Subscribe: Talk:Web feed - Revision history
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Web_feed&limit=500&action=history&feed=rss
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
Tags:
article  feed article  feed  line  links  revision  syndication web  syndication  user  utc  web feed  web syndication  web 
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: Sun, 04 Dec 2016 00:16:21 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)



Caesar0~enwiki: /* External Link - A well written article */

Sat, 10 Nov 2007 20:47:06 GMT

‎External Link - A well written article ← Previous revision Revision as of 20:47, 10 November 2007 Line 82: Line 82:   :#Beginner presentations of material usually cover the same ground that our articles already cover.   :#Beginner presentations of material usually cover the same ground that our articles already cover.   :If you feel that Calvin van Hoek's exposition is superior to ours, consider improving the existing text of our article. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] 18:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)   :If you feel that Calvin van Hoek's exposition is superior to ours, consider improving the existing text of our article. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] 18:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)   +   + ==== Far too severe approach towards links ====   +   + That seems a bit severe. Following that example there would be no external links for any articles because they'd either be assumed irrelevant because the info can be added to the article (but isn't), or because there's assumptions made about the longevity or intent of the website. Doesn't it make sense to treat Wikipedia article links the same way other sites do, namely to extend the impact of the original article? You seem to be arguing to make Wikipedia completely self-contained, which is unrealistic.   +   + It's laudable to monitor external links for spam and for irrelevant content, but your second claim basically says: if the link is any good, then update the Wikipedia article. That's like saying: don't bother letting people find information on [[Richard Dawkins]]' recent book [[The God Delusion]], if there's anything relevant in it add it to the [[Atheism]] article. It totally misses the point of the potential for rich content, and this surely diminishes Wikipedia's role as a great starting point for research. In that scenario it would be useful to link to sites that broaden the appeal of the article, and help give interested readers a chance to find out more information beyond the scope of whatever they read on here. This is especially relevant for opinion-based articles, which would likely fall beyond the scope of Wikipedia.   +   + In other words, your second point is based squarely on an incorrect assumption: that a single article on this site is the best way to 'capture' a topic. In my experience Wikipedia-type articles are good for 'fact' based articles, but less so for opinion. Are you really arguing that we should make a topic less useful because someone might, at some future date, add to the articles on here?   +   + I'm afraid this is a little [[myopic]] for my tastes. But fine, I'll not add the link. Thanks for taking the time to check and update the discussion.   +   + [[User:Caesar0|Caesar0]] 20:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC) [...]



EdJohnston: /* External Link - A well written article */ Don't agree this this EL is needed

Sat, 10 Nov 2007 18:59:43 GMT

‎External Link - A well written article: Don't agree this this EL is needed ← Previous revision Revision as of 18:59, 10 November 2007 Line 78: Line 78:       [[User:Caesar0|Caesar0]] 17:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)   [[User:Caesar0|Caesar0]] 17:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)   + :The same problem is seen here as with the other external links previously removed (see comments above):   + :#Self-published personal sites are normally to be avoided, per [[WP:EL]]   + :#Beginner presentations of material usually cover the same ground that our articles already cover.   + :If you feel that Calvin van Hoek's exposition is superior to ours, consider improving the existing text of our article. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] 18:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC) [...]



Caesar0~enwiki: Potential external link to consider

Sat, 10 Nov 2007 17:51:09 GMT

Potential external link to consider ← Previous revision Revision as of 17:51, 10 November 2007 Line 70: Line 70:   :#The linked sites usually say nothing beyond what the article already says.   :#The linked sites usually say nothing beyond what the article already says.   :Please discuss here any specific links that you believe should be kept. Thanks, [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] 21:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)   :Please discuss here any specific links that you believe should be kept. Thanks, [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] 21:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)   +   + === External Link - A well written article ===   +   + Found an interesting article that I think would add to the topic. I had originally thought it might be suitable on the [[RSS (file format)]] page, but it seems more useful here. It's a beginners guide, and is well written and geared towards a non-technical audience. It's not a how-to for producing feeds, but focuses on how to use RSS yourself, and seems a useful addition to the topic etc.   +   + * [http://www.calvinvanhoek.com/articles/2007/05/rss-guide/ A Beginners Guide to Using RSS]   +   + [[User:Caesar0|Caesar0]] 17:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC) [...]



EdJohnston: /* Proposed cleanup of External Links */ Rationale for cleaning up External Links

Sun, 21 Oct 2007 21:10:30 GMT

‎Proposed cleanup of External Links: Rationale for cleaning up External Links ← Previous revision Revision as of 21:10, 21 October 2007 Line 64: Line 64:       Cleanup is needed. I propose to remove everything in External Links that is not a mainstream source of information. The BBC stuff would be kept and the work of well-known people, like Mark Pilgrim. I would look at everything before deleting it. Please let me know if you object to this plan. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] 03:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)   Cleanup is needed. I propose to remove everything in External Links that is not a mainstream source of information. The BBC stuff would be kept and the work of well-known people, like Mark Pilgrim. I would look at everything before deleting it. Please let me know if you object to this plan. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] 03:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)   + :Since no-one objected, I went ahead and did the cleanup of external links. The two that remain, one by [[Mark Pilgrim]] and the other by [[Dave Shea]], are to the web sites of notable figures who have their own Wikipedia articles. I mentioned above that BBC would be kept, but then I noticed that the hidden section-header comment in External Links said not to link to any feed directories, so that ruled out the BBC link as well.   +   + :The main problem with the links that I removed was:   + :#The linked sites were mostly self-published or blogs, which are 'normally to be avoided' per [[WP:EL]].   + :#The linked sites usually say nothing beyond what the article already says.   + :Please discuss here any specific links that you believe should be kept. Thanks, [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] 21:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC) [...]



EdJohnston: Proposed cleanup of External Links

Mon, 20 Aug 2007 03:47:53 GMT

Proposed cleanup of External Links ← Previous revision Revision as of 03:47, 20 August 2007 Line 60: Line 60:   ==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 "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)   +   + == Proposed cleanup of External Links ==   +   + Cleanup is needed. I propose to remove everything in External Links that is not a mainstream source of information. The BBC stuff would be kept and the work of well-known people, like Mark Pilgrim. I would look at everything before deleting it. Please let me know if you object to this plan. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] 03:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC) [...]



Retodon8: /* Web feed capital W? */

Mon, 16 Jul 2007 20:09:39 GMT

Web feed capital W?

← Previous revision Revision as of 20:09, 16 July 2007
Line 57: Line 57:
 
[[User:Fholson|Fholson]] 00:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC) BTW I'm not a big contributor to wikis either - is it customary to add things to the bottom of Talk pages?
 
[[User:Fholson|Fholson]] 00:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC) BTW I'm not a big contributor to wikis either - is it customary to add things to the bottom of Talk pages?
 
If not how do you
 
If not how do you
  +
  +
==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)



Fholson at 00:47, 14 February 2007

Wed, 14 Feb 2007 00:47:04 GMT

← Previous revision Revision as of 00:47, 14 February 2007 Line 52: Line 52:   -bizznot   -bizznot   :For my money, no. It may offend traditional stylists, but Wikipedia doesn't pretend to be traditional in any other way, so I don't see why it should be traditional in this way without a good reason. In terms of being a "how to" article (and no-one I know says an encyclopaedia can't be (partly) a "how to" guide, the second person singular is the friendliest and most intuitive voice. When reading the article at first, I confess the second person voicing jarred, but then I thought, "hey, I like this". In terms of telling me what I wanted to know about RSS (I knew nothing), the use of second person was really effective. [[User:ElectricRay|ElectricRay]] 09:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)   :For my money, no. It may offend traditional stylists, but Wikipedia doesn't pretend to be traditional in any other way, so I don't see why it should be traditional in this way without a good reason. In terms of being a "how to" article (and no-one I know says an encyclopaedia can't be (partly) a "how to" guide, the second person singular is the friendliest and most intuitive voice. When reading the article at first, I confess the second person voicing jarred, but then I thought, "hey, I like this". In terms of telling me what I wanted to know about RSS (I knew nothing), the use of second person was really effective. [[User:ElectricRay|ElectricRay]] 09:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)   +   + ==Many to many ? ==   + I have no (very little) direct knowledge of Web Feeds etc. I manage mailing lists which they have many short comings do work for many people. (Any idea relative useage??) I noted the "benefits" on this page. But my question is to what degree are Web Feeds capable of being used by modestly savvy folks for many to many discussions?   + [[User:Fholson|Fholson]] 00:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC) BTW I'm not a big contributor to wikis either - is it customary to add things to the bottom of Talk pages?   + If not how do you [...]



67.171.43.170 at 19:33, 16 December 2006

Sat, 16 Dec 2006 19:33:50 GMT

← Previous revision Revision as of 19:33, 16 December 2006
Line 1: Line 1:
  +
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?
 
ow do you get a web feed of wikipedia itself?
   



ElectricRay: /* use of second person*/

Wed, 15 Nov 2006 09:14:39 GMT

‎use of second person ← Previous revision Revision as of 09:14, 15 November 2006 Line 44: Line 44:   [[User:Martijn Hoekstra|Martijn Hoekstra]] 08:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)   [[User:Martijn Hoekstra|Martijn Hoekstra]] 08:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)       + ==use of second person==   Shouldn't the "how to use it" section be less second person and more third?   Shouldn't the "how to use it" section be less second person and more third?       -bizznot   -bizznot   + :For my money, no. It may offend traditional stylists, but Wikipedia doesn't pretend to be traditional in any other way, so I don't see why it should be traditional in this way without a good reason. In terms of being a "how to" article (and no-one I know says an encyclopaedia can't be (partly) a "how to" guide, the second person singular is the friendliest and most intuitive voice. When reading the article at first, I confess the second person voicing jarred, but then I thought, "hey, I like this". In terms of telling me what I wanted to know about RSS (I knew nothing), the use of second person was really effective. [[User:ElectricRay|ElectricRay]] 09:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC) [...]



69.39.17.119 at 20:04, 17 September 2006

Sun, 17 Sep 2006 20:04:18 GMT

← Previous revision Revision as of 20:04, 17 September 2006 Line 43: Line 43:   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)   +   + Shouldn't the "how to use it" section be less second person and more third?   +   + -bizznot [...]



82.207.117.121 at 20:25, 2 September 2006

Sat, 02 Sep 2006 20:25:50 GMT

← Previous revision Revision as of 20:25, 2 September 2006 Line 41: Line 41:   I *OPPOSE* to a merge for reasons stated above. [[User:Martijn Hoekstra|Martijn Hoekstra]] 08:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)   I *OPPOSE* to a merge for reasons stated above. [[User:Martijn Hoekstra|Martijn Hoekstra]] 08:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)     − 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) [...]



24.225.61.176 at 05:42, 2 September 2006

Sat, 02 Sep 2006 05:42:39 GMT

← Previous revision Revision as of 05:42, 2 September 2006
Line 1: Line 1:
How do you get a web feed of wikipedia itself?
+
ow do you get a web feed of wikipedia itself?
   
 
Try [[Wikipedia:Syndication]]
 
Try [[Wikipedia:Syndication]]



Martijn Hoekstra: /* Proposal to Merge Web Syndication into Web feed article */

Mon, 19 Jun 2006 08:02:13 GMT

‎Proposal to Merge Web Syndication into Web feed article ← Previous revision Revision as of 08:02, 19 June 2006 Line 37: Line 37:       These two articles should NOT BE MERGED because they do not describe the same exact concept. Web syndication emcompasses the concept of Web feed.   These two articles should NOT BE MERGED because they do not describe the same exact concept. Web syndication emcompasses the concept of Web feed.   +   +   + I *OPPOSE* to a merge for reasons stated above. [[User:Martijn Hoekstra|Martijn Hoekstra]] 08:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)   +   + 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) [...]



Drmoz: /* Proposal to Merge Web Syndication into Web feed article */

Sat, 10 Jun 2006 11:57:20 GMT

‎Proposal to Merge Web Syndication into Web feed article ← Previous revision Revision as of 11:57, 10 June 2006 Line 35: Line 35:       These two articles should definitely NOT BE MERGED, there are tons of cases where web content is syndicated but no feeds exist. The goal here should not be to force people into reconsidering what syndication is, or what it is called, based on the convenience of Wikipedia authors. And for the record, Syndication is clearly the parent topic and Feed the child, so if they're merged, Syndication should be the ultimate destination with a "section" on Feeds.--Concerned Citizen April 28, 2006   These two articles should definitely NOT BE MERGED, there are tons of cases where web content is syndicated but no feeds exist. The goal here should not be to force people into reconsidering what syndication is, or what it is called, based on the convenience of Wikipedia authors. And for the record, Syndication is clearly the parent topic and Feed the child, so if they're merged, Syndication should be the ultimate destination with a "section" on Feeds.--Concerned Citizen April 28, 2006   +   + These two articles should NOT BE MERGED because they do not describe the same exact concept. Web syndication emcompasses the concept of Web feed. [...]



64.115.193.186: /* Proposal to Merge Web Syndication into Web feed article */

Fri, 28 Apr 2006 16:23:20 GMT

‎Proposal to Merge Web Syndication into Web feed article ← Previous revision Revision as of 16:23, 28 April 2006 Line 33: Line 33:       ::Oreilly sells a .pdf called "What Are Syndication Feeds?" by Shelley Powers. I don't know if that is the "official" term or not but it presents a compromise. The term "feed" refers to the way in which the information is distributed. Syndication refers to its format. You can have live news feeds on the web; live radio feeds on the web. Would you consider them to be "web feeds?" Web syndication could refer to any blog or news site. "Syndication Feed" refers specifically to reverse chronological entries that are distributed as feeds.--[[User:jumpfightgo|Blaise Freeman]] March 6, 2006   ::Oreilly sells a .pdf called "What Are Syndication Feeds?" by Shelley Powers. I don't know if that is the "official" term or not but it presents a compromise. The term "feed" refers to the way in which the information is distributed. Syndication refers to its format. You can have live news feeds on the web; live radio feeds on the web. Would you consider them to be "web feeds?" Web syndication could refer to any blog or news site. "Syndication Feed" refers specifically to reverse chronological entries that are distributed as feeds.--[[User:jumpfightgo|Blaise Freeman]] March 6, 2006   +   + These two articles should definitely NOT BE MERGED, there are tons of cases where web content is syndicated but no feeds exist. The goal here should not be to force people into reconsidering what syndication is, or what it is called, based on the convenience of Wikipedia authors. And for the record, Syndication is clearly the parent topic and Feed the child, so if they're merged, Syndication should be the ultimate destination with a "section" on Feeds.--Concerned Citizen April 28, 2006 [...]



Jumpfightgo: /* Proposal to Merge Web Syndication into Web feed article */

Thu, 06 Apr 2006 23:47:23 GMT

‎Proposal to Merge Web Syndication into Web feed article ← Previous revision Revision as of 23:47, 6 April 2006 Line 32: Line 32:   For what it's worth, I kind of disagree. As I've seen the terminology, ''feed'' (ie, the RSS file or whatnot) is what the web server offers; ''syndication'' is the act of offering the feed for users. At least that's how I've heard it most often. So I think it should be merged the other way around! --''[[User:Wwwwolf|wwwwolf]]'' ([[User talk:Wwwwolf|barks]]/[[Special:Contributions/Wwwwolf|growls]]) 13:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)   For what it's worth, I kind of disagree. As I've seen the terminology, ''feed'' (ie, the RSS file or whatnot) is what the web server offers; ''syndication'' is the act of offering the feed for users. At least that's how I've heard it most often. So I think it should be merged the other way around! --''[[User:Wwwwolf|wwwwolf]]'' ([[User talk:Wwwwolf|barks]]/[[Special:Contributions/Wwwwolf|growls]]) 13:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)     − ::Oreilly sells a .pdf called "What Are Syndication Feeds?" by Shelley Powers. I don't know if that is the "official" term or not but it presents a compromise. The term "feed" refers to the way in which the information is distributed. Syndication refers to its format. You can have live news feeds on the web; live radio feeds on the web. Would you consider them to be "web feeds?" Web syndication could refer to any blog or news site. "Syndication Feed" refers specifically to reverse chronological entries that are distributed as feeds.--[[User:jumpfightgo|Blaise Freeman]] March 6, 2006 (UTC) + ::Oreilly sells a .pdf called "What Are Syndication Feeds?" by Shelley Powers. I don't know if that is the "official" term or not but it presents a compromise. The term "feed" refers to the way in which the information is distributed. Syndication refers to its format. You can have live news feeds on the web; live radio feeds on the web. Would you consider them to be "web feeds?" Web syndication could refer to any blog or news site. "Syndication Feed" refers specifically to reverse chronological entries that are distributed as feeds.--[[User:jumpfightgo|Blaise Freeman]] March 6, 2006 [...]



Jumpfightgo: /* Proposal to Merge Web Syndication into Web feed article */

Thu, 06 Apr 2006 23:46:26 GMT

‎Proposal to Merge Web Syndication into Web feed article ← Previous revision Revision as of 23:46, 6 April 2006 Line 32: Line 32:   For what it's worth, I kind of disagree. As I've seen the terminology, ''feed'' (ie, the RSS file or whatnot) is what the web server offers; ''syndication'' is the act of offering the feed for users. At least that's how I've heard it most often. So I think it should be merged the other way around! --''[[User:Wwwwolf|wwwwolf]]'' ([[User talk:Wwwwolf|barks]]/[[Special:Contributions/Wwwwolf|growls]]) 13:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)   For what it's worth, I kind of disagree. As I've seen the terminology, ''feed'' (ie, the RSS file or whatnot) is what the web server offers; ''syndication'' is the act of offering the feed for users. At least that's how I've heard it most often. So I think it should be merged the other way around! --''[[User:Wwwwolf|wwwwolf]]'' ([[User talk:Wwwwolf|barks]]/[[Special:Contributions/Wwwwolf|growls]]) 13:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)     − ::Oreilly sells a .pdf called "What Are Syndication Feeds?" by Shelley Powers. I don't know if that is the "official" term or not but it presents a compromise. The term "feed" refers to the way in which the information is distributed. Syndication refers to its format. You can have live news feeds on the web; live radio feeds on the web. Would you consider them to be "web feeds?" Web syndication could refer to any blog or news site. "Syndication Feed" refers specifically to reverse chronological entries that are distributed as feeds. + ::Oreilly sells a .pdf called "What Are Syndication Feeds?" by Shelley Powers. I don't know if that is the "official" term or not but it presents a compromise. The term "feed" refers to the way in which the information is distributed. Syndication refers to its format. You can have live news feeds on the web; live radio feeds on the web. Would you consider them to be "web feeds?" Web syndication could refer to any blog or news site. "Syndication Feed" refers specifically to reverse chronological entries that are distributed as feeds.--[[User:jumpfightgo|Blaise Freeman]] March 6, 2006 (UTC) [...]



Jumpfightgo: /* Proposal to Merge Web Syndication into Web feed article */

Thu, 06 Apr 2006 23:45:21 GMT

‎Proposal to Merge Web Syndication into Web feed article ← Previous revision Revision as of 23:45, 6 April 2006 Line 31: Line 31:       For what it's worth, I kind of disagree. As I've seen the terminology, ''feed'' (ie, the RSS file or whatnot) is what the web server offers; ''syndication'' is the act of offering the feed for users. At least that's how I've heard it most often. So I think it should be merged the other way around! --''[[User:Wwwwolf|wwwwolf]]'' ([[User talk:Wwwwolf|barks]]/[[Special:Contributions/Wwwwolf|growls]]) 13:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)   For what it's worth, I kind of disagree. As I've seen the terminology, ''feed'' (ie, the RSS file or whatnot) is what the web server offers; ''syndication'' is the act of offering the feed for users. At least that's how I've heard it most often. So I think it should be merged the other way around! --''[[User:Wwwwolf|wwwwolf]]'' ([[User talk:Wwwwolf|barks]]/[[Special:Contributions/Wwwwolf|growls]]) 13:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)   +   + ::Oreilly sells a .pdf called "What Are Syndication Feeds?" by Shelley Powers. I don't know if that is the "official" term or not but it presents a compromise. The term "feed" refers to the way in which the information is distributed. Syndication refers to its format. You can have live news feeds on the web; live radio feeds on the web. Would you consider them to be "web feeds?" Web syndication could refer to any blog or news site. "Syndication Feed" refers specifically to reverse chronological entries that are distributed as feeds. [...]



Wwwwolf: /* Proposal to Merge Web Syndication into Web feed article */

Wed, 29 Mar 2006 13:24:05 GMT

‎Proposal to Merge Web Syndication into Web feed article ← Previous revision Revision as of 13:24, 29 March 2006 Line 30: Line 30:   these two articles should be merged... (unsigned comment by [[Special:Contributions/151.193.220.27|151.193.220.27]])   these two articles should be merged... (unsigned comment by [[Special:Contributions/151.193.220.27|151.193.220.27]])     − : For what it's worth, I kind of disagree. As I've seen the terminology, ''feed'' (ie, the RSS file or whatnot) is what the web server offers; ''syndication'' is the act of offering the feed for users. At least that's how I've heard it most often. So I think it should be merged the other way around! --''[[User:Wwwwolf|wwwwolf]]'' ([[User talk:Wwwwolf|barks]]/[[Special:Contributions/Wwwwolf|growls]]) 13:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC) + For what it's worth, I kind of disagree. As I've seen the terminology, ''feed'' (ie, the RSS file or whatnot) is what the web server offers; ''syndication'' is the act of offering the feed for users. At least that's how I've heard it most often. So I think it should be merged the other way around! --''[[User:Wwwwolf|wwwwolf]]'' ([[User talk:Wwwwolf|barks]]/[[Special:Contributions/Wwwwolf|growls]]) 13:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC) [...]



Wwwwolf: /* Proposal to Merge Web Syndication into Web feed article */

Wed, 29 Mar 2006 13:23:18 GMT

‎Proposal to Merge Web Syndication into Web feed article ← Previous revision Revision as of 13:23, 29 March 2006 Line 29: Line 29:       these two articles should be merged... (unsigned comment by [[Special:Contributions/151.193.220.27|151.193.220.27]])   these two articles should be merged... (unsigned comment by [[Special:Contributions/151.193.220.27|151.193.220.27]])   +   + : For what it's worth, I kind of disagree. As I've seen the terminology, ''feed'' (ie, the RSS file or whatnot) is what the web server offers; ''syndication'' is the act of offering the feed for users. At least that's how I've heard it most often. So I think it should be merged the other way around! --''[[User:Wwwwolf|wwwwolf]]'' ([[User talk:Wwwwolf|barks]]/[[Special:Contributions/Wwwwolf|growls]]) 13:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC) [...]



Deodar~enwiki: /* Proposal to Merge Web Syndication into Web feed article */

Tue, 07 Mar 2006 15:11:45 GMT

‎Proposal to Merge Web Syndication into Web feed article ← Previous revision Revision as of 15:11, 7 March 2006 Line 28: Line 28:   ::::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)   ::::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]]) − these two articles should be merged...   [...]



151.193.220.27: /* Proposal to Merge Web Syndication into Web feed article */

Tue, 07 Mar 2006 13:33:59 GMT

‎Proposal to Merge Web Syndication into Web feed article ← Previous revision Revision as of 13:33, 7 March 2006 Line 27: Line 27:       ::::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)   ::::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... [...]



220.46.238.131: /* Proposal to Merge Web Syndication into Web feed article */

Mon, 20 Feb 2006 11:40:12 GMT

‎Proposal to Merge Web Syndication into Web feed article ← Previous revision Revision as of 11:40, 20 February 2006 Line 26: Line 26:   ::::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.   ::::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) + ::::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) [...]



220.46.238.131: /* Proposal to Merge Web Syndication into Web feed article */

Mon, 20 Feb 2006 11:39:41 GMT

‎Proposal to Merge Web Syndication into Web feed article ← Previous revision Revision as of 11:39, 20 February 2006 Line 20: Line 20:   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.   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) + --[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 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) [...]



Deodar~enwiki: /* Proposal to Merge Web Syndication into Web feed article */ minor formatting fix

Fri, 17 Feb 2006 15:46:52 GMT

‎Proposal to Merge Web Syndication into Web feed article: minor formatting fix ← Previous revision Revision as of 15:46, 17 February 2006 Line 10: Line 10:       Why merge web syndication into web feed instead of the other way around? Web feed is far more popular term:   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 syndication" - 104,000 Google hits − "web feed" - 931,000 Google hits + * "web feed" - 931,000 Google hits   --[[User:Bhouston|Ben Houston]] 16:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)   --[[User:Bhouston|Ben Houston]] 16:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)     [...]



Deodar~enwiki: /* Proposal to Merge Web Syndication into Web feed article */ my 2 cents with regards to jdoolittle's comment.

Fri, 17 Feb 2006 15:46:14 GMT

‎Proposal to Merge Web Syndication into Web feed article: my 2 cents with regards to jdoolittle's comment. ← Previous revision Revision as of 15:46, 17 February 2006 Line 21: Line 21:       -[http://friends-world.org/jdoolittle jdoolittle] 23:07, 17 February 2006 (JST)   -[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) [...]



220.46.238.131: /* Proposal to Merge Web Syndication into Web feed article */

Fri, 17 Feb 2006 14:10:43 GMT

‎Proposal to Merge Web Syndication into Web feed article ← Previous revision Revision as of 14:10, 17 February 2006 Line 16: Line 16:   : I agree with Ben that merging these is a good idea. [[User:Betsythedevine|betsythedevine]] 19:05, 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, it's more convenient for me to have the two seperate pages at my disposal. + 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.   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. [...]



220.46.238.131: /* Proposal to Merge Web Syndication into Web feed article */

Fri, 17 Feb 2006 14:09:37 GMT

‎Proposal to Merge Web Syndication into Web feed article ← Previous revision Revision as of 14:09, 17 February 2006 Line 15: Line 15:       : I agree with Ben that merging these is a good idea. [[User:Betsythedevine|betsythedevine]] 19:05, 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, it's more convenient for me to have the two seperate pages 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) [...]



Betsythedevine: /* Proposal to Merge Web Syndication into Web feed article */

Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:05:34 GMT

‎Proposal to Merge Web Syndication into Web feed article ← Previous revision Revision as of 19:05, 16 February 2006 Line 13: Line 13:   "web feed" - 931,000 Google hits   "web feed" - 931,000 Google hits   --[[User:Bhouston|Ben Houston]] 16:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)   --[[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) [...]



Deodar~enwiki: /* Proposal to Merge Web Syndication into Web feed article */ added google hits for both terms to support merge direction.

Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:07:45 GMT

‎Proposal to Merge Web Syndication into Web feed article: added google hits for both terms to support merge direction. ← Previous revision Revision as of 16:07, 16 February 2006 Line 8: Line 8:       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)   +   + 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) [...]