Talk:Usenet newsgroup

message: In the various articles about newsgroups, Usenet, list of newsgroups, and other places on Wikipedia, there are at least three different standards uses for listing a newsgroup in an article.  Those three standards are:
* plain lettering: alt.ascii-art
* italics: alt.ascii-art
* block lettering: alt.ascii-art
Which of these three is the "correct" way to list a newsgroup in a Wikipedia article?  Personally I think the italicized version should be correct, but I'm not sure if there is an "official" way to list a newsgroup. --Modemac 18:18, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Notation

message: In early 2005, Google started polluting its newsgroup archives by including public and private mailing lists without any indication of the difference.
--tshapin 11:50, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google is polluting its newsgroup archives 

message: Can somebody add content decribing moderation of USENET newsgroup?
:Wouldn't that involve discussing the concept of the "approved" line in a header?  Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 07:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moderation 

message: The lead section says:
:"Newsgroups of the 1980s thus became the precursor to the World Wide Web of the 1990s."
This seems quite misleading to me, except in the weak sense that ngs existed before the WWW. You could equally (and perhaps more accurately) say that FTP and Gopher (and even email) were precursors of the Web. I'd suggest deleting this sentence unless it can be reworded to be more meaningful. (And, come to think of it, did they become the precursors or were they the precursors?) AndrewWTaylor 16:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No comments on this for 2 weeks - I'll delete the sentence; and also the inappropriate mention of Outlook Express AndrewWTaylor 12:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good, it doesn't make any sense to me either. Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors  (talk) 04:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newsgroups "precursor" of WWW? 

message: I added a link to the web archive from wayback machine (I can only add references via wayback machine @ my station)a site that lists all the usenet hierarchies in alphabetical order, but the link appears as a 1 @ the bottom of the article.  I invite any who would be willing to teach me to do this better, to so do (I have always preferred the awkward "so do", and variants to ending sentences with prepesitions).Thaddeus Slamp 16:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  minor important addition to article, tho messed up. 

message: While I agree the "precursor" comment (above) was misleading, I think some sense of history
should be included in the introduction.  Newsgroups were the first main way networked
discussion happened - before the the Internet was widely used.  It would also be nice to give a sense of the extent of usage (I have not read the whole article so not usre if this is in there somewhere).  Clearly Newsgroups are a less significant part of all networked discussion now than they were at one time but have they declined in an absolute sense? Fholson 11:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In the 1980s there were lots of BBS'es with "message areas" - not "newsgroups" - but they were treated the same way by the sysops that ran their systems.  Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 07:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  history of newsgroups 

message: (Yet another long chain letter in Spanish deleted. What is it about this article that attracts them?) AndrewWTaylor (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Programa EXCLUSIVO - Realmente Funciona (CONTENT DELETED)  

message: I've added a bit to the lead about newsgroups remaining popular despite the advent of torrents, online forums, etc. I think it's worth expanding on this point for this article. In Internet terms, newsgroups are an ancient technology, and efforts are being made to shut them down from the ISP level, yet according to Wiki's own Usenet article the amount of material available via newsgroups continues to increase. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added to the lead 

message: Another long chain letter removed from here. Al (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cum sa faci bani pe net (CONTENT DELETED)

message: And another long chain letter removed from here Al (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  filme (CONTENT DELETED) 

message: I'm revising the links list to remove links that do not point to sites or resources specifically about newsgroups. Rationale: we have other articles in Wikipedia which are about Usenet in general; presumably the reader will click to these articles and follow the related links therein.
139.67.20.225 (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revising links list 

message: A Comparison of payservers needs to be made. Divide into blockaccounts (ie Astraweb, ...) and servers requiring a subscription (ie Giganews). Appearantly many ISP's disallow the downloading of binaries via usenet groups and/or don't allow the use of it al all. Payservers appearantly work around this problem.
91.182.60.211 (talk) 09:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Payservers

message: Searching for non-socio-cultural subjects in groups named like that might be comparable to noticing Latin (or Esperanto) porns called "interrecial" or "ethnic" (bad Anglo-Saxon imHo).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.3.140.208 (talk) 22:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: soc.culture

message: >"A Usenet newsgroup is a repository usually within the Usenet system, for messages posted from many users in different locations. Despite the name, newsgroups are discussion groups, and are not devoted to publishing news."
I think this should be changed to: "Usenet newsgroups are discussion groups within Usenet and, later, the Internet systems.  Newsgroups don't publish news per se, the name comes from the term "Netnews," which initially referred to technical developments and subsequent discussion.  Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors  (talk) 04:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite