Talk:List of social networking websites/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1
| Archive 2 →


Contents

Criteria

I think it's about time consensus was found on criteria for having a site on this list. (other than being a social networking site, of course!) -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 19:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The length is quite manageable (see Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)), and, thanks to you and other editors' vigilance, clean from non-notable sites. If we indeed add criteria, though, we can't redefine "social networking site" here; any definition or criteria must always be on Social networking. -- Perfecto 03:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
The definition should really be that implied by Social networking service, as opposed to social networking. Matt Whyndham 07:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
So, basically, if a social networking website doesn't meet the WP:WEB criteria, it's gone from this list. -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 13:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Not exactly, "... with [Wikipedia] articles" already does this. Anything here that fails WP:WEB can go through the usual deletion processes. -- Perfecto 15:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
and thus should not be on this list because they don't have articles. hmm, that sounds familiar :-P -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 17:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

squinty little screenshots

The 4 images at the top of the page are totally useless. They are making the page ugly by pushing the actual text off to the side. Can't you limit them to just 1 screenshot? Ashibaka tock 02:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The article looks better, FWIW. I don't see any ugly word-wrapping in either IE, Firefox or Opera. -- Perfecto 04:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
There's only word-wrapping in 800x600 & lower -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 14:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Which surely barely anyone uses... it certainly looks fine to me... └ UkPaolo/TALK┐ 14:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I use 1024x768 and it still looks awful! Here's a screenshot: [1] Ashibaka tock 20:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Point taken... that looks silly. To me they just appear neatly in a line down the right-hand sign, not affecting the text. Perhaps it's because you're not using the MonoBook skin. Either way, if their positioning can't be sorted better so that they appear correctly for everyone I'd support removing them... shame though, since I do feel they make the article look better when appropriately positioned. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 21:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Photos are nice, but lists don't really need them. I think you could put one or two inside the bulleted list and it would show up on the right. Or, there might be a template that aligns them vertically like you say. Ashibaka tock 00:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

"... with articles": to stay or go?

On one hand, the Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) guidelines do not require that entries added to lists such as these to have articles. On the other, an old study counted 2000 such sites out there, and (1) not all of them pass our WP:WEB guidelines and (2) "Wikipedia is not a web directory," which is policy. Since I began this article, I know five such sites that will add themselves if we choose the second. Let's discuss here which will improve the article more: with "with articles" or not? -- Perfecto 16:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

How about: they stay if they meet the WP:WEB criteria, and if a site that's added here meets the criteria but doesn't have an article, we create a stub. -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 17:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Note that it's hard to tell if a site fails WP:WEB. Its being encyclopedic may be less obvious to those unfamiliar with the topic. You didn't answer the question, though: stay or go? -- Perfecto 17:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd say stay -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 17:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Keeping the "with articles" qualifier makes sense so as to justify sites to be included. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 18:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
If we remove it, this becomes a troublesome spam trap. Ashibaka tock 19:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Note that there is no Wikipedia guideline that says the article has to be written first. Theoretically, having it red invites someone to write an article. -- Perfecto 03:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

In general, yes, if a site meets the WP:WEB criteria, it would be fine to add it and write the article later.
However, EthicalNetwork.org has already been created as an article, and deleted ( Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/EthicalNetwork.org ), so saying 'Lamborg has assured us that "it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future."' is irrelevant, as the article has already been created and deleted. Just because someone intends to create the article again does not change the fact that it is not notable. Mdwh 21:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh yes it may. Numerous examples exist of articles made again and stayed. Obscurity is set not in stone. Lamborg shows no evidence of malice, so we assume good faith. See WP:AGF for more information. -- Perfecto 22:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I would agree that the fact an article has previously been deleted does not prevent it's future recreation, but in this case the article was deleted fairly recently based on the service not being notable. I can't see much has changed, to my mind EthNet still doesn't meet WP:WEB, and if an article is created, I would probably vote for deletion. Per my comments below, prior to inclusion in this list an article needs to be created in which notability per WP:WEB is established. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 23:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Of course, whether a site is notable or not is something that can change - perhaps Lamborg should first provide evidence in the talk pages about what has changed since the article was last deleted?
Otherwise - if the article is created again, and then deleted again, what then? Can someone keep putting the link back on this page, on the basis that an article will be written yet again for it? Mdwh 23:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Move?

I think that the page should be moved from "List of social networking sites" to "List of social networking websites". any comments? -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 17:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

What's wrong with creating a redirect? :) -- Perfecto 17:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
hehe, okay -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 17:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Makes complete sense to be moved, and to keep a redirect from here to "websites" in full... I'd support. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 18:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm okay either way. -- Perfecto 17:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Well it's been a while, no-one voiced any objections and I decided the abbreviation was annoying me so I went ahead and moved the page. I'll leave the redirect in place the other way, of course, and even update incoming links :o) └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 21:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

In my opinion, this should be a list of notable social networking sites, where notability is defined as set out in WP:WEB. It is a list, and one of the advantages of a list other than a category is that things can be listed before an article is created... for example if there was yet to be an article on MySpace, it's sufficiently well known to be listed until such time as an article is made. However, unless notability is easily established without an article (eg a commonly known service, or site with a high Alexa ranking) then the article needs to be created prior to a website being added to the list, in order to establish notability.

I'd be in favour of a renaming of this to List of social networking websites (with a redirect the other way) and for the list to describe itself as a "List of notable social networking websites". Unless any service listed is inherently notable, an article should be created prior to inclusion in the list.

Regarding Ethical Network; it is not an inherently well known service, nor does it achieve a high Alexa ranking, and to my mind fails WP:WEB. In addition, the article on Ethical Network has previously been deleted as advertising. Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, before it can be added to this list, EthNet needs to have an article setting forth it's notability for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Whilst I disagree with it's inclusion in the interim period, I shall assume good faith and leave it be for a few days to see if an article is forthcoming. Regarding it's naming, if it is to be listed it should be as it's service name Ethical Network rather than EthicalNetwork.org which I can only assume is preferred since it helps advertise the site. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 17:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Social networking website AfDs

Note that the following social networking website articles are currently up for deletion:

Angpau and Favorville now need removing from this list following their successful AfD's, once it is unprotected. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 18:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Third party opinion

Regarding this internal list. And the entry for Ethical Network. This page appears as a directory of Wikipedia articles, but the entry you are placing on it does not have an article. Additionally a community consensus decided that the link does not meet the critera for inclusion in the encylopedia (see the Deletion Discussion). Perhaps you were not aware of this deletions. Processes for restoring deleted articles exist, and you may wish to persue them. Adding this link just to make a point that you disagree with the AfD is not constructive. And adding is just to have mention of the external site (noting the edits inlcuding putting the TLD info on the link) is not what the encylopedia is for. You may want to discuss this further here.

xaosflux Talk/CVU 03:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Recreate as a Category

The standard solution to this problem (and all those like it) is to recreate the list as a category by placing the following tag at the bottom of all the related articles...

[[Category:Social networking sites]]

The text of this article can then be copied into the Category page, and the original article deleted. This will solve the problem, as only social networking sites that are considered notable enough will be allowed to have their own articles on Wikipedia. Not Notable or ad spam articles will be deleted very quickly. —gorgan_almighty 16:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

There is already a category Category:Social networking which serves much the same purpose. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 18:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • In that case please ensure that all notable sites are included in the category, then nominate this article for deletion (AfD) as it needlessly duplicates the category. —gorgan_almighty 11:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with this because only articles can be placed in the category, which will solve our problem. The category "Social networking websites" can be placed as a sub-cat of "social networking" and then this article can redirect to that cat. -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 22:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes for advice. -- Perfecto 19:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
With a category, we couldn't include the brief description (ie "Popular in Canada" or "teen site"). Also, I think it's right that social networking sites meeting WP:WEB could be added to this list before an article is created (the big advantage of the list over the category). I agree Use of a category would clear up the spam, however. Can an admin unlock this list now so that editing may continue? └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 08:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Linkzy.com

I have been working on a new social networking site, www.linkzy.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.245.238.16 (talk • contribs) .

Wikipedia is not the place to advertise new sites. If its new then its NOT NOTABLE. —gorgan_almighty 11:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Not so fast on the "NOT NOTABLE" part, Gorgan. The best reply is to refer him or her to the inclusion guideline for websites Wikipedia:Notability (websites). It also shows you're not making rules up. -- Perfecto 19:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Deadjournal?

Perhaps Livejournal's darker, angrier cousin should be included. It uses LJ source code, has almost 500,000 users, and is notable for new users having to either pay for an account or receive an invite code from an existing user. - Anonymous

I agree. In fact I added DeadJournal (along with GreatestJournal) on 16 December 2005, but it was removed by Getcrunk on 27 December with the comment "trim sites that aren't networking or in testing", yet DeadJournal is both a networking site (just like LiveJournal), and not in testing. Maybe this was a mistake? Mdwh 17:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

takingitglobal

Include TakingITGlobal. It is a great web site, with more intelligent people than on any other (lol) TakingITGlobal Moa3333 19:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Alexa 80,000... with a number of reviews. Ashibaka tock 07:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

profileheaven

Perhaps Profileheaven should be included, I could write an artical on it. The site is profileheaven It has an 3 month alexa of 10,000 and has won the uk website of the year award topping faceparty. Website of The Year. They have 60k members at last count. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.159.24.73 (talk • contribs) .

I suggest you read the guidelines at WP:WEB. If you feel Profileheaven meets the notability guidelines set forth there, then feel free to write an encyclopedic article on the site, making clear it's notability. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 21:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection

So what needs to be discussed before we can request unprotection? Regarding the criteria for inclusion, I believe I have given my opinions above, but to summarise, I would say it must meet WP:WEB criteria (which usually means having an article, but allows for including a notable site before the article is added - however, it does not allow for adding a non-notable site on the basis of "I'll write an article later", especially when an article has already been written and deleted). In general though, establishing an article for it is a good way of deciding notability - if it's debateable, then this can be decided through the article deletion process. And having an article on notable sites is probably a good thing. Mdwh 02:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree, that's exactly what I said above. It's annoying the page is still protected, since two of the articles have since been deleted per AfD. I requested unprotection from the original admin several weeks back but there's been no response. Perhaps an admin reading this might like to consider unprotecting the page now? └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 11:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
The internet is said to currently contain over 300 social networking sites; it seems to me that a wikipedia article entitled "list of social networking sites" ought to be comprehensive and include as many of these sites as possible. Whether or not the sites have their own articles or can be called "notable" seem besides the point, the criteria for inclusion on this list should simply be that it is a genuine social networking site. Hazza2000 15:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
right, and a list of over 300 social networking sites would be useful how? encyclopedic how? Would we even include a social networking site that was setup yesterday and which a total of two people have ever used? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an arbitrary list of everything. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 15:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Whilst it could be argued that the level of notability required for including on this list is less than that required for an article, if we include sites like EthicalNetwork (which manages a few hundred Google hits at most! - Alexa rating 384,764), then I imagine the list would be far more than 300. A list may be useful to a reader, but that usefulness is lost if most the entries are little-known websites. Mdwh 00:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The list would be useful for anyone who wanted to look at a list of all the internet's social networking sites; sounds pretty "encyclopedic" to me.

Surely a less comprehensive list would simply be less useful.Hazza2000 18:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

But you have to have some form of notability to gain addition to the list. Or you'd be potentially talking millions of sites! I could install software on a webserver for me and two mates to post messages, surely you couldn't claim to me listing that here would be encyclopedic. Such a list would be so long as to be totally unusable. You'd have no idea whether a site was 7th most visited on the internet with a million members, or setup yesterday and visited ten times by two people. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 19:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello Hazza2000, welcome to Wikipedia. It serves to remember that this "web site" never aims to be the world's most comprehensive directory or list of anything. Instead we aim that the information here be verifiable (i.e., attributable to a reliable secondary source). With these two policies in mind, the list you want will never be here. The Open Directory Project is what you want. --Perfecto 21:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
P.S. To unprotect the page, please contact an administrator.

I know what I want, it is wikipedia- Not The Open Directory Project- I also know that I am right about this one- Viva la Beaver! Hazza2000 11:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC) P.S. No neeed to welcome me, I've been an avid wikipedian since you were a mere twinkle in your mother's eye. Viva la Beaver! Hazza2000 11:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

VarsityWorld AfD

I have put VarsityWorld.com up for deletion since it fails to establish notability. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 11:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting but incoherent comments

You can't seriously think that "owned by Charles" and "has goosepimples" are criteria of the same nature. A list won't be enough ; neither comments. Could there be data (number of hits, pages, subscribers ... as at dec 2004, jul 2005, dec 2005 ...) ? DLL—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.56.241.75 (talk • contribs) .

Umm... I don't understand what you mean... └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 13:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
He wants the list to show the number of members for each site as well as a description (right now, only some descriptions show number of members). This is a useful suggestion for turning this list into an almanac sort of thing. Ashibaka tock 17:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see. In which case that sounds like a nice idea. Finding verifiable up-to-date information could be tricky, however. But the list would be improved by quoting data like that, perhaps as a table. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 17:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
This is a great idea. members, hits etc in a table! -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 20:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. I had to look through all the links in the process, and I noticed QuePasa and Political Friendster aren't actually social networking sites, so I removed them. Ashibaka tock 23:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

nice one!! that is a big improvement, Ashibaka :o) └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 07:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
What about using independent counting system like www.statcounter.com? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.159.24.73 (talk • contribs) .
I might be wrong, but the impression I got form their website is that you have to add the counter to the site code yourself. and we don't have access to their website source codes? -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 16:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
The nice idea gave a nice table. Thanks to all (sorry for not signing first). --DLL 18:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

can someone add zaadz (including seperate article)?

http://www.zaadz.com/ Slark 13:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a web directory, and that doesn't seem to be quite notable enough (still in pre-beta, probably <10,000 users). Ashibaka tock 17:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

CompanyClick.com

FYI, the associated article is currently undergoing AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CompanyClick. --Alan Au 20:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Interested parties may also like to know that I've just added Snubster for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snubster too. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 21:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

PureVolume

From reading through the PureVolume it doesn't seem to me to really classify as a "social networking website", certainly not in the same way as the others on the list. Does anyone object to its removal from this list? └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 21:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

No-one raised any objections, so have now removed from this list. Feel free to discuss any objections... └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 20:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_social_networking_websites_Archive_1_6ccc.html"