Talk:Internet forum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Peer review Internet forum has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents

[edit] 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 Wikipedia: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

[edit] 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)

Agreed. Should there be an attempt of getting input from editors who work on relevant articles or would it be better to move this article to Web forum (has no history except for the redirect to this article)? zerofoks 08:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
See #Page name. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Right, sorry, that eluded me. Still seems like we have a naming problem. zerofoks 08:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I was going to make the same complaint. I have published tens of thousands of articles on Usenet, probably more than I've posted on Web forums. When I put in my user page that I had published on several Internet forums, I intended to reflect more than just Web forums. Pooua 01:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
What should be done? Move this article to Web forum and dicuss in general in this article or fix this article to be more inclusive? I had hoped to get some input on this before doing it myself. kotepho 02:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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). :) Talrias | talk 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. Talrias | talk 23:05, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think that the link should be allowed. Wikipedia is about sharing information, and just because the information happens to be listed elsewhere, doesn't mean it shouldn't be listed here. Plus I'm a little ticked that somebody deleted my external link without a reason before this. Wiz_Kid

[edit] 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)
No problem, thanks for your revisions and work before the rewrite! I can see I'm fighting a battle I will eventually lose - please feel free to remove the link. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:57, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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)
There is information provided by 2ch-- I footnoted it in the article-- but big-boards chooses not to include it. I know they are aware of it because I e-mailed them. I replaced the front page picture with a picture of a thread for you. Ashibaka (tock) 22:25, 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)
Show me where in the Wikipedia image use guide it says that all images must be in the English language. You wanted a picture of the biggest forum, now you've got it. Ashibaka (tock) 23:19, 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 15:37, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
Why? We don't care about other countries? Ashibaka (tock) 18:24, 30 Apr 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 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.
Thus, all the disputes are solved! If you want a larger picture I can find one for you. Ashibaka (tock) 06:03, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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 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 16:23, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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)
I think one day the Guardian or Wired or someone declared that "Internet" doesn't need the caps anymore, but it's all very silly if you ask me. Ashibaka (tock) 02:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Wired article It's Just the 'internet' Now
It no longer covers Usenet (if it did earlier). There are separate articles for newsgroups and Usenet. Since it now only covers web forums, I support a change of name to "web forum". Nurg 04:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Currently, the article is definately about forums which use a web-based interface. It also emphaiszes threaded message models, which, while popular, are not the only kind. (This talk page is arguably a web forum, for example.) I also note that Online forum currently redirects here. I think the larger concept of an "online forum" deserves coverage in an article that mentions Usenet, email mailing lists, and all the random other forums (e.g., GEnie) as well as the web-based subcategory. What I'm not sure about is if we should have one article "online forum" with reference to another article "web forum", or just one big article. --DragonHawk 23:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this article is much more about web forums than internet forums. It does not really discuss usenet or others anymore. Even when it does it calls Usenet and mailing lists 'web applications' which they certainly are not. IMHO Internet Forum or maybe Online Discussion should be about the general case, with a short mention of the most popular kinds and links to others. kotepho 23:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It sounds to me like the objections raised above regarding the former move have all been met. Therefore I think this article can now be moved to Web forum and categories and links adjusted appropriately. -- Jon Dowland 11:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2ch image - encyclopedaic?

Image: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 14:57, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
The consensus that you and Talrias reached was that the picture should be in the English language. Since this picture is in the English language, I see no reason to revert it. Ashibaka (tock) 16:42, 31 May 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 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 *(edit see below), and opinion polls, and taking a screenshot of that. Slike2 23:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

(* edit: I had to remove your link to a gambling forum as it wasn't allowing me to add my comment. Something about a spam-filter)

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 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 but there might be a better example. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 15:44, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.78.196.15 (talk • contribs) .

Your opinion is noted. However, the term "fora" has currency as a popular (if minority) usage, so including it is not unreasonable. --DragonHawk 22:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Then it should be noted that that is the minority opinion, and not the common nomenclature. CynicalMe 17:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Sure. Find a source that has that information, and add it with a citation. (My point being that Wikipedia isn't about our opinions. It's about being an enecylopedia. If we can find even one case of "fora" being used as the plural of "forum" in this context, then it is not incorrect to note that. And we have more than just a single case: The Jargon file gives fora as the plural of forum. So "fora" is legit. It may well be minority usage. Indeed, I would expect it to be minority usage. But I don't have a source for that.) --DragonHawk 18:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

When I go to a meeting, I don't ask what is on the 'agendums'; when talking about the press I don't say 'the mediums'; and I didn’t study ‘ciriculums’ at school. The correct plural of a word ending in 'um' is with an 'a'. This isn't archaic or Latin; as shown above this is a perfectly normal and regularly used convention in English. Now, I admit that most people don't use it, so in a constructive encyclopaedic entry the 'common' version should be given precedence; but to relegate the actual word to something dismissed as archaic just because the majority of people who use it these days don’t understand grammar is just promoting ignorance. user:Phunting, 9 November 2006

This issue is coming up again at Talk:Forum (legal); opinions wanted. Λυδαcιτγ 05:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TGML

[b]This kind of markup[/b] is apparently called TGML: Tecumsah Group Markup Language. Good to put in an article somewhere: http://www.tipmaster.com/includes/tgmlinfo.cfm?w=450&h=450 - Omegatron 23:46, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image

I have reverted Ashibaka's changing of the image, as I am not convinced the proposed image is clearer in showing what a "real forum" looks like. Since then, I have been reverted by Ashibaka, who has said there is consensus for the change on talk and that there has been discussion here. However, I can't see any discussion on the matter recently, nor in fact any discussion at all since towards the end of July, over a month ago. Therefore I have reverted Ashibaka's changes. Talrias (t | e | c) 23:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I guess you can drag Slike2 and Stevie back in here and we can take a vote. Ashibaka (tock) 06:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a democracy. Talrias (t | e | c) 13:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Okay, then do you have anything to say about the discussion made in May/June? Ashibaka (tock) 23:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
What needs to be said? The image we have at the moment is a good representation of a forum. I don't understand your insistence to change it. Talrias (t | e | c) 23:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I say leave it as is: it's a popular forum and a good representation of one. Why change it anyway? « alerante ✆ ✉ » 14:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the image should be changed. For further discussion on my opinion, please see User_talk:Talrias#Internet_forum

From there: I feel that although it is the largest Internet forum, Gaia Online is not a proper depiction to be displayed on Wikipedia. Gaia Online is much different than your traditional forum of yore, and If one were to be informed on an Internet forum, It would be preferred that it not be such a silly thing as Gaia Online. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Snafuu (talk • contribs) 07:11, 14 November 2005.

Gaia Online looks similar to a normal phpBB forum. I don't understand your argument; are you saying that you think Gaia Online is silly so you don't want a picture of it? Talrias (t | e | c) 13:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes! Consider my phpBB forum, snafo, it looks much like any other phpBB forum. Gaia Online, however, is a "role-playing" forum, which in their case the whole point of the site is to post-whore until you get enough points for your silly little avatar clothes. Seriously, this site makes all forums look bad. --Snafuu 15:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
That maybe so, but I'm not sure that's a valid reason to remove the image. Try discussing it on talk:internet forum and see what other people think. Talrias (t | e | c) 15:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

" --Snafuu 19:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I've uploaded a new image, which is an extremely basic-looking phpBB board that shows common elements usually found in forums, and makes it easy to understand how a forum discussion proceeds. Dpaanlka 16:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Trolls. Perhaps a quick mention and link to the troll page should be added? That is a big part of online discussions and could be added under users. People who abuse the forums. I also think film and music should be added as popular discussions. Also the fact that as you are anonymous it helps a lot of people get support for various medical conditions, as people from all over the world are united and can speak about things that are not often mentioned in real life.

Re: Trolls - I agree with you. Please look below at my suggestion... Forum etiquette would provide a good platform for the discussion of "trolling" and similar behaviours.

[edit] Suggested areas for expansion: etiquette & terminology

Hi all,

I think that readers of "Internet forum" would find a forum etiquette section useful. This could include a discussion of the generally accepted (yet often unwritten) forum behavioural rules: e.g., no excessive use of CAPSLOCK, check past threads before starting a new one, be patient or add more information before bumping own threads etc. Within this section, there could also be some discussion of moderating styles. I also think that readers would benefit from a forum terminology section; words like "newbie", "flaming", "trolling", and so on. I would be happy to get this work kick-started. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks for your time.

Cheers, Wayne.

Good idea. But this is described in the Netiquette article, it just needs to be linked in. I'll put it somewhere... Ashibaka (tock) 04:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


An example of different types of users that might come to a forum, I added a specific spammer know around the web.

[edit] forumite merge

Merged from forumite - A forumite is an internet forum user. A forumite can post anything with the restriction of the forum manager or moderator. --Dangherous 08:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First forum software

I believe that Matt Wright's WWWBoard released in 1995 deserves the honor for pioneering Web forum software. --Sean Brunnock 00:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Correction, it was WIT. --Sean Brunnock 12:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to rank as largest forum?

To better address the issue of how the largest English speaking online forum should be determined, I think there should be a clear policy on if it should be based on the number of A) messages, B) posts or C) something else, because the figures gives very different results. Right now the article states:

"Gaia Online, the largest English language forum-based community as of April 2005 — powered by a 'modified version of phpBB'."

But that's both false and correct. In terms of the number of registered users, Gaia Online is just ranked 4th. So I think somekind of a solution should be found. Of course we could avoid this issue by all together discarding the issue and just leaving an external link to Big-Boards. The other alternative would be to state that Gaia Online is largest based on the number of messages and include a source reference to Big Boards. --Rasbelin 20:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Reminder: No original research. It isn't up to us, as Wikipedians, to determine the largest forum, or rank them. If a third-party source provides a ranking, we can refer to that. I further note that the "Gaia Online" claim fails to cite a source. Wikipedia articles must be verifiable. If the contributor who added that statement fails to provide a source, the statement should be removed. Wikipedia policy is quite explict in this regard. --DragonHawk 00:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree about that, which why I also brought it up, because the current statement is a biased statement and isn't sourced. Furthermore there's many ways how a forum can be ranked as largest, so that's why I was bringing this up. I suggest the following wording instead "Gaia Online, one of the largest English language forum-based communities — powered by a modified version of phpBB" and sourcing the statement with a reference to Big Boards. If nobody objects, I'll update it soon. --Rasbelin 07:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
As far as the image caption goes, I would recommend just avoiding any claims to size. "Gaia Online, a modified phpBB forum". That makes the caption more durable over time -- it will still work regardless of the size of that forum. This article is about Internet forums, not sizes in particular, so we just want a representative picture. See also Avoid weasel words and Avoid peacock terms (not that I'm saying you're falling into those traps, but why even start down that road if we don't need to?). --DragonHawk 02:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Followup: I decided to be bold and made the changes I described. --DragonHawk 17:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources and citations

I note a general trend in this article towards a lack of sources and citations. This is especially prevalent when it comes to things like size, "firsts", and other claims to fame. Statements keep being added, but with nothing to substantiate them. Looking beyond that, it seems likely to me that different people/organizations will recognize and rank things differently (e.g., one source says A has the most members, another source says B has the most). To keep things from degenerating, I suggest it might be best to couch things in terms of their sources. For example, "In 2005, Internet Forum Magazine ranked Bob's Big Board as having the most members who post at least once per month" (those names are fictitious, if that isn't obvious).

[edit] Imageboard

Should there be any mentions of imageboards in this article? There aren't many of them, as the idea is relatively new to the English-speaking world when compared to the idea of a traditional forum, but one quite large one immediately comes to mind, 4chan. (Steampowered 06:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)).

[edit] Criticism

Forum battles; information overload etc.

[edit] Discussion groups

i dont know how to correct this, so Im just reporting it - I was reading the stub about town hall meetings and the link about discussion groups led me here. But this was in a political and face-to-face context. The term discussion group is anyways far too general to lead to an article only about internet forums.--83.131.137.80 13:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protection?

Most of the recent edits by anonymous users to this page have been spam links. æ² ✆ 2006‑11‑20t17:34z

  • Seconded. These spammers have no intention whatsoever of stopping their attack here.|||||||31337 User talk Talk to me 05:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree. I recently stumbled upon the article and was surprised by all the spams it has. It should be locked to anonymous or something. --Goa103 11:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    • The spam problem is getting worse. I believe these are open proxies running malware bots hitting the article. Definitely warrants an sprotect. Thank you.  E. Sn0 =31337= Talk 19:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Okay I have a theory: I think the word 'forum' in the title is acting as a lightning-rod for these porn/pharma/\/14g|24 spammers. That's why they BBcode their spam.  E. Sn0 =31337= Talk 21:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • RFP requested. -- KTC 21:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Many thanks, Katie. :)  E. Sn0 =31337= Talk
      • Request was denied. Just have to keep an eye out for now. Will resubmit request if it get much very worse. -- KTC 04:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Try again with the RFP please?  E. Sn0 =31337= Talk 03:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Page was vnadalized, I tried to fix it, then noticed that didn't work, but I didn't wanted to put vandalism back in, yadda yadda yadda. Can we get someone to fix ricky ticky. Jeff503 18:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed the very obvious thing. Not sure if there's any less obvious spam still about though. -- KTC 21:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thoughts

The Article looks like it could be written better. Maybe more sub headings, explaining avatars, mod/admin status, user groups, difference of a board, forum, sub forum, etc. Jeff503 19:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree. I think it needs more organization and information. But it's definitely a great start. I'm happy to help on this one if others do not come along that can offer expertise on it. Uberveritas 07:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great thanks for the sprotect!

THANK YOU STEEL!!  E. Sn0 =31337= Talk 22:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The first forum

Here *W3 Interactive Talk (WIT)* created in June 1994 is sited to be (presumably) the first forum software on the Web.

[edit] Chop this article up

We should chop it into sections Jeff503 12:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. I think this article would look great with sections, some with sub-sections. Technology, Moderation, Culture, History, Examples, etc. could easily be sections, where Moderation and Technology could easily have sub-sections. Uberveritas 08:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up

I just cleaned the page to look like Wikipedia page because it look quite vague. I hope nobody was in the middle of adding information with this. If somebody was please use templates to avoid further confusion. Thank you. :) 193.229.89.159 16:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

THere is a sub page of this article at Internet forum/Double posting (resulting from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double posting (2nd nomination)) that needs to be merged into the article. Can someone please complete the merge asap. The sub page will be deleted within one week, merged or not. ViridaeTalk 00:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I've done the merge, though in an extremely quick and dirty manner that will probably need further refinement. I also moved the article back to double posting and redirected it here instead of deleting it, that way the edit history of the information is preserved. Bryan Derksen 04:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, perhaps it would be even better if the merge were done into forum spam instead? I just did a quick look around and it looks like pretty much all of this material would fit better over there. Bryan Derksen 04:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/n/t/Talk%7EInternet_forum_e63b.html"