides, DMOZ, the basis directory for many search engines, already lists Big Boards... that should be quite enough. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 20:45, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Well, alright, but I disagree with your revert - if everyone who had an opinion on this matter changed it to their viewpoint there would be a massive revert war. Let's leave it like it is until there's been some more opinions/viewpoints brought into the discussion. [[User:Talrias|]] 23:05, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Big Boards link Redux
I've readded the link to Big Boards. Please review the site before removing this link. It really is a useful site and a worthy link. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:35, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The problem is that if Big Boards stays, it starts a precedent, and everyone who runs a listing site will expect to have theirs listed too. This is why we say "Wikipedia is not a link farm." On top of this, external links are intended to extend the content of the article. It's easily arguable that Big Boards doesn't satisfy this. It's a lot less biased to link to a DMOZ listing of listing sites, which will always include notable such sites. So if Big Boards goes by the wayside, there will always be other similar sites people can visit to find forums. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 22:41, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- It doesn't start a precedent. Have a look at, for example, the external links section of IRC. That article has a few links to listing websites for IRC networks. No one has yet attempted to add a link to a listing site other than Big Boards to this article - there is no cause for concern here. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:46, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Just because the IRC article needs to be cleaned up doesn't mean that the "Big Boards" link belongs here. Look, if I don't take it out, somebody else will. Wikipedians are heavily biased against links like this.
- By the way, thank you for your work overall. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 22:52, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Largest forum dispute
Big Boards doesn't seem to have that much interest in providing accurate information (see http://www.big-boards.com/about/#faq10 ). They are more concerned with advertising themselves, I guess. Ashibaka (tock) 00:37, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Did you read that FAQ entry? It says there is no information provided by 2ch, so how are they supposed to include it on their website. Also, even if the 2ch forum is larger than Gaia Online, it's not an encylopediac screenshot, but the Gaia Online one shows a screenshot of the topics in a particular forum. Talrias (t | e | c) 11:07, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Please don't add in images which aren't encylopediac. This is an English language website and the image you added is completely incomprehensible to anyone who doesn't speak Japanese. If you disagree with the wording that Gaia Online is the largest forum community, change it to the largest English-speaking forum community. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:39, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I am not objecting to having an image of 2ch. I am objecting to having an image not in English when there is no reason for it to not be in English. Again, this is an English language encyclopedia - what encyclopediac value does an image have which the vast majority of visitors that will read this article will not understand? Talrias (t | e | c) 09:49, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The bottom line is that this image does not *have* to be the largest forum of all. But since this is indeed the English wikipedia, it would seem appropriate to choose the largest English language Internet forum for the image. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work</span> 15:37, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
- It's nothing to do with countries, it's to do with languages. Who, on an English language encyclopedia, would find the image you added a good representation of a forum? Unless you speak Japanese (unlikely on an English website), it doesn't add to the article. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:39, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed with Talrias. It's unreasonable to expect English speakers to be able to read Japanese. Therefore, an English language example is most appropriate. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work</span> 01:05, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
- It's an example of an internet forum, not of how the software works.
- Please sign your comments. I've reverted your image change, once again, for the above reasons. Please provide a reason why your image is better than the current one, and then we can find consensus about changing it. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
- I have remedied this situation at last. Now we have a picture which is
- in English
- shows a topic in a particular forum, and
- represents the largest forum in the world.
Peer review?
Do we really need the peer review tag on this article today? It esp. looks funny sitting underneath the "featured article candidate" tag. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work</span> 16:07, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
- It'll eventually get changed to a "previously on PR" tag, and in the meantime it's useful to see what other people have said about it (even if there are just 2 comments). Talrias (t | e | c)
- Oh, OK. Good enough. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work</span> 16:23, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
Page name
I moved this back to internet forum as the person who moved it didn't change the article to reflect the new title, the related category (which should match the article title), or update any links on other pages. I am happy with the other name, web forum, but it is good etiquette to at least update the article reflecting the new name. Talrias (t | e | c) 11:00, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
- Web forum doesn't fit; the article covers Usenet too. (And when did we stop capitalizing Internet?) « alerante ✆ ✉ » 16:14, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
2ch image - encyclopedaic?
Gaiaonline.png
2ch_english_thread.png
I'm just interested in opinions on which image is better for an English-language encyclopedia, showing a forum. I initially added one of Gaia Online as an image, but Ashibaka has changed it to one of 2ch. The two images are to the right.
I personally think the one on the left gives a more helpful image of what a forum looks like - but I want to find consensus as Ashibaka has reverted all my attempts to include it. Please comment! Talrias (t | e | c) 09:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
- I'm confused, as I thought we already had consensus on the Gaia Online image being used. I am going to revert back to that. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work</span> 14:57, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
- The image you presented doesn't look like a clear representation of an Internet forum, but the Gaia one does. Even if you found a better image, I'm lost on the rationale for replacing the current one. Are you trying to promote the other forum? The Wikipedia isn't the place for that. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work</span> 17:26, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Between the two my vote is definitely for the Gaia image. Samaritan 17:16, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
The gaia image is clearly better. The other one is a pathetic example. It's not clear what exactly is going on, the action buttons (log in, new topic, etc.) are all missing, and it deviates heavily from what just about any english language forum looks like. There should be no question about which to use. That aside, the gaia image isn't the best thing to have either. Being the most posted in doesn't mean that it's the best encyclopidic example. Things to notice are the advertisement, the giant upper panel, the links to 'map' and 'mail', and, frankly, topics that don't give any indication of the kinds of topics that a real forum would see. Apart from its technical appearance, the gaia forums are likely innapropriate due to their young target audience and focus on anime. A typical reader over the age of, say, 20, who is our target audience, would be turned off by the cutesy graphics and non-serious subjects. I suggest finding a start-up general discussion forum, with threads about news, random forum games, and opinion polls, and taking a screenshot of that. Slike2 23:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
- Slike, your opinion makes sense-- the whole edit war is over whether the real largest forums should be represented, at a loss to the usefulness of the image. If someone who has no preference in Internet forums could go click one of these at random (http://www.big-boards.com/kw/general/) and take a helpful screenshot... Personally, I think The Straight Dope would make for a good, simple screenshot, but I don't want to chose, haven already debated long over the picture. Ashibaka (tock) 00:17, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I agree that the image we use should be well-representative of the topic and clear, and that it doesn't have to come from the largest forum. However, I do believe it should come from one of the most notable ones, and that it must be English language. How about finding a well-known poliitcal one that allows participants of all persuasions? I'm thinking of the Political Crossfire forums (http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/index.php) but there might be a better example. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work</span> 15:44, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Plural of forum
In my opinion fora should only be used as a plural to forum ONLY when referring to the archaic, latin, meaning of the word. I agree that it's an acceptable form in the dictionaries, however, it does not conform to the english standard - and the electronic meaning of forum is most certainly a natural english word, thus making its sole acceptable plural forums.