Talk:Web feed

message: Much of this article is not in the encyclopedic style of the rest of Wikipedia. I suggest taking the "technical" definition and moving it to the top of the page. The rest is written in the style one would find in an email explaining things to grandma.
67.171.43.170 19:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: rewrite

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

message: I have no (very little) direct knowledge of Web Feeds etc.  I manage mailing lists which they have many short comings do work for many people.  (Any idea relative useage??)  I noted the "benefits" on this page.  But my question is to what degree are Web Feeds capable of being used by modestly savvy folks for many to many discussions?
Fholson 00:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Many to many ? 

message: Shouldn't the word "http://www.apartemenalamsutera.com" start with a capital throughout the article? It does when you're talking about "the Web" in general (in Wikipedia anyway) and I don't really see a reason to just drop a cap. Retodon8 20:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Web feed capital W?

message: That seems a bit severe. Following that example there would be no external links for any articles because they'd either be assumed irrelevant because the info can be added to the article (but isn't), or because there's assumptions made about the longevity or intent of the website. Doesn't it make sense to treat Wikipedia article links the same way other sites do, namely to extend the impact of the original article? You seem to be arguing to make Wikipedia completely self-contained, which is unrealistic.
It's laudable to monitor external links for spam and for irrelevant content, but your second claim basically says: if the link is any good, then update the Wikipedia article. That's like saying: don't bother letting people find information on Richard Dawkins' recent book The God Delusion, if there's anything relevant in it add it to the Atheism article. It totally misses the point of the potential for rich content, and this surely diminishes Wikipedia's role as a great starting point for research. In that scenario it would be useful to link to sites that broaden the appeal of the article, and help give interested readers a chance to find out more information beyond the scope of whatever they read on here. This is especially relevant for opinion-based articles, which would likely fall beyond the scope of Wikipedia.
In other words, your second point is based squarely on an incorrect assumption: that a single article on this site is the best way to 'capture' a topic. In my experience Wikipedia-type articles are good for 'fact' based articles, but less so for opinion. Are you really arguing that we should make a topic less useful because someone might, at some future date, add to the articles on here?
I'm afraid this is a little myopic for my tastes. But fine, I'll not add the link. Thanks for taking the time to check and update the discussion.
Caesar0 20:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you disagree with Wikipedia's current policy on external links, you are welcome to start a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:External links.  RSS and Web Feeds are both topics where there are literally millions of Google hits. It is hard to see external links as being a scarce and valuable resource in that context.  If we were talking about a rare species of butterfly, then helpful links might be genuinely  hard to find. EdJohnston 23:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

text: What rule do you think we should follow in picking one or two links to include when ten million such links are available? Does each person use their own judgment, or do we have a discussion first?  If we have a discussion, how is it to be conducted? Does the person whose web site it is get to add the link themselves? It concerns me that you have added links to a site of Calvin van Hoek to more than one article. Generally it is much better for new editors to add article content rather than links, because it avoids becoming the center of attention for the anti-spam folks. EdJohnston 21:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Far too severe approach towards links 

message: Even though I was exposed to multiple articles on RSS and explanations newsfeeds by collagues, I did not get the point until one showed me how he uses it. Then someone recommended this CC-licensed video. Now I really got it. I propose to add it to external links.RSS in plain English.  Bernd in Japan 00:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The video is cute, but it could be more helpful to our readers to summarize the content of the video and add it to the article in text form. It is possible that others may object to adding the external link. There is also the injunction that Wikipedia is not a how-to. -- EdJohnston (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to add link to a 4 minute video explaining feeds and RSS 

message: The Firefox page states that the logo originated there, maybe this could be included.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.206.21.253 (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm planing to create a ful article only about the icon and its history. mabdul 0=* 18:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Web feed icon 

message: JSON feeds are listed as being a common format, but it certainly doesn't feel like such. There's a handful of readers and aggregators that do support it, but finding sites that actually offer their feeds in said format is harder. Are there any sources backing JSON feed as being considered common, or at least some rationale as to what constitutes "common"?185.163.103.83 (talk) 23:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is JSON Feed really all that common?