Subscribe: Talk:Web feed - Revision history
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Web_feed&limit=20&action=history&feed=rss
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
Tags:
article  feed  line  links  november utc  revision  syndication  user  utc  web feed  web syndication  web  wikipedia   
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Talk:Web feed - Revision history

Talk:Web feed - Revision history



Revision history for this page on the wiki



Last Build Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2016 20:01:28 GMT

 



Silk Town Alam Sutera: /* Web feed capital W? */

Tue, 17 Nov 2015 15:08:24 GMT

Web feed capital W?

← Previous revision Revision as of 15:08, 17 November 2015
Line 67: Line 67:
   
 
==Web feed capital W?==
 
==Web feed capital W?==
Shouldn't the word "Web" start with a capital throughout the article? It does when you're talking about "the Web" in general (in Wikipedia anyway) and I don't really see a reason to just drop a cap. [[User:Retodon8|Retodon8]] 20:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
+
Shouldn't the word "http://www.apartemenalamsutera.com" start with a capital throughout the article? It does when you're talking about "the Web" in general (in Wikipedia anyway) and I don't really see a reason to just drop a cap. [[User:Retodon8|Retodon8]] 20:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
   
 
== Proposed cleanup of External Links ==
 
== Proposed cleanup of External Links ==



BattyBot: Talk page general fixes & other cleanup using AWB (9466)

Fri, 06 Sep 2013 04:22:29 GMT

Talk page general fixes & other cleanup using AWB (9466) ← Previous revision Revision as of 04:22, 6 September 2013 Line 1: Line 1:   + {{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=   {{WikiProject Podcasting|class=start}}   {{WikiProject Podcasting|class=start}}   {{WikiProject Internet|class=start}}   {{WikiProject Internet|class=start}}   {{WikiProject Journalism|class=start}}   {{WikiProject Journalism|class=start}}   + }}       ==rewrite==   ==rewrite== [...]



Piotrus at 14:02, 21 January 2013

Mon, 21 Jan 2013 14:02:22 GMT

← Previous revision Revision as of 14:02, 21 January 2013
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject Podcasting|class=}}
+
{{WikiProject Podcasting|class=start}}
  +
{{WikiProject Internet|class=start}}
  +
{{WikiProject Journalism|class=start}}
   
 
==rewrite==
 
==rewrite==



Mabdul: /* Web feed icon */ re

Wed, 11 Feb 2009 18:34:26 GMT

Web feed icon: re

← Previous revision Revision as of 18:34, 11 February 2009
Line 113: Line 113:
   
 
The [[Firefox]] page states that the logo originated there, maybe this could be included. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/62.206.21.253|62.206.21.253]] ([[User talk:62.206.21.253|talk]]) 18:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 
The [[Firefox]] page states that the logo originated there, maybe this could be included. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/62.206.21.253|62.206.21.253]] ([[User talk:62.206.21.253|talk]]) 18:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  +
:I'm planing to create a ful article only about the icon and its history. [[User:Mabdul|mabdul]] [[User talk:Mabdul|0=*]] 18:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)



SineBot: Signing comment by 62.206.21.253 - ""

Wed, 11 Feb 2009 18:22:34 GMT

Signing comment by 62.206.21.253 - ""

← Previous revision Revision as of 18:22, 11 February 2009
Line 112: Line 112:
 
== Web feed icon ==
 
== Web feed icon ==
   
The [[Firefox]] page states that the logo originated there, maybe this could be included.
+
The [[Firefox]] page states that the logo originated there, maybe this could be included. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/62.206.21.253|62.206.21.253]] ([[User talk:62.206.21.253|talk]]) 18:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)



62.206.21.253 at 18:21, 11 February 2009

Wed, 11 Feb 2009 18:21:28 GMT

← Previous revision Revision as of 18:21, 11 February 2009 Line 109: Line 109:   Even though I was exposed to multiple articles on RSS and explanations newsfeeds by collagues, I did not get the point until one showed me how he uses it. Then someone recommended this CC-licensed video. Now I really got it. I propose to add it to external links.[http://dotsub.com/films/inplainenglish/index.php RSS in plain English]. [[User:Bernd in Japan|Bernd in Japan]] 00:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)   Even though I was exposed to multiple articles on RSS and explanations newsfeeds by collagues, I did not get the point until one showed me how he uses it. Then someone recommended this CC-licensed video. Now I really got it. I propose to add it to external links.[http://dotsub.com/films/inplainenglish/index.php RSS in plain English]. [[User:Bernd in Japan|Bernd in Japan]] 00:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)   :The video is cute, but it could be more helpful to our readers to summarize the content of the video and add it to the article in text form. It is possible that others may object to adding the external link. There is also the injunction that [[Wp:not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_manual.2C_guidebook.2C_or_textbook|Wikipedia is not a how-to]]. -- [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 21:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)   :The video is cute, but it could be more helpful to our readers to summarize the content of the video and add it to the article in text form. It is possible that others may object to adding the external link. There is also the injunction that [[Wp:not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_manual.2C_guidebook.2C_or_textbook|Wikipedia is not a how-to]]. -- [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 21:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)   +   + == Web feed icon ==   +   + The [[Firefox]] page states that the logo originated there, maybe this could be included. [...]



THEN WHO WAS PHONE?: Reverted to revision 253293864 by Mabdul; unblank. (TW)

Sat, 17 Jan 2009 12:03:03 GMT

Reverted to revision 253293864 by Mabdul; unblank. (TW) ← Previous revision Revision as of 12:03, 17 January 2009 Line 1: Line 1:   + {{WikiProject Podcasting|class=}}   +   + ==rewrite==   + Much of this article is not in the encyclopedic style of the rest of Wikipedia. I suggest taking the "technical" definition and moving it to the top of the page. The rest is written in the style one would find in an email explaining things to grandma.   + [[User:67.171.43.170|67.171.43.170]] 19:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)   +   + ow do you get a web feed of wikipedia itself?   +   + Try [[Wikipedia:Syndication]]   +   + /Tina   +   + ==Proposal to Merge [[Web Syndication]] into [[Web feed]] article==   + My feeling is that both of these articles are underdeveloped and are describing the same thing. A decent solution is to merge [[web syndication]] into the [[web feed]] article. --[[User:Bhouston|Ben Houston]] 15:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)   +   + Why merge web syndication into web feed instead of the other way around? Web feed is far more popular term:   + * "web syndication" - 104,000 Google hits   + * "web feed" - 931,000 Google hits   + --[[User:Bhouston|Ben Houston]] 16:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)   +   + : I agree with Ben that merging these is a good idea. [[User:Betsythedevine|betsythedevine]] 19:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)   +   + Did ben just suggest something and then argue with himself? Does it really matter that much that they are two seperate articles? If they're linked to each other, why not keep it the way it is? If I'm blogging and I want to write syndication instead of feed, or the other way around, and then link to Wikipedia's definition of it, it's more convenient for me to have the two seperate articles at my disposal.   +   + If they are merged, I think that "Web Syndication" is a better title regardless of its popularity; it's a more accurate term. How many ways can you use the word "syndication" vs. how many ways can you use the word "feed." Besides, if it's under the "Web Syndication" title, it ought to still show up in google.   +   + --[http://friends-world.org/jdoolittle jdoolittle] 23:07, 17 February 2006 (JST)   +   + ::Hey jdoolittle. I don't think I contradicted myself -- can you clarify. Both article titles will still work, its just that web syndication will be redirected (with a notice) to the web feed article. Thus you can still link to it as "web syndication" and get the content. We will also still explain web syndication in the article and use that term where appropriate. I guess I am trying to consolidate similar topics so that effort isn't diffused between too many articles. --[[User:Bhouston|Ben Houston]] 15:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)   +   + ::::Hey Ben. I didn't mean that in a hostile way, and I can see that you weren't; I just _assumed_ that your first post indicated that you wanted the "Web Syndication" title over the "Feed" title, and then, in your second post, you clearly state your preference for the "Feed" title over "Web Syndication." I should have made that assumption.   +   + ::::I think that what you're proposing sounds reasonable, and I'd like to thank you for expalinging it further. --[http://friends-world.org/jdoolittle jdoolittle] 20:38, 20 February 2006 (JST)   +   + these two articles should be merged... (unsigned comment by [[Special:Contributions/151.193.220.27|151.193.220.27]])   [...]



62.220.33.85: ←Blanked the page

Sat, 17 Jan 2009 11:56:22 GMT

←Blanked the page ← Previous revision Revision as of 11:56, 17 January 2009 Line 1: Line 1: − {{WikiProject Podcasting|class=}}   −   − ==rewrite==   − Much of this article is not in the encyclopedic style of the rest of Wikipedia. I suggest taking the "technical" definition and moving it to the top of the page. The rest is written in the style one would find in an email explaining things to grandma.   − [[User:67.171.43.170|67.171.43.170]] 19:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)   −   − ow do you get a web feed of wikipedia itself?   −   − Try [[Wikipedia:Syndication]]   −   − /Tina   −   − ==Proposal to Merge [[Web Syndication]] into [[Web feed]] article==   − My feeling is that both of these articles are underdeveloped and are describing the same thing. A decent solution is to merge [[web syndication]] into the [[web feed]] article. --[[User:Bhouston|Ben Houston]] 15:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)   −   − Why merge web syndication into web feed instead of the other way around? Web feed is far more popular term:   − * "web syndication" - 104,000 Google hits   − * "web feed" - 931,000 Google hits   − --[[User:Bhouston|Ben Houston]] 16:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)   −   − : I agree with Ben that merging these is a good idea. [[User:Betsythedevine|betsythedevine]] 19:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)   −   − Did ben just suggest something and then argue with himself? Does it really matter that much that they are two seperate articles? If they're linked to each other, why not keep it the way it is? If I'm blogging and I want to write syndication instead of feed, or the other way around, and then link to Wikipedia's definition of it, it's more convenient for me to have the two seperate articles at my disposal.   −   − If they are merged, I think that "Web Syndication" is a better title regardless of its popularity; it's a more accurate term. How many ways can you use the word "syndication" vs. how many ways can you use the word "feed." Besides, if it's under the "Web Syndication" title, it ought to still show up in google.   −   − --[http://friends-world.org/jdoolittle jdoolittle] 23:07, 17 February 2006 (JST)   −   − ::Hey jdoolittle. I don't think I contradicted myself -- can you clarify. Both article titles will still work, its just that web syndication will be redirected (with a notice) to the web feed article. Thus you can still link to it as "web syndication" and get the content. We will also still explain web syndication in the article and use that term where appropriate. I guess I am trying to consolidate similar topics so that effort isn't diffused between too many articles. --[[User:Bhouston|Ben Houston]] 15:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)   −   − ::::Hey Ben. I didn't mean that in a hostile way, and I can see that you weren't; I just _assumed_ that your first post indicated that you wanted the "Web Syndication" title over the "Feed" title, and then, in your second post, you clearly state your preference for the "Feed" title over "Web Syndication." I should have made that assumption.   −   − ::::I think that what you're proposing sounds reasonable, and I'd like to thank you for expalinging it further. --[http://friends-world.org/jdoolittle jdoolittle] 20:38, 20 February 2006 (JST)   −   − these two articles should be merged... (unsigned comment by [[Special:Contrib[...]



62.220.33.85: /* Proposal to add link to a 4 minute video explaining feeds and RSS */

Sat, 17 Jan 2009 11:55:57 GMT

‎Proposal to add link to a 4 minute video explaining feeds and RSS ← Previous revision Revision as of 11:55, 17 January 2009 Line 104: Line 104:       I am new to the terms RSS, syndication and Web feeds. After reading the Wikipedia content on these terms, I was no more enlightened. They are full of tech jargon that assumes a high level of prior knowledge. The article referred to above by "Caesar0" and the video clip referred to below by "Bernd_in_Japan" finally turned on the light. I guess the learning I take away is to always check the discussion page if the article content is incomprehensible. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:BillgTO|BillgTO]] ([[User talk:BillgTO|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/BillgTO|contribs]]) 19:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)   I am new to the terms RSS, syndication and Web feeds. After reading the Wikipedia content on these terms, I was no more enlightened. They are full of tech jargon that assumes a high level of prior knowledge. The article referred to above by "Caesar0" and the video clip referred to below by "Bernd_in_Japan" finally turned on the light. I guess the learning I take away is to always check the discussion page if the article content is incomprehensible. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:BillgTO|BillgTO]] ([[User talk:BillgTO|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/BillgTO|contribs]]) 19:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC) −   − == Proposal to add link to a 4 minute video explaining feeds and RSS ==   −   − Even though I was exposed to multiple articles on RSS and explanations newsfeeds by collagues, I did not get the point until one showed me how he uses it. Then someone recommended this CC-licensed video. Now I really got it. I propose to add it to external links.[http://dotsub.com/films/inplainenglish/index.php RSS in plain English]. [[User:Bernd in Japan|Bernd in Japan]] 00:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)   − :The video is cute, but it could be more helpful to our readers to summarize the content of the video and add it to the article in text form. It is possible that others may object to adding the external link. There is also the injunction that [[Wp:not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_manual.2C_guidebook.2C_or_textbook|Wikipedia is not a how-to]]. -- [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 21:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)   [...]



Mabdul at 23:53, 21 November 2008

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 23:53:47 GMT

← Previous revision Revision as of 23:53, 21 November 2008
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject Podcasting|class=B}}
+
{{WikiProject Podcasting|class=}}
   
 
==rewrite==
 
==rewrite==



Mabdul: new headline, wikiproject podcasting

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 23:53:35 GMT

new headline, wikiproject podcasting ← Previous revision Revision as of 23:53, 21 November 2008 Line 1: Line 1:   + {{WikiProject Podcasting|class=B}}   +   + ==rewrite==   Much of this article is not in the encyclopedic style of the rest of Wikipedia. I suggest taking the "technical" definition and moving it to the top of the page. The rest is written in the style one would find in an email explaining things to grandma.   Much of this article is not in the encyclopedic style of the rest of Wikipedia. I suggest taking the "technical" definition and moving it to the top of the page. The rest is written in the style one would find in an email explaining things to grandma.   [[User:67.171.43.170|67.171.43.170]] 19:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)   [[User:67.171.43.170|67.171.43.170]] 19:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC) Line 9: Line 12:       ==Proposal to Merge [[Web Syndication]] into [[Web feed]] article==   ==Proposal to Merge [[Web Syndication]] into [[Web feed]] article== −     My feeling is that both of these articles are underdeveloped and are describing the same thing. A decent solution is to merge [[web syndication]] into the [[web feed]] article. --[[User:Bhouston|Ben Houston]] 15:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)   My feeling is that both of these articles are underdeveloped and are describing the same thing. A decent solution is to merge [[web syndication]] into the [[web feed]] article. --[[User:Bhouston|Ben Houston]] 15:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)     [...]



SineBot: Signing comment by BillgTO - "/* Far too severe approach towards links */"

Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:30:13 GMT

Signing comment by BillgTO - "‎Far too severe approach towards links: " ← Previous revision Revision as of 19:30, 30 September 2008 Line 101: Line 101:   :What rule do you think we should follow in picking one or two links to include when ten million such links are available? Does each person use their own judgment, or do we have a discussion first? If we have a discussion, how is it to be conducted? Does the person whose web site it is get to add the link themselves? It concerns me that you have added links to a site of Calvin van Hoek to more than one article. Generally it is much better for new editors to add article content rather than links, because it avoids becoming the center of attention for the anti-spam folks. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] 21:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)   :What rule do you think we should follow in picking one or two links to include when ten million such links are available? Does each person use their own judgment, or do we have a discussion first? If we have a discussion, how is it to be conducted? Does the person whose web site it is get to add the link themselves? It concerns me that you have added links to a site of Calvin van Hoek to more than one article. Generally it is much better for new editors to add article content rather than links, because it avoids becoming the center of attention for the anti-spam folks. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] 21:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)     − I am new to the terms RSS, syndication and Web feeds. After reading the Wikipedia content on these terms, I was no more enlightened. They are full of tech jargon that assumes a high level of prior knowledge. The article referred to above by "Caesar0" and the video clip referred to below by "Bernd_in_Japan" finally turned on the light. I guess the learning I take away is to always check the discussion page if the article content is incomprehensible. + I am new to the terms RSS, syndication and Web feeds. After reading the Wikipedia content on these terms, I was no more enlightened. They are full of tech jargon that assumes a high level of prior knowledge. The article referred to above by "Caesar0" and the video clip referred to below by "Bernd_in_Japan" finally turned on the light. I guess the learning I take away is to always check the discussion page if the article content is incomprehensible. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:BillgTO|BillgTO]] ([[User talk:BillgTO|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/BillgTO|contribs]]) 19:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)       == Proposal to add link to a 4 minute video explaining feeds and RSS ==   == Proposal to add link to a 4 minute video explaining feeds and RSS == [...]



BillgTO: /* Far too severe approach towards links */

Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:29:02 GMT

‎Far too severe approach towards links ← Previous revision Revision as of 19:29, 30 September 2008 Line 100: Line 100:   I'm not, I was referring to your reasoning, which seems to exclude the idea that even with a popular topic like this there can be merit in providing an array of links that focus on elements beyond the scope of the article. If what you're implying is that Wikipedia should only endeavour to supply some information, with the rest available via commercial search engines, then I guess we see the role of this site differently. [[User:Caesar0|Caesar0]] 16:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)   I'm not, I was referring to your reasoning, which seems to exclude the idea that even with a popular topic like this there can be merit in providing an array of links that focus on elements beyond the scope of the article. If what you're implying is that Wikipedia should only endeavour to supply some information, with the rest available via commercial search engines, then I guess we see the role of this site differently. [[User:Caesar0|Caesar0]] 16:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)   :What rule do you think we should follow in picking one or two links to include when ten million such links are available? Does each person use their own judgment, or do we have a discussion first? If we have a discussion, how is it to be conducted? Does the person whose web site it is get to add the link themselves? It concerns me that you have added links to a site of Calvin van Hoek to more than one article. Generally it is much better for new editors to add article content rather than links, because it avoids becoming the center of attention for the anti-spam folks. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] 21:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)   :What rule do you think we should follow in picking one or two links to include when ten million such links are available? Does each person use their own judgment, or do we have a discussion first? If we have a discussion, how is it to be conducted? Does the person whose web site it is get to add the link themselves? It concerns me that you have added links to a site of Calvin van Hoek to more than one article. Generally it is much better for new editors to add article content rather than links, because it avoids becoming the center of attention for the anti-spam folks. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] 21:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)   +   + I am new to the terms RSS, syndication and Web feeds. After reading the Wikipedia content on these terms, I was no more enlightened. They are full of tech jargon that assumes a high level of prior knowledge. The article referred to above by "Caesar0" and the video clip referred to below by "Bernd_in_Japan" finally turned on the light. I guess the learning I take away is to always check the discussion page if the article content is incomprehensible.       == Proposal to add link to a 4 minute video explaining feeds and RSS ==   == Proposal to add link to a 4 minute video explaining feeds and RSS == [...]



SineBot: Signing comment by Wiknerd - "/* Proposal to Merge Web Syndication into Web feed article */ reasons?"

Sun, 27 Apr 2008 17:24:41 GMT

Signing comment by Wiknerd - "‎Proposal to Merge Web Syndication into Web feed article: reasons?" ← Previous revision Revision as of 17:24, 27 April 2008 Line 47: Line 47:   [[User:Martijn Hoekstra|Martijn Hoekstra]] 08:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)   [[User:Martijn Hoekstra|Martijn Hoekstra]] 08:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)     − So much for reasoning... Well, would any of you people who are *against* a merger help us by writing (metaphorically, I mean) the difference between the two on the article itself? + So much for reasoning... Well, would any of you people who are *against* a merger help us by writing (metaphorically, I mean) the difference between the two on the article itself? —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Wiknerd|Wiknerd]] ([[User talk:Wiknerd|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Wiknerd|contribs]]) 17:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)       ==use of second person==   ==use of second person== [...]



Wiknerd: /* Proposal to Merge Web Syndication into Web feed article */ reasons?

Sun, 27 Apr 2008 17:23:36 GMT

‎Proposal to Merge Web Syndication into Web feed article: reasons? ← Previous revision Revision as of 17:23, 27 April 2008 Line 46: Line 46:   As of present the count is 2-5 *against* a merger. The tag is now 5 months old, so I think I can safely take it down....   As of present the count is 2-5 *against* a merger. The tag is now 5 months old, so I think I can safely take it down....   [[User:Martijn Hoekstra|Martijn Hoekstra]] 08:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)   [[User:Martijn Hoekstra|Martijn Hoekstra]] 08:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)   +   + So much for reasoning... Well, would any of you people who are *against* a merger help us by writing (metaphorically, I mean) the difference between the two on the article itself?       ==use of second person==   ==use of second person== [...]



EdJohnston: /* Proposal to add link to a 4 minute video explaining feeds and RSS */ Better in text form

Fri, 16 Nov 2007 21:14:39 GMT

Proposal to add link to a 4 minute video explaining feeds and RSS: Better in text form

← Previous revision Revision as of 21:14, 16 November 2007
Line 102: Line 102:
   
 
Even though I was exposed to multiple articles on RSS and explanations newsfeeds by collagues, I did not get the point until one showed me how he uses it. Then someone recommended this CC-licensed video. Now I really got it. I propose to add it to external links.[http://dotsub.com/films/inplainenglish/index.php RSS in plain English]. [[User:Bernd in Japan|Bernd in Japan]] 00:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 
Even though I was exposed to multiple articles on RSS and explanations newsfeeds by collagues, I did not get the point until one showed me how he uses it. Then someone recommended this CC-licensed video. Now I really got it. I propose to add it to external links.[http://dotsub.com/films/inplainenglish/index.php RSS in plain English]. [[User:Bernd in Japan|Bernd in Japan]] 00:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  +
:The video is cute, but it could be more helpful to our readers to summarize the content of the video and add it to the article in text form. It is possible that others may object to adding the external link. There is also the injunction that [[Wp:not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_manual.2C_guidebook.2C_or_textbook|Wikipedia is not a how-to]]. -- [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 21:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)



Bernd in Japan: /* Proposal to add link to a 4 minute video explaining feeds and RSS */ new section

Thu, 15 Nov 2007 00:10:45 GMT

‎Proposal to add link to a 4 minute video explaining feeds and RSS: new section ← Previous revision Revision as of 00:10, 15 November 2007 Line 98: Line 98:   I'm not, I was referring to your reasoning, which seems to exclude the idea that even with a popular topic like this there can be merit in providing an array of links that focus on elements beyond the scope of the article. If what you're implying is that Wikipedia should only endeavour to supply some information, with the rest available via commercial search engines, then I guess we see the role of this site differently. [[User:Caesar0|Caesar0]] 16:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)   I'm not, I was referring to your reasoning, which seems to exclude the idea that even with a popular topic like this there can be merit in providing an array of links that focus on elements beyond the scope of the article. If what you're implying is that Wikipedia should only endeavour to supply some information, with the rest available via commercial search engines, then I guess we see the role of this site differently. [[User:Caesar0|Caesar0]] 16:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)   :What rule do you think we should follow in picking one or two links to include when ten million such links are available? Does each person use their own judgment, or do we have a discussion first? If we have a discussion, how is it to be conducted? Does the person whose web site it is get to add the link themselves? It concerns me that you have added links to a site of Calvin van Hoek to more than one article. Generally it is much better for new editors to add article content rather than links, because it avoids becoming the center of attention for the anti-spam folks. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] 21:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)   :What rule do you think we should follow in picking one or two links to include when ten million such links are available? Does each person use their own judgment, or do we have a discussion first? If we have a discussion, how is it to be conducted? Does the person whose web site it is get to add the link themselves? It concerns me that you have added links to a site of Calvin van Hoek to more than one article. Generally it is much better for new editors to add article content rather than links, because it avoids becoming the center of attention for the anti-spam folks. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] 21:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)   +   + == Proposal to add link to a 4 minute video explaining feeds and RSS ==   +   + Even though I was exposed to multiple articles on RSS and explanations newsfeeds by collagues, I did not get the point until one showed me how he uses it. Then someone recommended this CC-licensed video. Now I really got it. I propose to add it to external links.[http://dotsub.com/films/inplainenglish/index.php RSS in plain English]. [[User:Bernd in Japan|Bernd in Japan]] 00:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC) [...]



EdJohnston: /* Far too severe approach towards links */ Yes, severe or not, that is Wikipedia's current guideline

Sun, 11 Nov 2007 21:51:49 GMT

‎Far too severe approach towards links: Yes, severe or not, that is Wikipedia's current guideline ← Previous revision Revision as of 21:51, 11 November 2007 Line 97: Line 97:       I'm not, I was referring to your reasoning, which seems to exclude the idea that even with a popular topic like this there can be merit in providing an array of links that focus on elements beyond the scope of the article. If what you're implying is that Wikipedia should only endeavour to supply some information, with the rest available via commercial search engines, then I guess we see the role of this site differently. [[User:Caesar0|Caesar0]] 16:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)   I'm not, I was referring to your reasoning, which seems to exclude the idea that even with a popular topic like this there can be merit in providing an array of links that focus on elements beyond the scope of the article. If what you're implying is that Wikipedia should only endeavour to supply some information, with the rest available via commercial search engines, then I guess we see the role of this site differently. [[User:Caesar0|Caesar0]] 16:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)   + :What rule do you think we should follow in picking one or two links to include when ten million such links are available? Does each person use their own judgment, or do we have a discussion first? If we have a discussion, how is it to be conducted? Does the person whose web site it is get to add the link themselves? It concerns me that you have added links to a site of Calvin van Hoek to more than one article. Generally it is much better for new editors to add article content rather than links, because it avoids becoming the center of attention for the anti-spam folks. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] 21:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC) [...]



Caesar0~enwiki: /* Far too severe approach towards links */

Sun, 11 Nov 2007 16:05:12 GMT

‎Far too severe approach towards links ← Previous revision Revision as of 16:05, 11 November 2007 Line 95: Line 95:   [[User:Caesar0|Caesar0]] 20:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)   [[User:Caesar0|Caesar0]] 20:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)   :If you disagree with Wikipedia's current policy on external links, you are welcome to start a discussion at [[Wikipedia_talk:External links]]. RSS and Web Feeds are both topics where there are literally millions of Google hits. It is hard to see external links as being a scarce and valuable resource in that context. If we were talking about a rare species of butterfly, then helpful links might be genuinely hard to find. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] 23:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)   :If you disagree with Wikipedia's current policy on external links, you are welcome to start a discussion at [[Wikipedia_talk:External links]]. RSS and Web Feeds are both topics where there are literally millions of Google hits. It is hard to see external links as being a scarce and valuable resource in that context. If we were talking about a rare species of butterfly, then helpful links might be genuinely hard to find. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] 23:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)   +   + I'm not, I was referring to your reasoning, which seems to exclude the idea that even with a popular topic like this there can be merit in providing an array of links that focus on elements beyond the scope of the article. If what you're implying is that Wikipedia should only endeavour to supply some information, with the rest available via commercial search engines, then I guess we see the role of this site differently. [[User:Caesar0|Caesar0]] 16:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC) [...]



EdJohnston: /* Far too severe approach towards links */ Discussions of external link philosophy should be held over at WT:EL

Sat, 10 Nov 2007 23:24:01 GMT

Far too severe approach towards links: Discussions of external link philosophy should be held over at WT:EL

← Previous revision Revision as of 23:24, 10 November 2007
Line 94: Line 94:
   
 
[[User:Caesar0|Caesar0]] 20:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 
[[User:Caesar0|Caesar0]] 20:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  +
:If you disagree with Wikipedia's current policy on external links, you are welcome to start a discussion at [[Wikipedia_talk:External links]]. RSS and Web Feeds are both topics where there are literally millions of Google hits. It is hard to see external links as being a scarce and valuable resource in that context. If we were talking about a rare species of butterfly, then helpful links might be genuinely hard to find. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] 23:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)