Talk:Facebook/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

From Wikipedia:Votes for deletion

from VfD:

  • Delete. Spam for a web site, neither unique nor popular enough to be encyclopaedic.Wikipedia is not a web guide. User:

Okay, this is a weird situation. I created the article TheFacebook at 22:24, Oct 8, 2004 [1]. Then, thinking to make a redirect to that article, I went to To my surprise, redirected me to Thefacebook, an article that was already created that I didn't know about (I have since redirected to TheFacebook). At the top of the article Thefacebook was a VFD notice. I went to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion and searched for the entry for Thefacebook, but it wasn't on the page. So I went back to the Thefacebook page, and followed the link to [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Thefacebook]], which did exist, with the comment listed above by User: (he didn't write that signature; I added it for him). Apparently, this anon user had listed Thefacebook for deletion and made this page, but neglected to add {{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Thefacebook}} to [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion]]. What's weird is that, if you check the histories, the anon listed Thefacebook for deletion just an hour or so before I independently (unaware that the article Thefacebook existed) thought of creating an article for TheFacebook. Anyway, since the anon created the page [[Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Thefacebook]], it's only fair for me to go ahead and add {{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Thefacebook}}, which I am about to do, despite my opposition to this page's complete deletion, as explained in my vote below. Lowellian (talk)[[]] 04:05, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

Ah, now I get what the anon did. He added {{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Thefacebook}} to the actual Thefacebook article instead of to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. I have now removed the {{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Thefacebook}} template from Thefacebook. Lowellian (talk)[[]] 04:15, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect (do not merge) to TheFacebook. First, should there be an article on Yes: (1) Its Alexa ranking is 5078 [2], and we've kept far less notable websites. (2) The website has spread in an unprecedented way across college campuses; no other social networking website aimed at college students has spread so quickly. (3) It has generated a great deal of controversy in its conflicts with and (4) This controversy is reflected in the large number of news articles about it, as reflected in the large number of news articles in a Google search for "thefacebook" (which returns about 6840 results, a notable number). Now, second question, why redirect rather than merge? Because I think TheFacebook is frankly a better article, incorporating all the information on Thefacebook and more, with the exception of the list of universities on Thefacebook, which is inappropriate (that list is not encyclopedic and is constantly changing as universities are often being added to and should be removed anyway. Lowellian (talk)[[]] 04:05, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • ...which could of course be acheived without deletion by simply replacing the current article with a redirect. Anon votes don't count on VFD. Do their nominations? If not, this listing should be removed. If so, Thefacebook should be made a redirect to TheFacebook, and TheFacebook should be listed here in its place. Rory 16:32, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Yes, I know about Alexa. So what? --Improv 19:17, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • A good time for a Redirect, camel case misspellings are excellent reasons for such siroχo 20:43, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • Actually, isn't Thefacebook the correct title? Probably should bring TheFacebook over to this title. siroχo 20:50, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
      • It is indeed. Looking at the site it is capitalised as Thefacebook or thefacebook throughout. Since the latter is unachievable on Wikipedia the article should be titled Thefacebook. Rory 10:18, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
        • I agree. It has always been known as Thefacebook (one word with only the first letter capitalized). --Spoon! 00:59, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge. I never heard of this before, but, then, I'm not a student. What I've read convinces me that it merits an article. Unless anyone can refute the comments above, that article should be at Thefacebook, with other capitalizations being redirects. JamesMLane 05:46, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:18, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and merge to "Thefacebook." This website is definately notable. --L33tminion 18:24, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Graham ☺ | Talk 02:46, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep the site has been featured in news articles often, and the wikipedia page is helpful for those who are unfamiliar with thefacebook.

end moved discussion


Currently, TheFacebook redirects to thefacebook, and that's great, but maybe The Facebook should also redirect to it? Although appears to consistently refer to itself as Thefacebook, students I know generally refer to it as "The Facebook," and I think that popular usage is sufficient reason to set up a redirect. Any thoughts? --LostLeviathan 04:02, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Done. Be bold. Lowellian (talk)[[]] 04:52, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. --LostLeviathan 21:29, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Missing clause?

This from the first paragraph:

  • While any user with access to a valid .edu e-mail address, a group that includes most faculty and staff members, the vast majority of thefacebook’s users are students.

"While any user with access to a valid .edu e-mail address..." (can? may? verb something?... "the vast majority..." is a subordinate clause.) what? Schissel : bowl listen 01:49, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I fixed it. --Oddtoddnm 06:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Lip Ring

"Lip Ring," upon search, shows that it's this one guy at the University of Kansas, so any "Lip Ring" pimping should be reverted. Mike H (Talking is hot) 05:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I went to public school, bitch!

I do think that should be mentioned somehow in the article, because it's something that has spread to nearly EVERY school on facebook. Mike H (Talking is hot) 19:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

No. Just cos a joke group is prevalent doesn't mean that it should be listed. It's not noteworthy enough to be of encyclpedic character. Thesquire 02:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
It's not on every single 'I went to public school' group. Okay, maybe they've started to call themselves "([insert college name here] chapter)", but still, it's not important enough that it matters. Are you going to list that at just about every college, there're groups of people who hate Bush? Details this fine are essentially useless in characterizing the entire community. ~GMH talk to me 06:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree with not listing the group. It's just not relevant. I would only mention a group (or group types) in the event that it somehow severely affects Facebook.The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 17:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

The article right now reads:

'Facebook, formerly known as thefacebook, is a social networking website specifically for college, university, and now high school communities, primarily those in the United States'.

It seems redundant to me to say its specifically for college, and now high school, so I changed it do read

" specifically for high school and college communities..." Tkessler 23:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Facebook subheaders

Does "Campus police use Facebook for investigation" really fall under "Criticism"? Seems like we should create a new section for Facebook being used in investigations (campus or otherwise).

Also, in the case of UNM, policy reviewal does not qualify as criticism.

I'm thinking of a better way to organize the page for more flexibility (i.e. more appropriate subheaders). In the meantime, if anyone has any suggestions, ideas, feel free to make changes. jareha 17:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


Initially, if one had their "wall" enabled, their friends could edit the wall as they like. However, in late 2005, the "wall" was changed to a message board format, and users no longer edit it like they could previously.

I don't know of any changes to the wall structure. Is someone else seeing something I don't? Mike H. That's hot 10:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

It was changed, pretty much how its described in the article. It used to be that a reader could edit the whole thing, and edits were haphazardly attributed to people. Now it's a post system. Thesquire 05:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Oh, yes! I feel dumb now. I really did hate how people could fuck it up and have the whole wall 'attributed' to them. I forgot. Thanks. Mike H. That's hot 06:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

"Surveillance" and "Censorship"

These section titles need to be edited. They're heavily POV and were not like this a couple of days ago. Honestly, whether it's "surveillance" and "censorship" is in the eye of the beholder. For example, the university systems probably see it completely differently than a student (who I'm assuming retitled the sections). Mike H. That's hot 02:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Whoa. Whoops. I was just trying to simplify the section titles. I suppose it does sound POV - in my defense, by surveillance I simply meant that people (police, employers, administration, RAs, etc) were looking at profiles (its not only "investigations"). By censorship, I meant the blocking of access (as in, the school using so-called 'censorware' to prevent students' access). I understand your point but I still think the titles could be improved. --L1AM 13:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


does this make sense to anyone? "There have been numerous reports and/or rumors that employers are looking at Facebook profiles of prospective employees or interns. Whether or not this practice is common is unknown, but students looking for jobs should be aware that companies could secretly use a Facebook profile for or against possible employment."

i dont know who wrote this or what was going through his head but how can a company use facebook? u cant sign up for facebook unless you have a .edu account. unless the employer is a university, but to make a general statement like that (employers will check out employees on facebook) is foolish.

I agree that this sounds implausible. Who says this? Is it verifiable? The only way an employer would have access to Facebook would be if that employer was a student, faculty/staff member, or administrator at a college or university, and even in that case the employer would only be able to access Facebook profiles of potential employees if they were students at the same school. If the potential employee was affiliated with a different school, the employer would have to friend them first, which sort of defeats the purpose of "secretly" checking out someone's Facebook profile to see if they'd make a good employee. I added a "citation needed" tag to this claim... if we can't turn anything up by next week on this or the Calvin College story, I suggest we remove them. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 23:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
A google search for "employer job facebook" gives a couple of hits, but most (all?) seem to be just general warnings to be careful with one's online presence since employers might check later. I haven't seen an actual report of facebook's use by employers, but I have looked only for 3 minutes. As for the practicality of it, I guess the employer could always call a friend with an alumni email address at the applicant's school, or pay a student to look. AxelBoldt 00:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Added a reference at the end of the employer use paragraph. jareha 17:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Increasingly, there are a number of news stories regarding employer use of the Facebook. Notable is Employers looks at Facebook in which it is stated "According to a document sent to campus Career Center directors nationwide, potential employers have begun to use this online forum to conduct a sort of background check on applicants." Other recent news stories that provide evidence include Facebook Raises Privacy Concerns (T.J. Barber, Associate Director for the Office of Campus Life, indicated that there was an instance in which a "graduating senior [from Trinity] lost a job at Disney due to her Facebook account contradicting some of her answers from an interview and information contained on her resume."), Clean Up Your Digital Dirt Before It Trashes Your Job Search and Administration, alumni, prospective employers can search online. It is clear that employers can use the Facebook to research applicants if they are able and motivated to do so. fstutzman

Thanks for those sources; it's nice to have some concrete evidence for this. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 05:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
And add this one to the list - Employers, police joining Facebook - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 15:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Please see [] for a list of news stories regarding the Facebook. This list is continuously updated and is a valuable reference for authors writing about the Facebook fstutzman

busines aspect of facebook

how exactly does facebook make money?

Selling sidebar advertising and sponsored groups. If you look under "jobs" on their website, they are actually hiring salespeople right now. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 03:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Celebrity profiles

In a couple of places, the article talks about Facebook's policy against fake/celebrity profiles, stating it in such a way as to imply that this policy is of recent origin. I have been a Facebook member since December 2004, and I remember seeing this policy in the TOS when I joined. It was not enforced then and it is not enforced now - I just got a friend invitation from "A Tree", a fake profile that was created December 5 (today). Also, I don't think you can really say that creating face or celebrity profiles is "a recent phenomenon". "God" at my school has been around for nearly a year. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 00:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to comment in regard to the "no people have over 1000 friends" thread. Please look up Jenn Sterger at Florida State University. -Scm83x 03:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I didn't say no people have over 1000 friends, I just said I didn't know of any. (Also, I am unable to view Jenn Sterger's friend list as I am not one of her friends.) The article previously said many Facebook users have over 1000 friends; can we still assume that this is inaccurate? To check this out, I went to "social net" to get a list of more-or-less random people. I checked the friend lists of the first 100 people to come up. (Yes, I am procrastinating. Why do you ask?) The mean number of friends was 261.6 with a minimum of 6 and a maximum of 755. Given that, I think I'd be happy with the statement, "many people have over 500 friends" (in my sample, the rate was 12%), but I don't think the "over 1000 friends" statement was justified. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 04:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Calvin College

Is there any evidence for the claim that Calvin College has used Facebook in investigations of alcohol policy violations? I have looked very hard, searching through their recent newspaper archives page by page, and have found nothing. The text has been added to the article twice now, and it may well be true, but if nobody can provide a source I think we should delete it as it is not verifiable. The section is already starting to sound kind of repetitive, so let's stick to investigations that have generated some press, especially those that involve fines, expulsions, or large numbers of students. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 15:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

  • It may not get much press, but plenty of school administrators and staff members use it to identify violations or students involved in violations that refused to offer accurate identification. --SparqMan 01:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, given that there is now a source citation I'm fine with it staying in the article... I can't access the linked article right now because the Chimes website is down, but with any luck that shouldn't last for long. We might have to think about reorganizing this section in the future if too many of these incidents accumulate, as I think they probably will. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 16:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Investment with Plaxo/PayPal/Accel

I remember doing research on this and finding nothing, so maybe someone can cite a source for this entire paragraph, because I came up with nothing.

At an unknown point between the autumn of 2004 and the spring of 2005, Zuckerberg met Napster and Plaxo founder Sean Parker, who joined Thefacebook as its president. Parker introduced Zuckerberg to Peter Thiel, founder of PayPal, who invested $500,000 in the company and took a seat on its board of directors. On May 27, 2005, Accel Partners, a California venture capital firm, announced that it would infuse Thefacebook with US$13 million with Jim Breyer, one of the firm’s managing partners, joining Thiel, Zuckerberg and Parker on the board. This investment is believed to imply a US$100 million total valuation for the company.

Mike H. That's hot 03:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I added two "Citation needed" templates because some of the history reads like hearsay, and I would like sources. Mike H. That's hot 11:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay, it has been nine days. If someone doesn't add a source to this by Christmas, I'm removing it, because this should be documented, and if it isn't, then it's probably made up just for this article, and doesn't serve anyone a purpose by being there. Mike H. That's hot 17:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I added In May 2005, Facebook recieved $13 million in venture capital from Accel Partners. [5] The website also recieved around $500,000 from Peter Thiel during an earlier angel round.[1] which is less detailed but at least has some sources. --L1AM 07:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I was beginning to think people forgot about it. Mike H. That's hot 08:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Jim Breyer

Removed the following text, as it seemed to be too much detail for an article on Facebook.

James Breyer was former chair of the National Venture Capital Association (NVAC). Breyer served on NVAC's board with Gilman Louie, CEO of In-Q-Tel, a venture capital firm established by the Central Intelligence Agency in 1999. This firm works in various aspects of information technology and intelligence, including most notably "nurturing data mining technologies".

jareha 18:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

This information is part of a conspiracy theory that Facebook is being used the by the CIA as a means of monitoring people, as can be read from Common Ground Common Sense. The link between James Breyer and the CIA is fairly flimsy at best.
--Hinchu 17:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Northridge High School

I've moved this here from the Notes section of the article:

So did Northridge Highschool in Tuscaloosa Alabama.

Since it was in the footnotes, there's no way to tell just by reading the article what Northridge High School did, and no source for the claim was provided. Until we have that information, I don't think this adds anything to the article. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 19:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Etiquette Rule Book

I really don't think this section is going to work out. For one, this is an encyclopedia article about Facebook, not a how-to guide for using it. For two, this "rule book" varies a LOT from school to school, and probably doesn't even exist at many schools. My school has one, but it's called something different and has a completely different list of rules (and only 7 members). For three, I'm not sure what it adds to the article. Most of these rules are just standard etiquette or common sense, and would apply to any social networking site, not just Facebook. Bascially, don't be a dick. For four, judging by edits that have already been made to this section, there are significant disagreements about what the "rules" ought to be. Presenting one set as "typical" makes this section a vehicle for one person's Facebook POV, especially since it is nearly impossible to compare these rules across schools (you can't search for groups that aren't at your school). I'd be in favor of hacking the whole section out, but I don't want to do that without getting a second opinion. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 19:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we can make a blanket statement such as, "Some students have formed Facebook groups dedicated to rules on the network, believing that certain policies should be followed, such as" and then give an example. Thoughts? -Scm83x 19:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. --Liface 19:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I introduced this section of the article in the first place. It seemed to me that the article was lacking in that it gave a thorough description of the features available to Facebook users and it provided some details of the history and business sides of the Facebook, but it did not give a clear perception of the culture of the Facebook, explaining how people (particularly students) actually use it. This struck me as one way to describe the culture, at least implicitly because from reading the "rules" it is clear that Facebook profiles are hardly to be taken seriously, but I agree that it is probably not the best way. I would not be opposed to the removal of the entire section, but I do think there should be some section detailing the culture of the Facebook that has emerged and evolved since its inception. NBS525 20:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
This section should be deleted or changed to be more encyclopedic. --TheAznSensation 00:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I see NBS's point. This article should discuss the "Facebook culture" somewhat. The rules should be deleted but something should be said about the politics of having x number of friends or knowing this person through someone else, being in the "hottest people at podunk university" group, and the facebook rulebook. What does everyone think? -Scm83x 00:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with TheAznSensation: the section is unencyclopedic and needs a lot of work. I also agree with Scm83x, in that a paragraph or so about culture would be appropriate. Since the "rules" are hardly universal, though, I'm all for replacing the section with Scm83x's proposed text earlier. For now, I'm gonna slap a Neutrality warning on it until the "rules" themselves are deleted or replaced with something akin to the proposed replacement text. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 00:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I have removed this section, as seemed appropriate by the group consensus. If anyone wants to put comments about culture in, they can, but the list probably shouldn't go back in. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Facebook group makes MTV news

Thought this was interesting, though not necessarily worthy of inclusion in the article... - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 03:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Addition of features

I cleaned up the history section quite a bit by separating it into a section on the expansion of the site to schools and another section on the expansion of the features the Facebook offers. However, I don't recall exactly when certain features were introduced. Can anybody remember precisely when the following appeared? I know they were not originally part of the site.

  • "High School" specification option for college users.
  • "Contact info" as a separate section
  • "Professional info"
  • Poking
  • Messaging through the facebook
  • Ability to list friends at other schools
  • "My parties" (now "my events") -- on a side note, it should be noted in the article that this change, along with the addition of the "Professional info" feature, seems to be an attempt to reach out more to alumni and to make the Facebook seem more professional itself, rather than as just a way for college students to hook up and that sort of thing. Perhaps indicative of an overall trend in the site and suggestive of where it might be headed in the future?

NBS525 15:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

What's "Professional info"? I can't find that on my Facebook. My Parties was added in July or August 2005, I'm pretty sure. The rest of the features all existed before December 6, 2004, when I joined Facebook. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 16:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
"Professional info" appears as a section of the Facebook profile below "Contact Info" and "Personal Info" but above the "Photos" section. Users have the following fields within it to provide information: "Job," "Job Title," "Description," and "Work History." I think that people who have designated themselves "student" or "graduate student" don't have access to it. I am an "alumnus," so I have that section. Actually, I remember when I first noticed the "My parties" feature. The first party that I listed was on April 10, 2005, and I know that I listed it several days prior to that (which was when I first noticed that the feature existed). So I think that it must have been introduced around early April or late March, 2005. NBS525 17:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

School Transfering

It should be added under usabillity that transfering schools within facebook is very hard. I sent in a trasfer over a month ago and all I've heard from them was that it takes time. A month is crazy long for a simple server move. Mooga 02:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC) - IP removed my user. There is no User:Mooga, edit was by -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 17:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Please remember, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. This article doesn't exist just for people with axes to grind. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 17:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    • That is why it's back here and not the the fron page. The fact is that it's a usabillity problem, not simply that I am having the problem 22:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC) (aka Mooga(I haven't signed up yet... sry))
Gotta agree with this, it's a fact that transferring schools does not work very well.

Amount of Registered Users

Can anyone provide a source for the amount of registered Facebook accounts in the Wikipedia entry ?

According to the USA Today - ] [who cite their source as comScore Media Metrix, a division of comScore Networks, Inc.] the amount of Facebook users in Nov. 2005 was 11.1 Million; a sharp difference of the 6 million currently in the wikipedia entry.

Regards. Wskora 20:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this 11.1 million figure is more reliable. I looked up the history of the page and the 6 million figure was provided by a user who was not logged in -- there's just an IP address. Furthermore, the 6 million figure is supposedly only the number of users in the US. I think the 11.1 million number is actually more revealing of the Facebook's growing worldwide popularity. I'll add it to the article. NBS525 20:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

SVG Image of Friends

It seems that Facebook has removed this feature. Can anyone else verify this or offer any insight? --Slavakion 02:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It hasn't been around for a while. Initially I thought it was because I don't have many friends (7 at my university and 17 total), but I don't think that is the reason. I thought I saw info on it in the help pages, but I don't see it anymore. --waffle iron 03:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
It's been gone for me, too. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 05:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, since it looks like it's gone for good, I removed it. If anyone has a problem, feel free to revert. --Slavakion 03:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it should be removed per se, but at least noted that it was available at one time but now it isn't. Mike H. That's hot 04:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. —Nightstallion (?) 10:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move


I propse that this page be moved to Facebook, and the page currently titled Facebook be moved to Facebook (book). The other article is three lines long. This article is as long as most featured articles on wikipedia. Most users who type in facebook are looking for the website. At the very least I think that Facebook should redirect here and this page could contain a dab for the other article Savidan 09:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. NBS525 13:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. The Facebook article represents an actual Facebook object, which is completely valid. The Facebook website represents a subset of that object type, not the actual object itself. While this does inconvenience users who may not know better, it simply doesnt seem right to me. It would be as if we made news point to television news only; television news is just one type of news. Fstutzman 05:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
It's not the same, though, because there are many different notable types of news. There's really only two facebook articles, and this is the dominant one. Let's move it. --Liface 07:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep in mind the news example is just one analogy, and probably not the best one that can be imagined. While there may only be two Facebook articles, there are many types of facebooks. Corporations keep them on many occasions; a medium-size corporation may publish a facebook of all of their employees, while a large corporation may publish a facebook of all their new employees (for example, a consulting firm publishing a list of all new analysts, or a large legal firm publishing a facbook of all new associates). I continue to concede the Facebook (website) of which we speak is certainly the dominant exemplar, but it continues to remain an exemplar, which justifies my belief. Fstutzman 11:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Fstutzman's reasoning. The dab currently on Facebook is fine - this is an encyclopedia, and the physical object should take precedence over the website named for it. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I also agree with Fstutzman's reasoning. jareha 06:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Add my voice to the chorus. The Facebook website is a special case of the general concept of a facebook, and thousands of colleges have been publishing facebooks for many years before the Facebook website existed and will most likely continue to do so long after it passes into obscurity. Current news buzz over the Facebook website doesn't justify moving the article. The people who are looking for it can easily find it from the link at Facebook. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 08:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I suppose that you guys would prefer to turn Muhammad into a stub about the name becuase the prophet Muhammad is "just one example" of a person named Muhammad. Or maybe Friends should discuss the concept of people being friends rather than the TV show "named for it". These are just a few examples, but the concensus all across wikipedia is to defer to the more notable topic even if it is named after a physical object or concept with an inferior article or less traffic. When namespeces intersect, the consensus has been to use notability and usability (i.e. how many people typing in facebook want this article/ how many want the other). By your logic, people who are looking for a generic article about facebooks could "easily find it from the [dab] link". That is not an argument as to which article should be given the title "Facebook" sans parentheses. Yes, people will find what they are looking for. Lets make it easier for more people to find what they are looking for most of the time. Additionally, the fact that the other article is a stub with little hope of improving in the near future does not help its case. In fact, all of the useful information in that article is in this article. Savidan 10:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
The wikipedia is unique in as much as it allows us to break the conventional notions of classification. To answer your two examples: Yes, Muhammad should remain, since biographies are obviously a documented, notable case in classification. Friends, on the other hand, I do not agree with. The fact the wikipedia lets users choose popularity over quality is not a virtue in my mind, nor do I believe it is in our core mission as editors to make content more findable - our mission is to make content metter. It is our duty to properly classify the articles, and then let the information seekers come to them (which they will). The good news is the debate of popularity vs. quality is as old as encyclopedias, libraries and the web itself. See Amento, B., Terveen, L., & Hill, W. (2000). Does ‘authority’ mean quality? Predicting expert quality ratings of web documents. Proceedings of ACM SIGIR (Athens, July 24-28). 296-303. and Schamber, L., Eisenberg, M. B., & Nilan, M. S. (1990). A re-examination of relevance: Toward a dynamic, situational definition. Information Processing and Management, Volume 26, Number 6. 755-76 for more information. Fstutzman 15:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I think since Wikipedia exists almost entirely on the internet, there is an unfortunate bias of favoring internet related articles and culture over more traditionally encyclopedic things. --waffle iron 18:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Just because that bias exists doesn't mean we should bow to it -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 19:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
My arguement was not that we should "bow to popularity". This is an issue of notability. is far more notable than the facebooks which predated it. I agree that we can determine our own methods of classification. However, I think that the abstract notion of "quality" vs. "popularity" is inherently arbitrary. Couldn't you just as easily argue that the article on Muhammad bows to the "popularity" of that individual rather than dealing with the name generally? United States is the article about the USA even though the United States of Belgium predated it. You are right that there is a systemic bias on wikipedia toward online content, but I believe that even absent that is more notable than facebooks in terms of total users, time spent on facebook, impact on culture, etc. I believe that its just as biased to jockey for the positioning of a terminal stub over a much longer, and more well written article. Savidan 08:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but there is no generic "United States", so I think this is a false analogy. A better one would be "America" - and note that despite the fact that millions of USians use the term exclusively to mean "United States of", so much so that the generic usage is all but obsolete, "America" does not redirect there. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 17:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
From the Disambiguation guidelines: "When the primary meaning for a term or phrase is well known (indicated by a majority of links in existing articles, and by consensus of the editors of those articles), then use that topic for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top." I think that at this point, the primary use and meaning of the word is referring to the social networking site (not the printed yearbooks/directories). Also, looking at "what links here" for the website and for the printed directory, the majority of links in exsisting articles lead to the website. In addition, if you do a Google search, (common test for notability), the majority of results mention the site not a printed book. --L1AM 11:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I kinda foolishly started over/actually began the facebook voting debate (because there were some comments like waffle iron's that weren't clear whether or not they were voting and for what). I have now realized that not everyone who commented before may have had it on their watchlist so I notified everyone who commented earlier and had not yet (re)voted. Sorry. --L1AM 07:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Umm, this was never added to Wikipedia:Requested moves. I added it just now. --L1AM 10:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


  • Strong support proposed move as per disambiguation conventions, notability, and Savidan's arguments. --L1AM 11:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Fstutzman. jareha 19:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Fstutzman -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Mike H. That's hot 05:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Fstutzman. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 06:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: from WP:D "Ask yourself: When a reader enters this term and pushes "Go", what article would they realistically be expecting to view as a result?" I believe (and I think you'll agree) most people typing in "facebook" are looking for the website that got $13 million in venture capital in less than a year. Plus WP:D goes on to say "Dictionary definitions don't belong here." The facebook stub is simply that, a definition that does not belong on Wikipedia. Let's move that short paragraph to Wiktionary and add a link to it from this encyclopedia article. Please reconsider. --L1AM 06:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: People who are opposing have yet to come to terms with WP:D. Savidan 16:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Don't speak for all people who are opposing, thank you. Mike H. That's hot 22:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support notability is the only objective standard for this. Savidan 07:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support because of notability. --Liface 07:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - I've thought about it, and considering facebook (the paper one) is more of a dictionary term and obviously people are going to be looking for the website article.--waffle iron 17:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment but that's not what a facebook is. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 21:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: In the strictest sense, you're right. However, Wikipedia is not a dictionary and it is not our job to define words. Again, Friends is not an article defining what friendship is. Your position is claiming we should give preference to a three sentence stub-definition disambiguation page of a fairly unused/outdated term instead of a 40 kilobyte possibly future featured article. --L1AM 22:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC) (updated by --L1AM 09:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC))
      • Thesquire, "facebook" is different things to different people. At wikipedia, we can POV war and try to make our favorite meaning the primary article, or we can fallow the disambiguation policies. I'm not trying to "speak for all the people who are opposing", I'm merely pointing out that you seem to want to ignore policies. Savidan 23:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
        • First, Fifth pillar - no hard and fast rules (aka Ignore all rules). Second, this isn't my favorite meaning; I don't have a favorite meaning. Facebook (website) is named for a type of publication called a Facebook. That alone should dictate that the former be considered a subtype of the latter. If you've followed the link to Facebook you'll see that its a dab page already, not a "three sentence stub-definition," where Facebook (website) is listed as a specific subtype. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 09:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Yeah, that would be my doing. Sorry about the confusion. --L1AM 09:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

current event

Wikinews:Bloggers_investigate_social_networking_websites is currently a featured article at Wikinews. Should there be a Wikinews template added to this wikipedia article?--L1AM 01:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Digital mourning section

While this does describe a notable phenomenon, do we have to list every school where hundreds of people posted on the wall of a student who took a dirt nap? I know I'm being a bit insensitive about this, but beyond this being an instance of example-creep, how are we to decide which deaths get included on the list past the first few? WP:NOT a memorial. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 11:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This is another one of those sections that is likely to expand beyond all reason if Facebook continues to be popular. I think a reasonable rule of thumb for the whole article at this point would be, include only those examples which are unusual or extraordinary in some way and which have received press coverage. So, we wouldn't make a note of every time someone got "investigated" for Facebook-related policy violation. This article needs some major trimming but I am just too busy to take care of it right now. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 14:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we need to include any more examples. In fact, there are probably 30 or more examples I've collected, so we've already trimmed them quite substantially. The examples exist to prove the case (i.e., no "original" material), but we certainly don't need to chronicle all events of this nature (nor do we need to do it for policy violations, for that matter). That said, this article should still chronicle and document notable phenomena - folks who research the facebook on this site will appreciate links to news organizations so they know they can trust us (and that we're not just posting our opinions here...which this article suffers from heavily). Plus...what is wrong with "example creep?" Would we rather have less supporting information than more? Fstutzman 19:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
What's wrong with "example creep" is that it's the manifestation of bunches of editors going "me too!" Every single instance of a thing does not need to be documented, and in fact each additional instance is increasingly non-notable and unexceptional because it's just more of the same. There comes a point when having 30 examples of something detracts from actually describing it, which is the point of an encyclopedia. Three, maybe four examples are more than enough, unless something truely unusual occurs -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 20:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Isn't that logic inherently flawed? There are some things that only become notable after more people do them (i.e. Cultural accretion). A thing may become less newsworthy over time, but more people doing one thing strengthens the case over time. It isn't our duty to document and support phenomena? It may be your opinion that "30 examples of something detracts", but isn't that purely a personal qualitative judgement? Fstutzman 17:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Bad writing is bad writing -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 00:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


As soon as the proposed move discussion is resolved (and how does one go about that, by the way?), I'm going to create an archive for this talk page. That is, if someone doesn't beat me to it. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Facebook songs

Unless someone can verify that these things are occuring and are noteworthy, I'm all for deleting the entire section. It's turning into a link directory. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I did a cleanup of that section only in the event that it stays. You have my support if you decide to take it down. jareha 06:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I am unhappy with that section as well. Claims of widespread popularity are unverifiable unless news coverage surfaces. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 07:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Just wastd 20 minutes watching that movie... which is totally non-notable. I'm deleting the entire section as per Jareha. — Scm83x talk Hookem hand.gif 06:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh man, sorry for putting you through that. I only added that because it was mentioned in the techcrunch article (which, by the way, seems to be temporarily messed up - try here). I watched the trailer (which was lame) and gave up on the movie. I do think they at least belong in external links though. Also, can someone delete the screenshot? --L1AM 06:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it even deserves external linking... I already {{ifd}}ed the image. — Scm83x talk Hookem hand.gif 06:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


Why, pray tell, did you close the requested moves discussion as no consensus yet move the page anyway? I am very curious. Mike H. That's hot 08:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, never mind, I already saw how Savidan went and got you to move the page, even after a vote on the subject was held. That's low. Mike H. That's hot 08:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I've restored status quo ante pending other moves. It's clear there was no consensus to move and retitle the page. I suggest more discussion take place before further moves. FCYTravis 09:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Lol! I wasn't trying to undercut a discussion. I just wanted to point out that the previous discussion lacked consensus because some people thought the article about the actual books should be the article at Facebook. However, since that article no longer exists, that discussion didn't seem relevant. savidan(talk) (e@) 20:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Mike, please refrain from using headers to personally address people on talk pages per WP:TPG. And as far as calling the actions of Nightstallion "low", please assume good faith. Thanks! --L1AM (talk - 'tribs.) 11:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. Finally. —Nightstallion (?) 09:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move--again

OK, the last proposed move was closed as "no consensus". Normally, this would be too soon to start a new discussion. However, since the old article which used to exist at Facebook no longer exists (it was transwikied to Wiktionary), it seems in order to move this page to Facebook. That page is currently a disambiguation page, but it seems silly to disambiguate for a project page and a wiktionary article. Disambiguation is undesirable and should only be used for actual namespace conflicts. The selfref link (to Wikipedia:Facebook) and the Wiktionary link (to wikt:Facebook) can just as easily be included in the article, with much less clicking for the 99% of users who are looking for this article. The Wiktionary link already is. I quote from WP:D: "Dictionary definitions don't belong here. However, there are templates for linking to Wiktionary. " savidan(talk) (e@) 20:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

since the old article which used to exist at Facebook no longer exists (it was transwikied to Wiktionary), it seems in order to move this page to Facebook. We already dealt with this in the old discussion. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 20:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how this is possible, being as the transwikification occured after the debate was "closed". savidan(talk) (e@) 01:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Transwikification occured on the 15th, on the 16th I noted it in my last posting in that thread, and then the discussion was closed. You may not have noticed the transwikification of Facebook until after the discussion was closed, but the history page there tells all. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 03:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment- The transwikification (creation of the Wikitionary article) was done on the 14th. The wikt. template was added to Facebook on the 14th. The three sentence stub was reformated as a disambiguation page on the 16th. All of this was done after the last proposed move began. If the clean up process was (mostly) complete by the 16th, it is importate to note that every voting editor had cast their vote by the 14th and were likely unaware of the significant changes. In addition, the proposal was not added to Wikipedia:Requested moves until the 16th! Therefore, this new proposal is necessary if we are to properly address the issue. L1AM 05:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, since my later opinions were formed after Facebook became a dab page, they still stand. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I oppose Fstutzman 07:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - the disambiguation page is useless when we have a Wiktionary template and a project selfref link on the article about the website. Its almost like a compromise has already been made -- everything is already linked to from the article page, everyone's a winner. Let's move it already! L1AM (talk - 'tribs.) 08:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Most people who type "Facebook" and hit Go are going to be looking for this page. Shouldn't we be trying to save this large majority of people an extra click? No need for the disambiguation page when the minority can work it out from this page. cBuckley 12:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per cBuckley. —chair lunch dinner™ (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support as nominator. Disambiguation policy specifically prohibits disambiguating for project pages and wiktionary. Even if we "ignore all rules", these still seem like very good guidelines for which page deserves precedence. Let's increase Wikipedia's usefulness for all. savidan(talk) (e@) 21:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, as I've voted from the start. --Liface 23:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - notability Sabrebattletank 23:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per last time -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 08:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Mike H. That's hot 08:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've read the previous discussion very carefully and it doesn't explain why we should disambiguate for project or wiktionary pages. It doesn't help that neither of the oppose votes want to explain why that is either, especially when the guidelines specifically prohibit it. savidan(talk) (e@) 20:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

If I may make a suggestion...

I've upgraded this to be a good article, but looking through the criteria, I just thought i'd chime in, this article seems like it could use a picture or two more and more citations of facts about facebook, if possible. But even then, I think this is a good article anyway. Homestarmy 20:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


Are we sure that we want to keep the self-reference template at the top of the page? I think we can all agree that Wikipedia:Ignore all rules often deserves consideration when we see a vaguely-worded guide like Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. At times, self-referencing may certainly be relevant to the article, and the self-reference template shows that there exist precedents where something like this fits.

I don't see how this really fits, though. The article isn't about Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Facebook isn't a particularly widely-used link. It has no encyclopedic value and would certainly not be notable enough to deserve its own article. It's simply community building; while it would be absurd to call user pages and the community portal unencyclopedic to the point of deserving deletion, we certaintly don't link to them in articles.

It's not particularly functional, either. There's already a link to Wikipedia:Facebook at the main Facebook disambiguation page. I know there's debate about moving the page right now, but there's no need to jump the gun and pretend that the main dab page doesn't exist before we've reached a definitive consensus. This page should still retain a link to that page, not solely to the Wikipedia page. Regardless, I still doubt the validity of placing a link to a page that has no functional use in Wikipedia besides community-building anywhere in the main namespace — save that for the community portal, user, and talk pages. — Rebelguys2 talk 07:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, almost all the links in other articles were ariving here, so it kind of made sense to announce the fact that WP:Facebook exsists. Anyway, the article has since been moved and the dab page is now unneeded. If a link to WP:FB is to exsist, it belongs on this article page. This might not be the best example, but Templates selfref links to Wikipedia:Template messages (although that may be because the majority of those who type in 'templates' are looking for Wikipedia ones where in this situation I would guess the majority are looking for the article). Whatever the case may be, for now I think we should leave the selfref. --L1AM (talk - 'tribs.) 12:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
In the past, I've seen things go the other way. For example, I first learned of avoiding self-references when I saw User:Raul654, the guy in charge of featured articles, remove Wikipedia:Peer review from Peer review, as seen here: [3] Either way, like you said, a self-ref to something like Wikipedia's templates are certaintly more "functional" than the Wikipedia facebook. — Rebelguys2 talk 13:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)