Talk:Internet forum/Archive 1

Notable communities

Re: "Notable communities", the main problem with this is that it advertises a few sites at the expense of other notable communities. We could easily get into a situation where everyone thinks their community is "notable" and adds it here. Let's not get on this slippery slope. If one wants to create a "List of Internet forums" (or equivalent) article, create that (and risk VfD), but don't put it here.

Further, the "Notable communties" text blatantly advertises for big-boards.com, which really shouldn't be referred to here as this site doesn't as of yet have encyclopedic relevance.

From Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, the "Notable communities" text violates #18 of "What Wikipedia entries are not," that is "A vehicle for advertising and self-promotion." -- Stevietheman 14:57, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ah, got it. Thanks for your explanation. -- 67.161.57.4

Article Name

For an article named "Internet forum", it doesn't make sense to me that it focuses on just web-based software. Discussion forums existed on the Internet before the Web, and they will after the Web too. If this article needs expansion, it sure doesn't need a list of obscure web packages. It needs historical context. --Amillar 18:23, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Should there be an attempt of getting input from editors who work on relevant articles or would it be better to move this article to Web forum (has no history except for the redirect to this article)? zerofoks 08:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

See #Page name. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Right, sorry, that eluded me. Still seems like we have a naming problem. zerofoks 08:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I was going to make the same complaint. I have published tens of thousands of articles on Usenet, probably more than I've posted on Web forums. When I put in my user page that I had published on several Internet forums, I intended to reflect more than just Web forums. Pooua 01:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

What should be done? Move this article to Web forum and dicuss in general in this article or fix this article to be more inclusive? I had hoped to get some input on this before doing it myself. kotepho 02:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Links to the forum software listed

I noticed that, at some point, someone added a long list of software. How are those in the list chosen? I write forum software (Simple Machines Forum from that list) and I've never even heard of a few of the ones on that list.

You can find a listing of most every internet forum software available here: The Forum Insider Directory

However, that is indeed a long list, and many of those listed are not very popular nor very active. I also noticed, surprisingly, that while software I had never heard of did show on the list, other software such as YaBB (which sees significantly more widespread usage) did not.

If so many are to be added, perhaps a list format more like the PHP page's library list could be used.

-Unknown 06:25, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

I concur that the list needs to only include only notable forum products. One way to test notability (beyond looking at facts like widespread usage) is whether they have articles in the Wikipedia. Many of the current red links may not ever have sustained articles for them, due to their lack of notability. I've also noted in my personal talk that I've also never heard of some of these products.

I agree that YaBB should be added to the list, and I don't object to a reformatting that you describe. I also wouldn't mind to see some defense of the entries that are currently listed.

At any rate, after a while, we should remove the links that don't get articles, as if they're notable, they should have an article. -- Stevietheman 16:47, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Looks like Dengar (JeffG?) decided to add a page for YaBB. I also updated it with the tabular format you said you were not against. As they're removed, it can be removed....

As for Simple Machines Forum, I don't believe I could write such a page without being biased... -Unknown 01:20, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

Stevietheman, could you tell me which ones you have and have not heard of? Andros 1337 21:26, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What if....?

How would it be if I added links to some of the software currently not on wikipedia? For example:

aXentForum [1] BlazeBoard [2] Burning Board [3] CMFBoard FuseTalk [4] FUDforum Ideal Bulletin Board Invision Power Board Ikonboard [5] Jive Forums

MercuryBoard [6] MegaBBS Open Bulletin Board [7] phpBB Phorum [8] PunBB PBLang Simple Machines Forum [9] Snitz Forums 2000

ThWboard UBB.classic UBB.threads UBB.x (Eve) [10] UseBB vBulletin XMB [11] YaBB Zorum

I didn't do all of them, but that's the idea...

-Unknown 07:02, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

No comment? I guess that means no - I know the link style is kinda a no-no. -Unknown 02:01, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

Request for expansion?

I could probably make this article longer, but I'd need to know what it should talk about it. I'm "in the field" so to speak, because I do write forum software, but I would be biassed - both on what I think is important for forum software, and etc. I'm more than willing to draft additions to make it longer (or is the request for expansion only for the software listed?) but it would be very helpful to know what subjects or areas are considered lacking (in a less biassed person's opinion.)

-Unknown 02:01, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

Searching for Internet Forum Software With Odd(?) Features

I'm wondering if people have seen Internet forum software with any of these (perhaps hairbrained) features:

• Users can edit their posts *after* they've been submitted -- so each post is like a wiki page
• It's possible to manually "rethread" conversations -- if, e.g., it's discovered that two "different" threads are about exactly the same topic
• Users have their "views" of each thread. Thus, for example, she could delete messages that she didn't like from *her* view of the thread without this affecting anyone else. Or, combined with the previous idea, she could rethread the conversation in a way more logical to her, without screwing up anyone else's view.
• Threading needn't be strictly hierarchical. Stuff like this: A) a message can reply not just to one previous message but to a whole collection of previous messages, B) loops in the reply chain -- e.g., message 1 is in reply to message 2 which is in reply to message 3 which is in reply to message 1
• Private (perhaps also public?) annotations of posts

In short, I'm trying to find (or, short of that, design) an ideal combination of Wiki-type environments and Usenet-type environments. Any hints?

--Ryguasu 08:05, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Edit own posts - most forum software allows this. Most forum software these days isn't threaded, I don't know about that second one. Read/unread messages generally replaced number 3.

Again, threading is going out. To address your fourth point, many have simply dropped threading entirely.

The last is often available in many softwares, often as a mod. However, all this you request is generally not very available.

This is not the right place for this sort of discussion, as far as I understand... sorry. I suggest you search google for forums about forum development (which would be much better for this discussion.) If you could please, I would ask that after you've read my message, you remove this from this page - any response can be added to my talk page.

-Unknown 23:10, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

UBB.threads has a threaded display mode, and Infopop's next generation product will have threaded display. vBulletin 3 also has threaded display btw. Andros 1337 02:29, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

While that is true, it's not really used on those systems. Those softwares include it mainly because some people (like this fellow) still want it. And, again, even if you use the threaded mode, it doesn't solve the problems (some of which were mentioned) that exist with it. -Unknown 04:18, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Big-Boards Link!

Will you please keep up the big boards link!

IT's not spam

The link doesn't make wikipedia a "link farm" as one user put it!

You know I could say the same thing for the dmoz.org link!

Reasons to back this up:

• It's ON topic
• It's a LISTING of boards/FORUMS not to a DIRECT FORUM/board
• IT'S NOT ADVERTISING!

(the above posted by Kmg90)

I agree with having this external link; however I don't think your shouting and excessive usage of bold is the best way to go about having it readded without controversy (also please sign your messages). :) Talrias | talk 19:50, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I vote against. There are all kinds of sites listing message boards. I will fight against any such links in here. Besides, DMOZ, the basis directory for many search engines, already lists Big Boards... that should be quite enough. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 20:45, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, alright, but I disagree with your revert - if everyone who had an opinion on this matter changed it to their viewpoint there would be a massive revert war. Let's leave it like it is until there's been some more opinions/viewpoints brought into the discussion. Talrias | talk 23:05, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that the link should be allowed. Wikipedia is about sharing information, and just because the information happens to be listed elsewhere, doesn't mean it shouldn't be listed here. Plus I'm a little ticked that somebody deleted my external link without a reason before this. Wiz_Kid

Big Boards link Redux

I've readded the link to Big Boards. Please review the site before removing this link. It really is a useful site and a worthy link. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:35, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that if Big Boards stays, it starts a precedent, and everyone who runs a listing site will expect to have theirs listed too. This is why we say "Wikipedia is not a link farm." On top of this, external links are intended to extend the content of the article. It's easily arguable that Big Boards doesn't satisfy this. It's a lot less biased to link to a DMOZ listing of listing sites, which will always include notable such sites. So if Big Boards goes by the wayside, there will always be other similar sites people can visit to find forums. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 22:41, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't start a precedent. Have a look at, for example, the external links section of IRC. That article has a few links to listing websites for IRC networks. No one has yet attempted to add a link to a listing site other than Big Boards to this article - there is no cause for concern here. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:46, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just because the IRC article needs to be cleaned up doesn't mean that the "Big Boards" link belongs here. Look, if I don't take it out, somebody else will. Wikipedians are heavily biased against links like this.

By the way, thank you for your work overall. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 22:52, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

Largest forum dispute

Big Boards doesn't seem to have that much interest in providing accurate information (see http://www.big-boards.com/about/#faq10 ). They are more concerned with advertising themselves, I guess. Ashibaka (tock) 00:37, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Did you read that FAQ entry? It says there is no information provided by 2ch, so how are they supposed to include it on their website. Also, even if the 2ch forum is larger than Gaia Online, it's not an encylopediac screenshot, but the Gaia Online one shows a screenshot of the topics in a particular forum. Talrias (t | e | c) 11:07, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is information provided by 2ch-- I footnoted it in the article-- but big-boards chooses not to include it. I know they are aware of it because I e-mailed them. I replaced the front page picture with a picture of a thread for you. Ashibaka (tock) 22:25, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please don't add in images which aren't encylopediac. This is an English language website and the image you added is completely incomprehensible to anyone who doesn't speak Japanese. If you disagree with the wording that Gaia Online is the largest forum community, change it to the largest English-speaking forum community. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:39, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Show me where in the Wikipedia image use guide it says that all images must be in the English language. You wanted a picture of the biggest forum, now you've got it. Ashibaka (tock) 23:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am not objecting to having an image of 2ch. I am objecting to having an image not in English when there is no reason for it to not be in English. Again, this is an English language encyclopedia - what encyclopediac value does an image have which the vast majority of visitors that will read this article will not understand? Talrias (t | e | c) 09:49, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The bottom line is that this image does not *have* to be the largest forum of all. But since this is indeed the English wikipedia, it would seem appropriate to choose the largest English language Internet forum for the image. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 15:37, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Why? We don't care about other countries? Ashibaka (tock) 18:24, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with countries, it's to do with languages. Who, on an English language encyclopedia, would find the image you added a good representation of a forum? Unless you speak Japanese (unlikely on an English website), it doesn't add to the article. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:39, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed with Talrias. It's unreasonable to expect English speakers to be able to read Japanese. Therefore, an English language example is most appropriate. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 01:05, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

It's an example of an internet forum, not of how the software works.

Please sign your comments. I've reverted your image change, once again, for the above reasons. Please provide a reason why your image is better than the current one, and then we can find consensus about changing it. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I have remedied this situation at last. Now we have a picture which is

• in English
• shows a topic in a particular forum, and
• represents the largest forum in the world.

Thus, all the disputes are solved! If you want a larger picture I can find one for you. Ashibaka (tock) 06:03, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Peer review?

Do we really need the peer review tag on this article today? It esp. looks funny sitting underneath the "featured article candidate" tag. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 16:07, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

It'll eventually get changed to a "previously on PR" tag, and in the meantime it's useful to see what other people have said about it (even if there are just 2 comments). Talrias (t | e | c)

Oh, OK. Good enough. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 16:23, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Page name

I moved this back to internet forum as the person who moved it didn't change the article to reflect the new title, the related category (which should match the article title), or update any links on other pages. I am happy with the other name, web forum, but it is good etiquette to at least update the article reflecting the new name. Talrias (t | e | c) 11:00, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Web forum doesn't fit; the article covers Usenet too. (And when did we stop capitalizing Internet?) « alerante ✆ ✉ » 16:14, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I think one day the Guardian or Wired or someone declared that "Internet" doesn't need the caps anymore, but it's all very silly if you ask me. Ashibaka (tock) 02:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Wired article It's Just the 'internet' Now

It no longer covers Usenet (if it did earlier). There are separate articles for newsgroups and Usenet. Since it now only covers web forums, I support a change of name to "web forum". Nurg 04:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Currently, the article is definately about forums which use a web-based interface. It also emphaiszes threaded message models, which, while popular, are not the only kind. (This talk page is arguably a web forum, for example.) I also note that Online forum currently redirects here. I think the larger concept of an "online forum" deserves coverage in an article that mentions Usenet, email mailing lists, and all the random other forums (e.g., GEnie) as well as the web-based subcategory. What I'm not sure about is if we should have one article "online forum" with reference to another article "web forum", or just one big article. --DragonHawk 23:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this article is much more about web forums than internet forums. It does not really discuss usenet or others anymore. Even when it does it calls Usenet and mailing lists 'web applications' which they certainly are not. IMHO Internet Forum or maybe Online Discussion should be about the general case, with a short mention of the most popular kinds and links to others. kotepho 23:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

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

2ch image - encyclopedaic?

File:2ch english thread.png

I'm just interested in opinions on which image is better for an English-language encyclopedia, showing a forum. I initially added one of Gaia Online as an image, but Ashibaka has changed it to one of 2ch. The two images are to the right.

I personally think the one on the left gives a more helpful image of what a forum looks like - but I want to find consensus as Ashibaka has reverted all my attempts to include it. Please comment! Talrias (t | e | c) 09:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm confused, as I thought we already had consensus on the Gaia Online image being used. I am going to revert back to that. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 14:57, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

The consensus that you and Talrias reached was that the picture should be in the English language. Since this picture is in the English language, I see no reason to revert it. Ashibaka (tock) 16:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

The image you presented doesn't look like a clear representation of an Internet forum, but the Gaia one does. Even if you found a better image, I'm lost on the rationale for replacing the current one. Are you trying to promote the other forum? The Wikipedia isn't the place for that. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 17:26, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Between the two my vote is definitely for the Gaia image. Samaritan 17:16, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

The gaia image is clearly better. The other one is a pathetic example. It's not clear what exactly is going on, the action buttons (log in, new topic, etc.) are all missing, and it deviates heavily from what just about any english language forum looks like. There should be no question about which to use. That aside, the gaia image isn't the best thing to have either. Being the most posted in doesn't mean that it's the best encyclopidic example. Things to notice are the advertisement, the giant upper panel, the links to 'map' and 'mail', and, frankly, topics that don't give any indication of the kinds of topics that a real forum would see. Apart from its technical appearance, the gaia forums are likely innapropriate due to their young target audience and focus on anime. A typical reader over the age of, say, 20, who is our target audience, would be turned off by the cutesy graphics and non-serious subjects. I suggest finding a start-up general discussion forum, with threads about news, random *(edit see below), and opinion polls, and taking a screenshot of that. Slike2 23:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

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

Slike, your opinion makes sense-- the whole edit war is over whether the real largest forums should be represented, at a loss to the usefulness of the image. If someone who has no preference in Internet forums could go click one of these at random and take a helpful screenshot... Personally, I think The Straight Dope would make for a good, simple screenshot, but I don't want to chose, haven already debated long over the picture. Ashibaka (tock) 00:17, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the image we use should be well-representative of the topic and clear, and that it doesn't have to come from the largest forum. However, I do believe it should come from one of the most notable ones, and that it must be English language. How about finding a well-known poliitcal one that allows participants of all persuasions? I'm thinking of the Political Crossfire forums but there might be a better example. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 15:44, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Plural of forum

In my opinion fora should only be used as a plural to forum ONLY when referring to the archaic, latin, meaning of the word. I agree that it's an acceptable form in the dictionaries, however, it does not conform to the english standard - and the electronic meaning of forum is most certainly a natural english word, thus making its sole acceptable plural forums. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.78.196.15 (talk • contribs) .

Your opinion is noted. However, the term "fora" has currency as a popular (if minority) usage, so including it is not unreasonable. --DragonHawk 22:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Then it should be noted that that is the minority opinion, and not the common nomenclature. CynicalMe 17:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Find a source that has that information, and add it with a citation. (My point being that Wikipedia isn't about our opinions. It's about being an enecylopedia. If we can find even one case of "fora" being used as the plural of "forum" in this context, then it is not incorrect to note that. And we have more than just a single case: The Jargon file gives fora as the plural of forum. So "fora" is legit. It may well be minority usage. Indeed, I would expect it to be minority usage. But I don't have a source for that.) --DragonHawk 18:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

TGML

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

Image

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

I guess you can drag Slike2 and Stevie back in here and we can take a vote. Ashibaka (tock) 06:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. Talrias (t | e | c) 13:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, then do you have anything to say about the discussion made in May/June? Ashibaka (tock) 23:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

What needs to be said? The image we have at the moment is a good representation of a forum. I don't understand your insistence to change it. Talrias (t | e | c) 23:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I say leave it as is: it's a popular forum and a good representation of one. Why change it anyway? « alerante ✆ ✉ » 14:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the image should be changed. For further discussion on my opinion, please see User_talk:Talrias#Internet_forum

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

Gaia Online looks similar to a normal phpBB forum. I don't understand your argument; are you saying that you think Gaia Online is silly so you don't want a picture of it? Talrias (t | e | c) 13:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes! Consider my phpBB forum, LINK REMOVED, it looks much like any other phpBB forum. Gaia Online, however, is a "role-playing" forum, which in their case the whole point of the site is to post-whore until you get enough points for your silly little avatar clothes. Seriously, this site makes all forums look bad. --Snafuu 15:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

That maybe so, but I'm not sure that's a valid reason to remove the image. Try discussing it on talk:internet forum and see what other people think. Talrias (t | e | c) 15:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

---

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

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

Suggested areas for expansion: etiquette & terminology

Hi all,

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

Cheers, Wayne.

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

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

forumite merge

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

First forum software

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

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

How to rank as largest forum?

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

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

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

Reminder: No original research. It isn't up to us, as Wikipedians, to determine the largest forum, or rank them. If a third-party source provides a ranking, we can refer to that. I further note that the "Gaia Online" claim fails to cite a source. Wikipedia articles must be verifiable. If the contributor who added that statement fails to provide a source, the statement should be removed. Wikipedia policy is quite explict in this regard. --DragonHawk 00:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree about that, which why I also brought it up, because the current statement is a biased statement and isn't sourced. Furthermore there's many ways how a forum can be ranked as largest, so that's why I was bringing this up. I suggest the following wording instead "Gaia Online, one of the largest English language forum-based communities — powered by a modified version of phpBB" and sourcing the statement with a reference to Big Boards. If nobody objects, I'll update it soon. --Rasbelin 07:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as the image caption goes, I would recommend just avoiding any claims to size. "Gaia Online, a modified phpBB forum". That makes the caption more durable over time -- it will still work regardless of the size of that forum. This article is about Internet forums, not sizes in particular, so we just want a representative picture. See also Avoid weasel words and Avoid peacock terms (not that I'm saying you're falling into those traps, but why even start down that road if we don't need to?). --DragonHawk 02:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Followup: I decided to be bold and made the changes I described. --DragonHawk 17:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources and citations

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

Imageboard

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

Criticism

Forum battles; information overload etc.

Discussion groups

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

Semi-protection?

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

• Seconded. These spammers have no intention whatsoever of stopping their attack here.|||||||31337 User talk Talk to me 05:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I am watching this page, and will file a RFP if the spam continues. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• I agree. I recently stumbled upon the article and was surprised by all the spams it has. It should be locked to anonymous or something. --Goa103 11:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The spam problem is getting worse. I believe these are open proxies running malware bots hitting the article. Definitely warrants an sprotect. Thank you.  E. Sn0 =31337= ^Talk 19:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay I have a theory: I think the word 'forum' in the title is acting as a lightning-rod for these porn/pharma/\/14g|24 spammers. That's why they BBcode their spam.  E. Sn0 =31337= ^Talk 21:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• RFP requested. -- KTC 21:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Many thanks, Katie. :)  E. Sn0 =31337= ^Talk
    • Request was denied. Just have to keep an eye out for now. Will resubmit request if it get much very worse. -- KTC 04:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Agggh, kerap! :P  E. Sn0 =31337= ^Talk 06:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Try again with the RFP please?  E. Sn0 =31337= ^Talk 03:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

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

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

Thoughts

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

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

Great thanks for the sprotect!

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

The first forum

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

Chop this article up

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

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

Clean up

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

Merge

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

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

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

Cleanup

After a new user pulled the template:cleanup without making any changes to the article, I decided to just finish it instead of restore the template. Many of the sections repeated the others - Merged the content together into better written statements. All but one of the sources referred to the Wikipedia and some non-notable forum didn't meet Wikipedia:Reliable Sources - axed the inappropriate ones, dropped in one new one. Still need a far number of additional sources to reach Good Article status, and could use a new section that goes in depth on the history of the concept, expanding on the WP:LEAD. MrZaius^talk 09:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Images

I highly suggest in the very least that you change the name of the first picture in "how should a forum NOT look", as forums are not meant or seen by most webmasters as places where you write half a line and 2 smileys to boot. On the countrary, moderators on many forums combat this and see it as spam (the term is defined closed to the meaning of "vandalism" or reasons to ban like "non-sense" and "stupidity" on wikipedia), and Wikipedia, as a project trying to inform people of countless matter, will risk hardening even more the work of mods and admins on considered serious sites. On most of these, a 3-5 line comment is recomanded as minimum - as the whole point of a forum is discussing matters with valid opinions and ideas, except forums who just want to have a big number of posts and topics filled with non-sense (spam).

The second one is relative useless too, as it only contains some pictures, the guy's start bar (no comment on that...) and a poll (marvalous wonder of a forum, I must say... , it sure beats actually argumenting your oppinion [/brachets & irony] )

I think this depiction of a forum is very detrimental to the well-being of the forums in general and it teaches possible future users that a forum is a place where (I must say that at least the information about double, triple etc. posting was usefull, but...) you can't double post, but you can as easily write 5 words and put 2 smileys because wikipedia shows it as ,,A typical Internet forum discussion". Thx 83.233.193.55 01:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It probably is. Feel free to install PHPBB or something of the sort and generate a couple of screenshots worth of content that can be used to illustrate the same points, and then either let us know where they're at and what kind of free license (Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/Free_licenses)) you want them to be released under, or create a username and upload them yourself. If not, we'll have to make do for the interim. That said, we could fix it right now if someone knew of a lively CC-SA or GFDL licensed forum. Felt the need to use the content-free image in the LEAD because of the limits of the Wikipedia:Fair use guidelines & after another was deleted. MrZaius^talk 14:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

What the actual use of forum?

hi friends, I just wanna know why we use forums... http://vinaykant.prohosts.org/contact.php Is there any who can explain... ;)

Hy friend, you're just aching for spam-mail...

,,On-topic" (if we're talking about forum here): forums are places where users can discuss ideas, opinions, thoughts, events and any other thing that comes into mind. Usually, a forum has a main thematic (tech support, art, internet etc.) and most categories / sub-forums are branches of that main thematic. Still, most forums (should) have also one or more section(s) about diverse themes, so to not look ,,one-tracked" and to ,,redirect" any possible spam and other issues that do not belong in the specialized parts of the forum to those sections.

PS I changed the image of the ,,typical" forum with what I consider a serious, yet non-pressing discussion about a subject (in my domain of knowledge), as the unlogged user recommended (which I will limit to say I am aware of). Also, I moved the previous screen in the ,,spam" discussion part of the article, and as no-one seems to have a problem with it, I presume I did the right thing. Also, there should be a mention at ,,Spam" about spam-boards and the meaning of spam in forum terminology, that of short posts, many emote-icons or big quotes and small replies to it. I would do it if I had time or would remember, but in case this does not happen, I recommend someone does it, as it is necessary besides that print that won't elucidate most users in why it's spam. Trucizna 08:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Enough to semi-protect?

It's been some time since a real edit was made to this page, and over the last week or so there's been an average of 2-3 reverts a day. Is that enough to warrant semi-protection, or should we just grin and bear it? MrZaius^talk 06:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this ever going to be protected? There are almost no real edits being done anymore, only vandalism and spam. --DietrichM 10:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

new article

Please visit Webx forum software, and help prevent this article from being deleted. i am trying to add some refernces. hopefully that will address any issues. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 15:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

History?

I was disappointed in this article. I came to learn about the history of the development and spread of these boards, but there is extremely little history at all. What are the significant developments? When did the most significant players emerge?

I agree, there should be a history section on here.Matty360 13:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Then write one. A good place to start would be announcements of initial releases of common forum engines or the dates when some very large forums went live. Both should be relatively trivial to document. MrZaius^talk 19:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply

A good place to look might be the BBS of yesterder'years. --Chief of Lefora Labs 02:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Death Note manga topic.JPG

Image:Death Note manga topic.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Death Note manga topic.JPG

Image:Death Note manga topic.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Image (as of 2008-01-11)

The current image has several problems, one of which might end itself soon ;-) 1) There's the copyright question pending, may this image be used at all? 2) Despite its caption, it shows neither emoticons nor Internet slang. (So at least the caption should be fixed.) 3) The forum itself on that screenshot takes up barely half the images width, I'd consider that bad style for good screenshots. --134.76.217.141 (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Posts instantly seen

Anyone knows why the link to www.whirlydogsupplies.com was taken down? Is there a rule against sites like mine?

The last sentence in Internet_forum#Comparison_with_other_web_applications says:

Another difference is that you do not instantly see posts on forums, while in chat rooms or instant messaging, the posts made are instantly seen.

Huh? Either this is poorly worded or it's wrong. Any forum I've ever participated in shows posts instantly. Am I missing something? Since it's unreferenced I'm removing this sentence, but add it back in if I'm wrong, or it's just misworded. --jjron (talk) 08:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think they mean that you have to refresh the page if AJAX is not used. ffm 12:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Should there be a section in which it talks about wikipedia?

I think so, because wikipedia is like a huge talking place. Although its purpose is to build an encyclopedia, there are some communication on talk pages, user pages, e-mail, and the reference desk. Yes, wikipedia is also a forum. Before wikipedia, I never chatted online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.225.102 (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the need. Besides there's enough information on Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.143.19 (talk) 11:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

When is a forum not a forum?

I have read the guidelines to see if the following is pertinent or acceptable here and believe the statement

'Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made on user pages, as they are relevant to the current and future operation of the project.'

means that it is. I came here looking for a definition of a 'forum', as an external link I added to the American Express article was removed as being 'links normally to be avoided' which reads:

"Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists."

Being a forum, the site falls under discussion forums/groups, and may not be linked.

However, I see under the discussion above 'Posts instantly seen'. --jjron says 'Any forum I've ever participated in shows posts instantly.' This may have been true before the great spam explosion of 2006 but since then any forum I have been involved with, no longer posts instantly as it is too open to abuse, with automated posting every 20 seconds bombing such pages into non existence. So now the question arises, when is a forum not a forum?

Also, I have to ask the question, as I was always taught that rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools. The Wikipedia guidelines say 'links normally to be avoided' not 'may not be used. Surely there are cases where it is in the interest of the article?

As the proposal was that American Express is a very powerful organization with no discussion of its practices on its own website, a link to a 'forum' or a collection of users letters giving their experiences of the organization, would be a valuable contribution to the article, which seems to be very one sided. I also note that a statement made almost 4 months ago that 'Wikipedia is also a forum', with which I agree to a point, either means that Wikipedia itself is breaking its own guidelines every time anyone links to Wikipedia internally or that the link to American-express-cards.org could then be linked within the article itself rather than being relegated to an external links section? I see that the American Express article has an external link in the first paragraph. (I for some reason, was under the impression that external sites could only be in the external links section.)

As I have now read the guidelines further, it is a moot point as I cannot post the link on another of the criterion, but I do think that for the benefit of the whole and as a matter of principle, it is something which might be discussed.

The guidelines also say

'Editors and administrators alike should seek to uphold these rules only when doing so would produce a better result for the encyclopedia, never simply because they are "rules". Insisting that something must (or cannot) be done simply because of policy is a form of wikilawyering.

I did ask for a reason why it was not a relevant link. Thank you for your explanation, Carl.bunderson, however it doesn't explain why it is not extremely relevant and why it does not add a great deal to the article itself.

If the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, you should ignore them. Disagreements should be resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures.

I think I understand the reasoning behind the guideline to not include social networking sites such as MySpace etc, as every single page on there would no doublt end up linked from Wikipedia, however, I fail to understand why bona fide and relevent 'forums' or whatever the definition of what American-express-cards.org and others like it, is. They have to be regarded as sources of opinion on a given subject, if not a source, often, of fact. It is a fact that a number of people have felt strongly enough about the American Express service that they have taken time and effort to find a place where they can share their experiences. Is not information, living and growing, not what Wikipedia is all about? MaybeBoo (talk) 00:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Why do WikiNazi's keep deleting the section on Forum Nazism?

I wonder why. I really do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TcheQ (talk • contribs) 07:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Because we do not allow personal views (see WP:NOR and WP:NPOV), and that material cannot be verified. Thus the "Forum nazis" section is deleted. Vivio Testarossa^{Talk Who} 06:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Rewriting of article

The original article[12] seemed to me too unfamiliar for the casual reader and more importantly doesn't offer much help to someone who is comepletly unfamiliar with what a forum is. Some parts also seemed to presume prior knowledge and express noticible points rather then information, description or definition.

In any case, I've tried to expan and also reorganised a large part of it. I believe I covered most of the tangible issues. The social issues I've described shortly but didn't go into any detail about the language used, slang, habits etc etc (weather more then there is should even be in this article directly is probably debatable)

I've added rudementary references, and linked when it was apropriate. I think the article is still missing heavily on examples and references to help the reader understand. (it's a lot more time consuming then a more precise and exact topic to find references -.-)

I've added a few images,

• (already available) image of phpBB's ACP
• image of phpBB's MCP (examples used inside the image)
• image a phpBB forum with some threads (examples used inside the image)
• image of phpBB thread (examples used inside the image)

Will need to make some illustrations for some of the parts later but this should cover the main "what is forum" issues.

I'm contemplating of adding images of actual forums in action to demonstrate how flame wars or other behaviour looks, though it might be a bad idea, so I won't until I hear some more opinions on it.

I've avoided adding a slang section and mentioned mostly what are commonly used term when I found myself in context. I'm leaning towards avoiding adding any unnecesary urban dictionary lists of words, at least not directly to the article.

I've expanded the opening somewhat, and rephrased the first sentece so even someone vaguely familiar with the Internet's chit-chat systems would understand the concept. I also think the initial version was too technical. Kept it as a second sentece. The extra names I removed, I honestly can't a reference for those. For example, "fora", can't even find a use, and it being the latin plural doesn't mean it's in use for internet forums. The second part of the opening I expanded to no end later so I got rid of that. The second paragraph is tricky. Currently I've moved it under History, but I can't find any reference to suggest what is said is even remotly true. Seems to me like just random speculation just because the names are similar. That year is probably from thin air as well, judging from the way it's phrased.

I scraped all the sections in favor of reordreing to a more "what is?" order rather then a "this, that" order

For the Membership and anonymity I've removed the first paragraphs and expanded on all the ideas there later in their own section. The 3rd paragraph I see a few problems. First the first sentece, the one requiring cititions, appears to be original reserch. Secondly it goes far too out of line comparing, more then half the time it's talking about other systems other then the forum system.

The Administrators and moderators. Fist paragraph expanded, so it was scraped. The second paragraph apears to start with some original research. I don't remember ever seing a rate moderator in a forum I've been, and youtube and such, while you might consider like forums, their not exactly true forums. Wordfilter and such, is availble to moderators but it's just one of the many, and usually only goes as far as one or two simple words that in the end easily can be tricked by users. It would also be far too much information about administrators to expand to such extent. (the ideas of including information on how themes and usergroups privilages are set and work and help out, to just name a few would be too much IMHO) I've added some introductory information on what a moderator/administrator can do so the reader can get a sense what it means to be a moderator and such, but left it at that. (so the original section was pretty much scrapped in the end =/)

I turned what was features into History, since that's what it sounded to me anyway. Used features to talk about the common elements the read might try to find in a article, since it's about forums. Focused on the forum specific stuff, didn't expand much. I could of made them lists but I think this makes them much more accessible, also I internally linked everywhere I could. (still some more linking to do)

Comparison with other web applications kept as is.

Forum netiquette, expanded. Didn't keep the title since I felt it was a original term, just called it rules and policies on forums since that what people seem to always call them on forums. Expanded on the procedures and everything else, since I think the aim of the original title was to present the social order and way of thinking. (probably need to add more refs there)

Also added some more sections to cover the rest the issues. (but talking about it would probably make this post longer then the article o_O)

I've proofed read it, the wording and senteces make sense at least to me. I also spell checked it, although I'm more then sure there's at least one typo in there. I referenced wikipedia's 5 or so documents detailing style and other guidlines so it should be mostly ok, although I'm sure there are problems with it.

[my] TODO list: (feel free to help out)

• add illustrations for different post layout
• complete references (the second half at least needs more attention)
• add examples
• add more notes
• add more internal (#heading style) and extenral (other wiki articles) links
• add more references for the opening senteces (probably expand the wording a little)

7ghost (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Or in Rules and policies on forums

Vivio Testarossa seems to have marked as original search either the word or the entire example. I personally can't really tell with placement used.

If the accusation refers to the sentence itself then I don't see a real problem with it. It simply states "these are sometimes included" its not intentended as "these are always included" or "these are all included". I know the phrasing may not be the best but extending the sentece seem awkward and unecesary.

The items in the list themselvs are not citations, and really are not meant as citations for clarity reasons. Excepting the "No multiple accounts" and "Do not resurrect dead threads" all others can use the phpBB's default TOS as reference material (see 3rd paragraph). But I've avoided using such references which spin around and require too much explanation to why they are a reference. The one TOS I linked is the one from their community which is identical to the one they distribute but really not the template itself. I would really need to link to the template but theres no real way to do that; so I avoided linking at all. The real heart of the issue is that the portion questioned of WP:Or really only requires common sense, in essence it is stating something similar to "the sun is warm". The other two are almost imposible to reference properly (with outh just giving a milion examples, which would really be WP:Or). Although perhaps the first ("No multiple accounts") should really read as "No [using] multiple accounts" since that's closer to the common meaning.

I understand Vivio Testarossa point of view, but that part was just a example. The topic in question also has little to no centrelised standards or commonly accepted guidlines to go by. A example is neither fact nor a claim. Wikidias policies are also meant to be treated more as guidlines rather then a set of iron rules. I really don't see how that list and the short sentence preceding it constitutes anything but a simple example, and thus I don't see how it requires extensive reference (i.e. WP:Or) so I'll just call WP:UCS and WP:IAR on it. An alternative to using it would be to simply go to a random forum and take a screenshot of their rules.

(I've reverted Vivio Testarossa for now; also slightly altered the sentece to better illustrate neutrality)

7ghost (talk) 13:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Too Much PhpBB3!

All screens in this sections are from phpBB3. What about other solutions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.8.21.44 (talk) 10:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• It's because other solutions don't seem to have a lot of good screens, at least nothing uploaded to MediaWiki. I've only added 3 of the pics 2 were already available. phpBB was just too convinient. Taking screens of other appliacations might seem more complicated at least with licensing issues. I do understand the point, it's perhaps doing phpBB too much publicity, the article should have a little more diversity. Still what do you suggest as other applications? vBulletin, phpBB, Envision Power Board (used to be popular), Simple Machine Forum are among the only really popular ones. Diversity and originality usually just comes in the form of skins. 7ghost (talk) 08:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• • So lets think. This article is about internet forums, or "internet forums powered by phpbb3"? Look to references: half of links are about... phpbb3 (and another half about vB). This article will look much better, when there will be references to other scripts, or none. Also in "See also" there are direct links to phpbb3, vB and IP.B 83.8.13.130 (talk) 22:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• It's about internet forums powered by web applications. There is no set in stone standard and no book has been published that treats the subject (or I just haven't heard of any). Forums are in essence web applications, I find it normal that the word of the people who've made such application is as good as it gets when it comes to definitions and explanations of the concepts. The only reason why PhpBB and vBulletin are so common place in the article (even though they are not directly mentioned to the reader in the body) is because the developers of those two had material that could be referenced. They either gave the definition or spoke of the concept in the faq, have some major online documentation etc. There is no reason not to add more, but I just didn't know of any other like that. By all means I'm most certainly not against adding more references to the article. The links in the See also section should be categorized at some point so the reader know where they're intended to go. Currently I fail to see your point about the vBulletin and PhpBB links. They are both internal, they link to the wikipedia articles. I don't think it's wrong to point the reader to articles on some implementations. At this point I'm personally against having a actual implementation section with tables and comparisons and such. 7ghost (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a wiki, feel free to fix it youself by uploading other screenshots. ffm 21:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Conflict with the Wikipedia entry for Bulletin board system

The first line currently states: "An Internet forum, or message board, is a bulletin board system in the form of a discussion site."

Yet, at [13], the current entry's third paragraph reads: "In recent years, the term BBS is sometimes incorrectly used to refer to any online forum or message board."

Only one of these can be true.

Philip sheldrake (talk) 12:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

As I understood it when I was researching for the article the definition of forum used by vbulletin doesn't refer to a "bulletin board system" but a "bulletin board system" (I see no reason to believe the more sophisticated version was the intended one). I've seen the link "corrected" to bulletin board system two times already and am contemplating rephrasing it to something different like "bulletin board mechanism" or something like that. I'm of the opinion the term association is wrong but I don't see currently a trusted source explaining clearly why it's wrong (currently there's just the one phrase in the bulletin board system article). 7ghost (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a real difference in terms communication functions, aside from technology aspects. This seems simply a progression of the same concept through different technologies with new capabilities at each step: bulletin boards (physical world, cork board, paper notes and clips) ==> BBS (Electronic, dialup/network, menus, text based) ==> Forum (WWW, Internet, HTML etc.) To define or claim a term for exclusivity doesn't seem appropriate in the forward direction. Kbrose (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The difference is in the meaning. If you reference the physical world equivalent that's just leverage for the explanation, but if you reference the BBS (in the context of the first paragraph) it's easily taken as: "forums are a deviation of the BBS" (as I read it). It's not wrong (perhaps) but it's both a gray area and a contradiction to the Bulletin Board System article. There's the option of removing the links but then it's up to the reader to take one of the either. Doing a search in the article I noticed there's also a reference to BBS in the History section. I suppose that's what Philip was taking about. As I see it that's where the articles current WP:OR accusations come from (i.e the dates etc). I haven't found anything to prove or disprove the claims there thus far, but that section is something that should be dealt with somehow. 7ghost (talk) 03:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I rephrased this once again, because one wouldn't refer to a bulletin board as a 'system' as the article read. That was my original reason to move 'system' inside the wiki link to refer to the BBS article. I believe the current form is also useful to refer the reader to earlier forms of this concept of public display or sharing of information. Kbrose (talk) 03:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The positive side of Flame wars

The following concerning the "positive side of Flame wars" brought up in recent edits. Quoting addition:

In addition, flame wars are often warranted as a part of competition set forth by specific threads designed for said flames. In many cases these threads and posts are voted on and winners established, generally based on language usage, form and uniqueness of each particular flame as compared to other threads and posts.

Stated reason for addition is as follows:

192.193.216.150: Adding this addition is necessary; the article without this edit shows flaming in a bad light only, which does not encompass the entire definition of a "flame" and therefore is not accurate.

When we are talking about a flames and flame wars the idea given by the most common reliable sources is that it is "the hostile and insulting interaction between Internet users"[14] [15] [16]. This addition is a variation/deviation. It's actually not a flame war at all, just a formal forum game with the participants playing hostile for fun (it even presents itself as such: "[...] these threads and posts are voted on and winners established,").

Doing a simple search on the net does not bring any mention to prove this is a widespread phenomenon common on hundreds of boards with participation of countless users (the main hit barely had over 50 members total). This, like other forum games, do not warrant mention since they are too much of a rarity. If there is the need to mention it then a better option would be to place the position either in the Flaming (Internet) or otherwise create a new section such as Forum games (Internet).

Tacking other articles as example (i.e the War article doesn't list the positive side of computer games, the IRC article doesn't list games, and so on) I call WP:IINFO and WP:OR. Please bring some citations or some sort of more conclusive endorsment to this piece of information. (currently too many reasons against it, addition reverted)

7ghost (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thread section incomplete or wrong?

I always understood a threaded discussion to be one where a discussion could fork, and one could use a hierarchical view to ignore some subset of the discussion, or at least to follow the discussion of particular points, as seen in most mailing lists, and NTTP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.24.80.93 (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Deleted data retrive

How it is possible deleted data Retrieved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unoohani (talk • contribs) 04:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Use of the word "troll"

I think it may be useful to discuss the history of the word "troll."

Early in web history, only a decade a ago, the word "trawl" was commonly used. A trawl is a strategy to elicit responses based on a specific contentious statement. The "trawler" is not genuine, is not trying to promote honest discussion; the "trawler" is looking for a fight. I saw the term used when describing police looking to get an arrest for some illegal or "gray area" crime, such as illicit sex.

Then I suddenly noticed the word "troll" and assumed that it was a misspelling of the term "trawl." In context it seemed to be used as a disguised predatory strategy designed to make genuine posters to appear to be predators.

When I saw this, I thought back on my knowledge of the term "troll." The most important reference I can recall of the use of the word when making predatory and prejudiced attacks against the homeless in Southern California when I was there as an offshore oil rig scuba diver. "Troll busters" would make often lethal attacks against already weak homeless victims: a capital crime. These "troll busters" were generally elitist white separatists, in California universities, and from rich families, as I recall.

My belief is that the use of the term "troll" is a corruption of a more legitimate word "trawl," and to extend this with my experiences, I believe that that the corruption of the word is a de-evolution of the Information Society into a culture of the predatory elite. The Wikipedia, and other wiki culture, can easily be implicated, and I believe that a broad analysis of related citations can connect this type of thought to many present problems of our time, including the present economic crisis. I also believe it can demonstrate an exceedingly important concept: the viral nature of predation, or what I call "anti-empathy."--John Bessa (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello John, sorry but there are several problems with what you are suggesting/implying. First and foremost what you are saying is original research and wikipedia is not the place for you to impose your hypothetical findings as facts (you may read WP:OR for further clarification). We, the editors, try our best to avoid even unintentional unfounded or un-acknowledged information; thus, searching around I find that this "trawl" term seems to only be defined as "a net for fishing" and I can not find any other meaning. Secondly, this is the Internet forum talk page, you should be posting this sort of thing in the Troll (Internet) articles' talk page. The troll article also seems to have a slightly different view on the term, related to what you are saying. 7ghost (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Use of the word "troll"

I have had a long history moderating discussion groups, and one in particular about the Katrina hurricane and flood crisis unquestionably had direct impact on the decision making process of Congress during that crisis. The reason for this was possibly membership in the group by a US senator.

I put writing here pointing to bias in the use of the term "troll." It was not original research, or research of any kind -- I was simply pointing to problems about the information on this page, specifically neutrality though I did not mention it as such at the time.

The discussion actually evolved into original research before it was erased when the anonymous contributor 7ghost posted an apology, probably ingenuine, as he removed my writing. He, himself, presented research material, and hence triggered research--upon which I intend to follow through eleswhere, possibly on a related Wikipedia wiki.

I see that I have to proceed in technical terms here (and to explain the process in the research), so I am approaching the problem that I see as bias in terms of neutrality; I will be questioning the neutrality of this article, though in the research the focus will be on bias, and that will be approached from the perspective of mental illness.

I am very much saying that the information here may be true, but that the phenomena described here is in fact bias, and the protection of this biased information is further biased, and hence lacks neutrality. Ultimately over time research will then be presented, or perhaps meta-research, that shows that the basis of this bias is, on many levels, mental illness--as is all bias. This anonymous contributor provides excellent examples. Ultimately this discussion will serve to strengthen the Wikipedia, but the editing war attack that will undoubtedly unfold in the form of an attack will make the process of correctly describing social science phenomena in Information Society difficult. But it will be all good in the end, as it is all meant to be constructive, if critical.

I have posted the text erased by the anonymous poster here in an attempt to prevent an "editing war." --John Bessa (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not post a apology and nigheter did I delete anything of what you mentioned. The so called "erased" content is right above. 7ghost (talk) 10:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

some parts seem to be talking about some forums in specific

reading this in some parts I got the feelling it was talking about some forum in specific and not forums in general, things like the report link always being a "!" icon, carbon copies behaving like blind carbon copies, poll addition only allowed during thread creation etc --TiagoTiago (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Report & Poll issue should be gone. I am not too sure about carbon copies, it does not say all forums have it (the phrasing is "sometimes available"). In any case, this is a wiki feel free to be bold and edit what you see as wrong. 7ghost (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Administrator Abuse

The page lacks a section on abuse of power by moderators. Where an admin ban a user for disagreeing with them, disagreeing with another admin, disagreeing with an admin's friend, breaking a nonexistant rule, asking why the admin only enforces rules when they feel like it... This kind of thing is hardly uncommon. Anyone else think it deserves a mention? Or a redirect to where it's already discussed?ANTIcarrot (talk) 13:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You have a good point however this is untrue. On some (maybe even many) forums it is true, buit on more community like forums it is untrue. It is worth a mention however there needs to be a note that this is only true on 'some' forums. Stealth (talk) 13:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Why on earth would it require a full section? Regardless, feel free to add anything you can source that strengthens the article. The current format is much more definition-focused than it ought to be. MrZaius^talk 04:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

As someone who has used Forums since their very beginning, Administrator/Moderator Abuse is present to some degree in most Forums. The role of Moderator attracks the sort of personality who is downtrodden in their real world life, but as a Moderator, can be the one who bullies others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.126.207.163 (talk) 02:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

SAP statistical project for time posting

Does anyone know what are the major critical steps to allow time entry to post against an internal statistical project? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.231.6.87 (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Forum directories and rankings

I can not see how a link to a forum list, sorted by the number of posts can be considered spam, especialy when the link it's placed to "external links" section. Please try to understand, that many people are coming here to find the best forum for them. And of course a list of forums, sorted by some criteria, will help them. For example, if I need a forum about digital photo, I will look on that list ([17]) and most probably, I would try first the number 36 (DP review) and not 2113 (Photo Camel) simply because a larger forum with more users can help me better to get answers for my question than a small forum. Wikipedia articles are designed to help people understand things and to help people to find the informations they need, right? If you know another list with forums sorted by number of posts and users, please add it. You removed also a link to a specific forum (added by someone else), and that is ok, but a link to a list of forums - defenately can't be spam. Ark25 (talk) 17:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there should be something in the article about forum ranking. Big-boards (as you mentioned) is one such site. Another site that I have been following is http://www.forumrank.net/ , but it's been under development for a long time, and not sure it has so many boards yet. In general, claims about being the largest or most active boards in a certain category (e.g. in a certain language) seem to be hard to prove as the tools to do so are still lacking. I think that is worth mentioning in the article. TheLastNinja (talk) 10:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"forum"

Shouldn't there be a link to Forum (Roman) ? And one to wikt:forum ?
--Jerome Potts (talk) 05:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

forum vs forums?

The first sentence says: "An Internet forum, or message board, is an online discussion site." Then a note specifies: "the term forums refers to the site, while the term forum refers to one of many containers (directories) that the site uses to organize the user submitted content".

So maybe the first sentence should instead say that "Internet forums ... are an online discussion site"? Or maybe the definitions and usage notes should be revised?

Is the singular form "forum" always one of the many containers to organize the discussions? And "forums" in plural is always the site itself? What is considered best usage among Internet writers?

--206.248.160.156 (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This might need discussing. I believe "forum" is prefectly fine. However when you are on the site itself everyone will try to use "forums" or "board" to avoid confusion; this does not imply "forum" is not perfectly fine as well in that context, but rather less used. 7ghost (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Internet Drama redirecting here

Is that really necessary or appropriate? For a second I thought I was on that other encyclopaedia. Maybe it's a common phrase in the U.S. but I've never come across it in my country before. 82.132.136.202 (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I, for one, am disappointed at it redirecting here instead of having its own article. CannibalSmith (talk) 13:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I'm not so sure that the subject of Postcount is worthy enough to merit its own separate article. From a technical standpoint, a postcount is generally just the result of a simple database query that is usually displayed next to a user's posts in an internet forum. SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Postcount should be merged to the Internet Forum page. ArmoredPersonel (talk) 13:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. Postcounts only exist on forums, therefore should be included in the same place.. Donkey100 (talk) 17:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Postcounts do technically exist on other platforms such as blogs etc, but the primary use is for forums, so it probably would be best for a subsection on this article. Possibly to the Post section. However is it definitely worth considering the contexts of the term. TheWyo (talk) 11:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

signup to this website

[REMOVED] its wicked for all those cool guys —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.195.219.54 (talk) 16:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, Wikipedia is not a place to advertise, thank you ZellDenver (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Censored Words as a "Work Around"

I've noticed most Admins add phrases into the Censored words list as a work around for signature character limitations. Not sure if this is common enough to add. ZellDenver (talk) 01:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

post ordering =

Reading the thread section I noticed a conflicting statement about which way the posts are ordered by default. I removed one stmt about which order is default, and asked for a citation on the other. Linking to the help/admin/config page of some popular forum backend software project would be fine, I've never configured one but am assuming this is very easy info to find if you have done so before... thanks Mboard182 (talk) 05:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible vandalism found

I happened to pass by here with someone wrote this: "--redacted--" Seems like a troll or something.

Sir Jazer 13 (talk) 10:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm in the wrong place, but

Wikia, Inc. It has forums and I think we should implement them here.--Launchballer (talk) 09:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

what CXC do i need to do law? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.220.126 (talk) 17:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUMJasper Deng (talk) 06:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

anonymity

I noticed that section about anonymity that existed last year, is no more there. Also, there isn't a single wiki link to anonymous. 89.216.196.129 (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

ok

Reminder to users of this talk page

There are three things that new users of this page don't seem to be getting:

1. This talk page itself is not a forum.
2. Wikipedia is not for advertising and promotion.
3. Comments should be signed.

Please keep these in mind when editing this talk page. Thank you.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Alternate meaning of doubleposting?

I've often seen people calling somthing else doubleposting, when you don't edit your last post but also don't wait for any other replies before posting a new reply right after your previous one (for example to keep things more organized when what you got to say the second time is a whole'nother message, or to make sure people with the thread in the watchlist are notified you wrote more); some forums even encourage you to do that when there is good reasons, while others might even ban you for doing it, and even within individual forums there can disagreements, some people don't mind it at all while others flame whoever posts without waiting for new replies from others. --TiagoTiago (talk) 06:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

MyBB

MyBB is a type of inter forum. A forum software. A mybb forum — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenF50 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 February 2013

User groups Internally, Western-style forums organize visitors and logged in members into user groups. Privileges and rights are given based on these groups. A user of the forum can automatically be promoted to a more privileged user group based on criteria set by the administrator.[10] Some forums give members the option to donate in exchange for an elevated status granting them access to further privileges than the standard member. A person viewing a closed thread as a member will see a box saying he does not have the right to submit messages there, but a moderator will likely see the same box granting him access to more than just posting messages.[11] An unregistered user of the site is commonly known as a guest or visitor. Guests are typically granted access to all functions that do not require database alterations or breach privacy. A guest can usually view the contents of the forum or use such features as read marking, but occasionally an administrator will disallow visitors to read their forum as an incentive to become a registered member.[note 1] A person who is a very frequent visitor of the forum, a section or even a thread is referred to as a lurker and the habit is referred to as lurking. Registered members often will refer to themselves as lurking in a particular location, which is to say they have no intention of participating in that section but enjoy reading the contributions to it. Giles3INFS115 (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

This suggested edit consists of the addition of the sentence "Some forums give members the option to donate in exchange for an elevated status granting them access to further privileges than the standard member." Please provide a source for this addition. Thanks. -- Dianna (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Advertisement under Administrator

Two things. One, isn't the link to AdminForums under Administrator in violation of Wikipedia:NOADS to begin with?

Two, the link to AdminForums is dead anyways. It leads to a parked domain page and should be removed. KiriKazuto (talk) 09:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 August 2013

There are generally to types of forums do follow and no follow. Do follow links and forums are those that can be crawled by Google crawler and bots and no follow are not crawled by Google's crawler. You can identify both of them by clicking right on the link and then by clicking inspect element. There you can find whether it is do follow or no follow. You can also use plugins for the same or you may identify do follow or no follow links by looking at strike through on the hyper-linked text. If a text is strike through it means that it is no follow. Roger Styen (talk) 10:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. If you're proposing the above text be added, it will need some changes: aside from general copyediting, it needs to be rewritten to avoid using the second-person voice (i.e., it can't use the pronoun you), the inline link needs to disappear (we don't put external links in the body of an article), and there needs to be a reliable source to support what it says. Please also indicate exactly where in the article you'd like it to go. Rivertorch (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Internet Drama

Internet Drama redirects here, but there is no reference to it in the article. Either there should be a section describing what ID is, or the term should have its own article. (I know what it is BTW). --Ef80 (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Archiving?

Would it be wise to start archiveing this talk area since there's discussions going back to 2009? Dudel250 (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Forum directories and rankings

My contribution at 20:50, 28 July 2008, was reverted – [18]. I think many people can come to Wikipedia, at the Internet forum article, trying to find help when they search for a forum that they need. So I think my contribution was very usefull and not in violation of any of Wikipedia's politics. If it's considered that the way I presented the information is not good, I am nicely asking for advice for how to make it better. I think the reader should be helped to see not only what a forum is, but also what forums exist out there. thanks Ark25 (talk) 12:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It's "policies". The one you are refering to is WP:NOT, and wikipedia is not a collection of links elsewhere, it is not a directory. It would be acceptable to link to DMOZ, but what you added appeared to be spam. Moreover, such things belong in the "External links" section, per WP:MoS. ffm 13:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I have added it to the external links section, thanks for advice. Ark25 (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I will vote here for directories, let create another article of Wikipedia about directories of Forums, to collect most famous directories. I come here, after a 20 years of internet surfing, I'm not interesting in definitions and engines, I'm interesting in directories, in forums that really cool. 93.81.39.98 (talk) 09:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2015

I believe it relevant to add that "Sock Puppeting" is a somewhat retired term, and that it has been replaced with the derogatory term "Samefagging." I also view that the term "Fag-" should be added as saying what an odd culture "lurks" on the internet, the word "fag" being replaced from derogatory to a generalized title. Dms1997 (talk) 07:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 07:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Wired URL broken

The link to the Wired article at the end of this sentence is 404:

‘In areas such as Japan, registration is frequently optional and anonymity is sometimes even encouraged.’

The URL should be updated to: http://archive.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2007/04/2channel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.62.49 (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. 97198 (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Some research

Hoping to find some source for Comparison of Internet forum software, I instead found a lot of other fashionable topics covered, with some touch of forums.

Recommendations: [19], doi:10.1109/MARK.2010.5623811, [20], doi:10.1177/1063293X10373824, doi:10.1145/1871437.1871511

Data mining: [21] [22] doi:10.1007/978-3-642-29253-8_70 [23], doi:10.1109/TKDE.2012.56, [24], doi:10.1007/978-3-642-12165-4_30 (phpBB, SMF), doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-1557-2_13 (dark web), doi:10.1109/IHMSC.2013.175, doi:10.1109/ICCSN.2011.6014309 (topic detection), doi:10.1007/s10791-011-9166-8, doi:10.1109/IIAI-AAI.2016.246 (facilitation in a forum corpus)

Statistics on forums: doi:10.2196/jmir.1591 (activity analysis), [25] (performance of participants), doi:10.1145/2531602.2531731 (quality), doi:10.1177/1049732315609567 (general benefits of forums), doi:10.1145/2531602.2531662 (reputation in one forum)

Feature selection: [26] (chose Discuz), [27] (Not especially relevant, but this thesis lists many possible features)

Reputation systems: doi:10.1145/2531602.2531657

Spam: doi:10.1109/INFCOM.2011.5935048 (some forums mentioned, but no real information on them), doi:10.1109/POLICY.2012.19 (policy enforcement)

Not useful: doi:10.1108/00242531011087033 (libraries and any OSS), doi:10.2190/TW.41.4.c (Linux Forum and phpBB forum analysis)

--Nemo 11:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Internet forum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060414191355/http://forums.delphiforums.com/ to http://forums.delphiforums.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Internet forum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011092536/http://www.videojug.com/expertanswer/internet-communities-and-forums-2/what-is-an-internet-forum to http://www.videojug.com/expertanswer/internet-communities-and-forums-2/what-is-an-internet-forum
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080507024349/http://www.greenwebdesign.com/Glossary-Of-Technical-Terms.htm to http://www.greenwebdesign.com/Glossary-Of-Technical-Terms.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080421205816/http://bugclub.org/glossary.html to http://bugclub.org/glossary.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100825183203/http://www.hurrchan.net/wiki/Tripcodes to http://www.hurrchan.net/wiki/Tripcodes
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121231061853/http://www.purplemartin.org/forumarchives/policy.htm to http://purplemartin.org/forumarchives/policy.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Internet+forum listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Internet+forum. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Pokechu22 (talk) 03:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

"See also" section is not relevant to the article

The *See also* section contains "Thread"(as in multithreading) and "Process Scheduling" which are in no direct way related to the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.75.84.118 (talk) 05:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2020

Section 5.8:

"... age (typically over 12 is required so as to meet COPPA requirements ..."

should say 13, not 12, as COPPA applies to children under 13. 2601:189:C47F:E280:70F0:4AB7:BF94:621F (talk) 03:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I've changed it to typically age 13 and over. There is ambiguity regarding the "over 12". Well does that include 12 years and 1 months? They aren't 13. Although I may have made a slight original research policy violation, I did 13 and over. {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 04:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Please someone, add a new section on qualities of a good forum participant.

That should be most useful to folks who really care to be profitable i.e. contributing to peace order and progress in society. 112.201.15.68 (talk) 00:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

"Srenfro's Public Boards" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Srenfro's Public Boards. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 16#Srenfro's Public Boards until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 19:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)