Talk:Discord

Requested move 20 January 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) BegbertBiggs (talk) 13:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Discord (software) → Discord (service) – The article, and most coverage, is about the service, not the client software. Therefore, the disambiguation for (software) is a bit misleading, and (service) is much clearer. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 04:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - Unlike, say, Twitch (serive), Discord is more a piece of software than a service, just that its driven by a client-server model behind it. --Masem (t) 04:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - Twitch is a service that can be accessed by multiple independent third-party clients - the primary being OBS and StreamLabs' version of OBS, but many others exist. Discord, AFAIK, can only be accessed by the discord client - which means that anyone referring to it as a "service" is necessarily referring to the software Discord itself provides for such service. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Minor note, third party clients for Discord do exist. However, they are against ToS. So the point mostly stands. -- ferret (talk) 03:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Most people use the Discord software to access Discord, so it would be more accurate to describe it as a piece of software._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  Sure, but the article isn't about the software. It's about Discord as a whole, which is a service that happens to provide software. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 07:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose There is only one official way to access Discord and all other ways are either for bots or very rarely used.Tinyds (talk) 02:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - I've never really liked the (software) disambiguator but I don't think (service) would be better. Maybe it'd be worth it to propose moving it to just "Discord" again now that Discord has gotten more mainstream in the pandemic, though I'm doubtful that'll succeed. Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 10:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Berchanhimez ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 21:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Berchanhimez also — IVORK _Talk 03:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reference I can't add

For the citation needed under 'infrastructure': https://blog.discord.com/2016-7-28-change-log-ef98122d3c93 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgp10 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

"Quarrel (software)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Quarrel (software). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 15#Quarrel (software) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 09:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Excessive controversy section

Not sure that it is an actual controversy that discord blocked a forum related to the mob seizing control of the capital. There are "news" sources that covered that, but it is not inherently a discord issue. That edit smacks of an attempt to tar the platform... perhaps from competitive platforms, or from someone with other motives. But frankly it should be deleted. Wikipedia notes like that belong in a news journal rather than an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.199.127.208 (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

how old discord is? // Not urgent

Hi! I was looking at the discord wiki and saw this: "May 13, 2015; 5 years ago" although May 13th 2015 was almost 7 years ago, this should probably be changed to 6/7 years depending on when you'll see this and edit. Anyways that's all! Thankfully it is.

Chezdoesthings (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

May 13, 2021, is still in the future. -- ferret (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Chezdoesthings: above & the fact it's a template that automatically changes the X years ago based on the current date {{Start date and age|2015|05|13}} — IVORK _Talk 01:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected page edit request | Hindi language added

Hello, Discord has added Hindi (हिंदी) as a available language. Can anyone add this to the language section?

 Done I have verified this using the official Discord client and have added Hindi to the language section. In future, please make sure to follow Wikipedia:Edit requests and to sign your name/IP at the end of your message. MBihun (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Update to the Monetization Section

The last paragraph of the Monetization section states that "Discord began testing digital stickers on its platform in October 2020 for users in Canada. Most stickers cost between US$1.50 and US$2.25 and are part of Discord's monetization strategy. Discord Nitro subscribers received a free "What's Up Wumpus" sticker pack focused on Discord's mascot, Wumpus."

However, according to this announcement on their blog - stickers are no longer purchasable items but rather an additional perk of a Nitro subscription and server boosting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99danielh (talk • contribs) 23:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

How is it a social media application

I've never used it, so I don't know for sure, but it sounds surprising that somebody mentioned that it was a social networking service. I couldn't find any details in the article about it. Could someone with more experience please verify this? -bkil (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

The debate we're having is my view is that discord is as social media as other chat apps like irc, matrix, telegram etc.--Cripplemac (talk) 04:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Discord's servers can host hundreds of people, all communicating with each other, that seems to fit my definition of social media. Per Wiki's own page on social media: "Social media are interactive technologies that allow the creation or sharing/exchange of information, ideas, career interests, and other forms of expression via virtual communities and networks." Discord is interactive, can be used to share information. There's more to the definition but Discord fits the bill. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 11:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Postfix can host thousands of people on the same server, does that make email or IRC social media? I think we should not go down the route towards Buzzword bingo and we should rather use proper terminology. You seem to have snipped only part of the definition. Could you please click on the deep link to a possible full definition I have shared above? Discord does not meet this definition according to what you have just told, as it lacks user generated content (like deep linkable and discoverable posts), creating user profiles, connecting user and group profiles. Do note however, that Mediawiki (and hence Wikipedia) may indeed be used as a social networking service in an atypical scenario: you can create your own profile (user page) where you could introduce yourself, you can share regular content on your user space (and of course in the main namespace as well), you can follow (watch) the user pages of others, hence creating social relationships, you can comment on the post of others, you can receive notifications of the messages of others, you can discover and follow new contacts and content easily. -bkil (talk) 11:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

By the way, see List of social platforms with at least 100 million active users, they mix different kinds of services there ("includes social networks, as well as online forums, photo and video sharing platforms, and VoIP apps."). I'm not sure what makes an app "social" or "social media", but the definition of "social networking service" seems to be more clear. Maybe someone could create an overview page about these if one does not already exist? -bkil (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Seems to be 'commercial platform that has influence and mainstreamity', which is why some people classify it as such I guess. Or Gen Z just being their usual dumb selves. 80.189.145.20 (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Email is also a commercial platform (many even pay for an account at better providers), has great influence (it's difficult to find a place to register without an email address) and mainstream (everyone knows what email is, it can be used at many places, even for official business and in government context). Despite all this, email is still not normally understood to be a social networking service. Neither should Discord be. -bkil (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Email is a protocol and not controlled by any one commercial group. You may have a commercial email provider but they are using formats that conform to standards.

The other factor is that social media tends to be "broadcast to all" type of approach, rather than choosing specific targets. When you Tweet, your tweet is public for everyone to see (though followers are notified of it). If you post to Facebook, depending on your settings, maybe everyone or just friends/family can see it. When you make a comment on Discord, everyone in the same channel can see it. You do nothing special to make this happen. (These are all the default modes, I'm discounting direct messages). You can't do the same with email: you have to tell email whom its going to, which may be to large groups but still, you have to take a step to tell it. So that's where email loses a "social" piece, because its not meant to be an open communication platform where the default messaging is "to all". --Masem (t) 22:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Not sure whether you followed the conversation closely, but you can trivially simulate open&closed (multicast) groups by a mailing list and personal followers in a social network as one mailing list created per each person (subscribing to a person's mailing list is equivalent to following the updates/toots/posts/etc of that person). Most email clients (MUA) nowadays integrate with the desktop or mobile and also send you notifications - the better providers also provide you with push email, with which you could actually do instant messaging as well if that is your thing (see also: Delta.Chat built on this). Note that the protocols of Mastodon/Pleroma/Friendica/Diaspora (ActivityPub/et al) are all open, but they still count as social networking services - having closed (proprietary) protocols is not at all a necessity. On the contrary - we have a whole page just for listing social networking services that are built upon open protocols: Comparison of software and protocols for distributed social networking. Also note that FOSS does not rule out being "commercial" - many FOSS projects are heavily and successfully monetized. -bkil (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Obviously it should be clear that whether commercial or open source has no bearing on being "social media". I'm just pointing out that email is definitely not categorically "commercial" though it can be under some providers.

If we start going to other sources, the definition of "social media" tends to be any type of app that allows users to create virtual online communities to be able to share ideas. So for all purposes, yes, you can even argue that email is a social media service if you talk about mailing lists, and clearly Discord fits this. However, if you start reading a bit more deeper, a key distinction on social media is that it has "discoverability", that everything posted is public and can be found. This is a two-way thing: it makes it easier for users to find communities they share ideas in common with, but it also tends to mean that users share far more details than they usually would. (see [1]. Email even with mailing lists tends not to have discoverability. Discord does (all public channel messages are saved and can be searched), and it has means for channel discovery as well [2]. --Masem (t) 23:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Mailing list software include discovery related functionality for both enumerating all hosted channels (lists) along their description and also providing online access to a list archive (the better ones also support search and indexing). Third parties also exist who build "cross-federation" indices of all lists and all messages, like Gmane. IRC loggers with searchable IRC archives also come to mind, that was also a big thing that many used as a reference and sometimes even linked to individual messages. People were able to form communities on IRC, Usenet, BBS and Fidonet as well for regularly sharing ideas, so were those social media as well? Many magazines, flyers and books even listed phone numbers of the better hubs and they were cross-advertising each other on the greeting screen, so I think that can also count as discoverability. I tried hard to come up with something that I could not argue to be social media - SMS. Please share if you know any other example (note that if a category label fits almost everything, then it is not considered very useful for categorization). After having said all that, I think it would help if we could define the difference between social networking services (e.g., Friendica) and social media (whatever that means). It's unfortunate that we have two separate Wikipedia articles about the two with a seemingly similar definition copy & pasted in both. -bkil (talk) 00:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

As our article on social media points out, there's really not a hard definition that distinguishes social media from "old school" networking systems like email/IRC etc. and as you rightly point out, you can point out features of Discord that could be replicated on older systems. Unfortunately, we don't have good sources to make any better argument to that point, only that sources do classify it as such. And as social networking service#Definition goes into, there is no agreed on, single definition. It is a person-to-person network service, and its design to have people engage socially, so most sources that talk Discord in technical detail classify it as such, but they're not going into any type of classification pattern to help us understand that. --Masem (t) 01:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Just to add, totally separate from Discord, but in a antitrust case against Facebook, even a federal judge admitted that "the exact metes and bounds of what even constitutes a [personal social network] service — i.e., which features of a company’s mobile app or website are included in that definition and which are excluded — are hardly crystal clear." [3] pointing to how vague "social media" is defined currently. --Masem (t) 19:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you are right in that our job at Wikipedia is not to classify software, rather to summarize how reliable sources classify a given piece of software and whether various sources differ on this classification or whether they are unanimous about the question. My personal take on this classification is that there ought to be some differences between the term "social app" ("social media"?) and "(personal) social networking service". I would think that the definition of the latter warrants a minimal subset of features from those I have suggested above, while the former term is more in line with what you understand as an app with which you can communicate with people (but wouldn't that be just a "communication app" or messaging app?). From a different perspective, maybe Social media should be understood as a kind of news source similar to newspapers, newsletters, blogs and radio broadcasts, and in this sense, broadcasting (or following by RSS) of such messages in a given channel among friends or coworkers kind of makes it a news source, and the word "social" in this sense should be understood similar to Citizen science, but I would definitely reserve the phrase "social network" to cases when people's social networks (composed of intersecting social circles) are indeed involved (as per above). -bkil (talk) 00:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

There's probably lots of possible definitions, but again, we're at the hands of the lack of any real usable definition out there to work from. Until the tech community as a whole has a strong agreed-upon definition, we're going to have to work from the loose definition used by RSes. --Masem (t) 01:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Nitro controversy, as well as the whole thing of Discord being a thought/grooming platform

There's a lot of recent complaints about the way Discord seems to 'paywall' features behind Nitro that could easily be standard features. Also, Discord as a whole certainly contributed very sharply to the monopolisation of small communities (ever felt a lot of smaller forums, while being on the decline since around 2012, attract next to no new people these days aside from 'older-minded' folk against Discord as a platform?), as well as the obvious mainstreamisation of certain aspects of internet culture and the grooming associated with it (Nintendo, trans 'egg' culture, weeaboos...)80.189.145.20 (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

That would all need reliable sources to cover, rather than just online forums or the like, to be included. --Masem (t) 21:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Eh, there's definitely many sources about Discord grooming, given the sheer quantity of content online that can be found merely by googling it. Can't source the others aside from anecdotes from 'ordinary users on messageboards and the like' that aren't of a qualified enough position to write about these things, though unfortunately in cases like these where a reasonable understanding and current participation of current and past internet culture is required to actually understand what's happening (and many oldgen internet users who would have been part of the early-mid 2000s culture would be extremely unwilling to have shared any personally identifiable information about themselves unlike the current crop of people these days who are actively encouraged to), it's extremely difficult to find any sources that can't be seen as biased/unprofessional in any case.80.189.145.20 (talk) 08:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I did find at least one working source to start related to grooming From Forbes staff so usable but keep in mind a lot appear to be from sites that we'd not use for BLP-based claims otherwise so I'd not want to use here. I'd have to look more for additional sources. Keep in mind that most every major Internet success draws criticism, we want the criticism that actually has reported discussion in reliable sources, and not just what is the latest fad on user-generated message boards. --Masem (t) 13:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Newsweek also has a write-up mentioning grooming but I don't know that this is enough for a whole section. It could be slotted into Controversies but this source is already used there to talk about furry artwork, which is the main focus on the article. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Newsweek post-2013 is no longer a reliable source (per WP:RS/P). --Masem (t) 17:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Possible renaming?

Hello! So I was thinking that the article should possibly be renamed to Discord (service) or Discord (program) as Discord (software) implies to me that the article talks about the downloadable Discord client for Windows and macOS, however in reality the article talks about Discord as a service. However, because the English language is confusing, one word can mean many different things, so software might fit the article based on a certain definition of it. Let me know what you guys think. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 15:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@ACodispo: pinging as they're a recent contributor Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf: I'd be in favour of renaming to "Discord (service)", for the reasons you've given. Also, Discord seems to refer to itself as a service. "Discord is a voice, video and text communication service [...]" link. ACodispo (talk) 15:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

The article itself also refers to Discord as a service instead of just software. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ferret: Pinging as they seem to be smart in deciding on these kinds of things. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

AIM (software) but Steam (service). It's somewhat inconsistent. Open a RM (Better than pinging random editors who've touched the article). -- ferret (talk) 15:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

How exactly do I do that? I've forgotten. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually, considering the proposal failed just 8 months ago, probably not worth reopening this yet. See #Requested_move_20_January_2021. However, the process is described at WP:RSPM. -- ferret (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

discord.py

Hello, you should probably note under the "developer tools" section that discord.py has stopped development. 67.190.114.57 (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

If it's being abandoned and, after skimming the page, not going to work after a few months, it might be replacing it on the page with another library that will continue to be supported. Anybody who knows more about Discord and its libraries, please weigh in. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 23:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Neglecting to talk about any others and just saying "such as discord.js..." is probably the best option. Discord.js and discord.py were the only ones that discord were officially supporting and it seems like they just want to use discord.js in the future. There are other unoffical api wrappers like JDA that you could mention, but like I said only mentioning the official one might be the best option. ― Levi_OP^Talk 15:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Additional Features, 4 October 2021

I'm not sure how to cite this information, but a quick summary of the most recent Change Log for Discord as of 4 October 2021:

• Discord Nitro users now have access to Server Profiles, where they can upload different profile pictures for each server.
• Reduced boost requirement for level 2 and 3 server boost.
• Custom role icons for level 2 and 3 servers.
• Student hubs (evidently related to setting up communities for school-related communities)

I don't have an exact date on these latest changes, but I believe they were changed in late September or October 1st.

Arden arteles (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I know the Custom role icons are the newest as I use Discord myself. However, these will most likely have to have a better source than a Discord change log. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2021

change "In May 2021, Discord rebranded its game controller-shaped logo "Clyde" in celebration of its sixth anniversary. The company also changed the color palette of its branding and user interfaces to a much more saturated one to be more "bold and playful", and changed its slogan from "your place to talk" to "imagine a place", believing that it would be easier to attach to additional taglines; these changes were met with backlash and criticism from Discord users." to "In May 2021 Discord changed the color palette of its branding and user interfaces to a much more saturated one to be more "bold and playful", and changed its slogan from "your place to talk" to "imagine a place", believing that it would be easier to attach to additional taglines; these changes were met with backlash and criticism from Discord users."

The logo is already called "Clyde" since 2015 TropX1 (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: This may need some wordsmithing, but is not strictly wrong. Clyde was also changed in the rebranding, which is covered in the sources. -- ferret (talk) 23:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I sort of see the confusion, however it doesn't explicitly say the rebranding changed the name to Clyde. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 03:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Discord as a Cyber-Fraud Platform

While I gather notable reports on the subject, I want to hear editors other than myself, and a non-cyber-analyst view, regarding the subject. Is the abundance of cyber-fraud and and general cyber-crime coordination on the platform worth mentioning as it's been covered by notable sources? And this is more significant as a known criminal organization is targeting Discord with a priority, but I don't know if this is notable enough for Wikipedia standards as the "popular" coverage is mainly DNS disputes and court records. Kerhwos (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

We would need coverage in major sources to make this assertion, akin to the coverage Discord got when it was to be hosting far right groups. Any conversation platform maybe a platform for crime without regulation of the platform by its operators, but it would need to be deemed an issue in RSes to document here. --Masem (t) 20:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion not really as it is a thing on basically every corner of the internet. Bots swarm forums, waiting for an unsuspecting user to come along and, if they aren't wise enough, the bot will capture its target, stealing money and/or the user's account. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing to really discuss without reliable secondary sources. -- ferret (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2021

In this article it says discord Is released un 2012 but it was actually it was released in 2015 2601:282:4201:A870:890D:8635:7A64:1016 (talk) 01:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: It does not say that Discord was released in 2012 anywhere. It does mention the company doing work in 2012, prior. -- ferret (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Change under the "user profiles" section

The line:

"Discord allows users to connect various external platforms to their account, including Steam, Reddit, Twitch, Twitter, and more. These accounts can optionally be shown on the user's profile."

needs a citation, but Discord seems to have little to no documentation regarding the feature. There are only 2 Discord Support articles regarding it. This one, mentioning Spotify intergration and This one, targeting Xbox Live integration, Microsoft's involvement in bringing Xbox Live integration to Discord is also mentioned earlier in the article and is properly cited.

Having used Discord, connecting external profiles is most certainly a feature, but original research is a big nono.

I'm still new to editing, and specifically citing sources for stuff, so how should one go about sourcing a citation for something like this? AGuyNamedSquid (talk) 22:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@AGuyNamedSquid: Hello Squid! This would be a great question to ask at WP:TEA. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 01:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 2 March 2022

• Discord (software) → Discord
• Discord → Discord (disambiguation)

– This seems like such an obvious change. Per the page views compared to other articles with the same name, Discord is clearly going to be the primary topic for a long time, and I don't see any of the other articles reaching even a tenth of the views for a while. I'd also like to point out that unlike 2019 where the last proposal for this happened, Discord is now significantly more covered in the media with major outlets having entire articles dedicated to the app, such as The New York Times, (article one, article two), Wall Street Journal, and CNN. Thanks! shanghai.^{talk to me} 12:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Previous closure
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Both sides of this discussion are sticking to one prong of PRIMARYTOPIC over the other. I cannot see any consensus in this discussion over which way the balance should tip, despite the noticeable (but not strong enough) majority in favour of the "current usage" prong. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 01:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Link to the page views here! I had issues when I tried to put the link in the template/original post. shanghai.^{talk to me} 12:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Contemporary items should never take precedence over long-standing English terms. --Masem (t) 13:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Masem: This is Wikipedia, not Wikitionary. There are no articles that revolve around the word Discord, heck, the disambiguation page doesn't even mention the actual word itself at all: only says "Discord may refer to:" shanghai.^{talk to me} 13:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. No primary topic here by long-term significance. -- 13:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Necrothesp (talk • contribs) 13:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose 1st, support 2nd Discord should be a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Eris (mythology) as the progenitor of the word, and the primary topic by longterm significance due to being an alternate name for Discordia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  The progenitor of the word is not determinative as per Wikipedia:DETERMINEPRIMARY. Plus, pageviews are just as much of a factor as longterm significance. ― TaltosKieronTalk 14:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Light Oppose. Claiming that something is "clearly going to be a primary topic" isn't merited by the fact that it has media coverage (WP:OBVIOUSLY). I wouldn't say that the software is going to be more notable than the common english word to 90% of people, so Discord should probably just stay a redirect. ― Levi_OP^Talk 14:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  I think that this is a much more difficult situation than normal because of the use of the word "discord". We can look to examples like Apple, or a much more relevant example, Slack. Slack (software) is another very similar messaging app with a name that is also an english word. Slack, though, is a much more common word that would have a lot of other topics that could be associated with it in the context of wikipedia. Discord is very difficult because it isn't as common of a word, and there aren't any other articles that would be a better fit as a primary topic. I'm thinking I might change my vote to support if there are no arguments made against Discord being the most common use of the word in the context of wikipedia. ― Levi_OP^Talk 15:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  Support. After further thought, it would probably be best to move the article. People are comparing things like Apple to the word discord, but this is just not a good comparison. An apple is a common object and something that has its own article and merit. Discord, on the other hand, is a word, and only a word. Wikipedia is not wikitionary. We don't give definitions, but what is primarily associated with the word. As evidenced by the pageviews, the software is by far the most common use of the word on wikipedia, making it the primary use in the context of wikipedia. ― Levi_OP^Talk 16:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Weak Support: Throwing Eris (mythology) in with the various Discords mentioned above for the pageviews in past 12 months (see here), we find that views of Discord (software) far outnumbers the combined views of all other pages. Going back 6 years, pageviews have only grown, with no indication of slowing down. Is it what most people come searching for when they type in "Discord"? Seemingly, yes. And then, it's clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 14:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC).

• The English word "discord" doesn't ever appear in the disambiguation page. As RogueShanghai said, it's not Wikitonary. Discord being a redirect to Eris (mythology) would, however, be a clear case of WP:SYSTEMICBIAS, clearly disregarding the non-European cultures & viewpoints. ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 14:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  How is it systemic bias when the word literally stems from it, including where the software program takes its name from? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

  (I saw this after closure, so couldn't reply then.) I believe it'll be like Wikipedia's textbook Boston example. Almost no-one outside UK would be interested in Boston, Lincolnshire, when they type in Boston in the search bar, even though it was the *original* Boston. If someone claims to make it the PTOPIC because it's the original one, I'd say that the argument is biased towards the UK Boston, disregarding what the rest of the world wants to find. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • C • L)} 06:39, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

  Very few people in non-English speaking areas know or want to know about a discord, that is not a software. Eris is better known as Eris, not Discordia or Discord. Almost no-one would search for her as Discord. Redirecting Discord to Eris (mythology) doesn't sit well with our PTOPIC policy. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • C • L)} 06:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

  Its a common misunderstanding that primary topics are only based on pageviews. Popularity does not in and of itself determine a primary topic, which is why Apple the fruit is still primary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  None of the words at Discord are even close to the cultural significance of Apple fruit. Like, Apple is the first word any English language learner ever learns as a part of their alphabet learning. ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 14:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  Struck down weak. Now, full support. Clickstream data was the nail in the coffin. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • C • L)} 14:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. The status quo of searching Discord leading to the disambiguation page is fine. None of the uses of Discord seem to qualify as a primary topic as each usage of the word seems to apply to a smaller topic (mythology, tech, etc). ― Tuna ^No_SurprisesPlease 14:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  Support. I do agree with what Levi OP said, the terms should go to a disambiguation page but if the Discord (software) article is the most relevant term in the context of Wikipedia, then it probably counts as a primary topic. ― Tuna ^No_SurprisesPlease 16:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)]

• Oppose per a reason mentioned by User:Zxcvbnm above: "It's a common misunderstanding that primary topics are only based on pageviews. Popularity does not in and of itself determine a primary topic, which is why Apple the fruit is still primary." However, I also VEHEMENTLY OPPOSE redirecting "Discord" to Eris (mythology), which I feel would be taking it a step too far. I'd say that NEITHER is primary (especially exemplified by the fact that you've got some arguing for one and one person arguing for the other), and the safest bet would be to have the disambiguation page at the basename. Paintspot Infez (talk) 14:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The popularity of an internet social media service over more basic encyclopedic concepts is driving page views, not importance or long lasting significance. This is akin to AIM versus AIM (software), not to OSE it. No one is struggling to find this page either. -- ferret (talk) 15:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support. As another piece of evidence, check out the Clickstream data. 90% of clicks from the Discord disambiguation page are going to the software article. The next most common target, Discord (My Little Pony), gets less than 3%. It's a huge difference. Some editors have a gut aversion to having a primary topic for a common everyday word that is unrelated to the meaning of that everyday word, but there's no rational basis for this. As the nominator points out, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Editors should not be wikilinking Discord when what they're referring to is simply "Lack of concord, agreement or harmony". And we should not be configuring the encyclopedia to cater to any readers who type "Discord" into the search bar expecting to find information about the meaning of the common noun (and, incidentally, it seems there are very few such users - the dab page links to the Wiktionary entry for discord, but that link doesn't even make the top 10 most frequent outgoing clicks in the Clickstream data). Colin M (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  Discord is not merely a dicdef but also an alternate name for the mythological figure Discordia. The supports in here are misinterpreting it as "only" a word, but ignoring the fact that the word is mythological in origin. At the very least there is no primary topic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:59, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the origin of the word as being particularly relevant. Per WP:DPT: Being the original source of the name is also not determinative. And I'm not ignoring the mythological figure. I just judge it to be far less likely an intended target given the relative pageviews, and the fact that we're talking about a very marginal alternative name (i.e. not only does Eris (mythology) get fewer pageviews than the software, only a tiny portion of those searching for that topic will use the name "Discord" rather than "Eris" or "Discordia"). Colin M (talk) 04:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support as per arguments by User:Colin M, User:CX Zoom, and User:RogueShanghai.― TaltosKieronTalk 17:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Weak Support per the support arguments raised above, however I do also agree with some of the oppose !votes, but I lean more towards support than oppose on this. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 03:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

  Also, I had never heard of it being mythological in origin. However (from what I'm seeing), Discordia is the more common term for the mythological figure so I don't see how that would have anything to do with this (if I'm wrong please tell me though). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 03:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Why did I forget to do that? Lol shanghai.^{talk to me} 03:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

  Because you shouldn't - its assumed. -- Netoholic @ 06:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - per several comments above and long-term significance of the basic term, and especially to prevent bad internal wikilinks by editors intending to link the term or alternate topics. What next... Zoom (software) → Zoom just because of brief popularity? Discord will be replaced someday, just as other voice chat clients have come and gone. -- Netoholic @ 06:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

  Zoom by itself is a frequent word that's commonly used to refer to cameras. On the other side, Discord is a term that's barely used by the general public at large, people usually use "disagreement" or "fight" instead of discord. Where is the long term significance you speak of? And the page views don't lie, most people who go to the disambiguation page for Discord end up going to the software page instead. Discord is clearly going to stay as the cultural relevance grows and grows and more and more media outlets have articles that revolve around it. shanghai.^{talk to me} 06:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support as someone who has proposed this same move in the past. I see this as the primary topic. When someone goes to Wikipedia and types Discord into the search bar, it is highly likely they are looking for the article about the app. None of the other topics of discord are very relevant anymore. In the dictionary sense, the word discord isn't commonly used anymore and Wikipedia does not have an article about the word. And saying that Eris is the primary topic seems ridiculous to me; Discord is not even a proper name for that. Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 07:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support per Levi OP's arguements. Tree Critter (talk) 07:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per User:Masem's arguments. Discord is, although not popular, an English word and term. This is not done for other brands and companies, example being Delta Air Lines → Delta which wouldn't really make sense. User:ZenIsBestWolf (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

  Delta Air Lines is the official name of the company which is why it isn't moved to Delta. That's not the case here. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

  The difference is that a delta is a thing on it's own - a concept, not just a word - worthy of an article. Discord, as a word, does not merit its own article, so something else that is more primary could take its place. ― Levi_OP^Talk 15:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

There are lots of examples where the primary topic for a common English word is a named entity unrelated to the everyday meaning of that word. For example: Apeshit, Unlikely, Hearthstone. Colin M (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Support After seeing Hearthstone, it is clear how Wikipedia treats obscure words that turn into brands that trump the word. In my opinion, Hearthstone's situation is exactly the same as Discord's, meaning we should treat it the same. ZenIsBestWolf (talk) 02:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support for most of the reasons given above. WP is such a funny place. This RM discussion is essentially the reverse of what happened just last week at Talk:Usher (musician), where a barely encyclopedic, lightly viewed article (3 references) on the occupation prevented the musician article - viewed 40 times as much as the occupation article - from being the primarytopic, on "long-term significance" grounds. There's even a Talk:Usher (occupation) pending RM to make the occupation the primarytopic! I obviously have a point on view on both, but the point is that our process often gives contradictory results, and I love it. Dohn joe (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

  Notability (and article significance) is not based on how well-developed or well-written an article is at the current moment. I have no doubt that the occupation would be able to become a Featured Article if there was actually effort put into it (which is more likely if it were the primary topic). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  Does something being the primary topic really make it more likely to have effort put into it? If someone wants to put work into a page, whether or not it's the primary topic isn't going to suddenly change their mind about editing it. ― Levi_OP^Talk 23:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Support per Dohn joe. Rusty4321 ^{talk contributions log} 02:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Looking over the DAB page, this does seem to be the primary topic here. If there were an article written about the term "discord" maybe things would be different, but this is an encyclopedia not a dictionary. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support per Colin M and several users. —❑Jamesluiz102❑— (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support per others. The only other Discord I have heard of is the My Little Pony character. Sahaib3005 (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Some Internet applications really are that important. While maybe not at the level of Google or Facebook, Discord the software is clearly the primary topic by how users act, and has sustained being the primary topic long enough to not be a flash in the pan. In the unlikely scenario of Discord no longer being the primary topic in 2032 after the app goes bust in 5 years, we can do another move then, it's fine. SnowFire (talk) 05:13, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: The apple example is a good one imo. Long-term relevancy is required for a primary topic --Spekkios (talk) 03:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  No it's not. An apple is an object; a noun. Something that is very clearly primary. Tell me when you heard about a "discord". It's not a noun in that sense, so it can't be the primary topic. As far as things called "Discord" on the english wikipedia, the software is by far the most popular and notable topic. ― Levi_OP^Talk 03:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  Discord is also a noun. --Spekkios (talk) 04:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  It's not a noun in the same sense that Apple is, though. There is no such thing as a "Discord", and most people attribute the term Discord to the web service, not any other definitions of the term. Page views don't lie. ― Tuna ^No_SurprisesPlease 04:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  In my opinion the page views are irrelevant in this case. Long-term significance trumps. --Spekkios (talk) 04:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  The long term significance of what? There is no discord article to be more significant. Also, you don't think that page views correlate with significance? If something has the most page view for that term for five years, is that not enough to qualify as "long term"? ― Levi_OP^Talk 13:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  No. Long-term significance isn't always measured on page views. Archer is an example. --Spekkios (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  How is Archer an example...? I don't know of any other terms that could be seen as a primary topic (or another term that would also be called archer). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  See here for an example of when page views does not trump long-term relevancy. --Spekkios (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  That's a lot more terms for archer than I had known. However "archer" is a more common term in the English language than "discord" (and also this isn't Wiktionary but that's besides the point) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 22:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  You're still not addressing the fact that discord, as an english word, is a mass noun and not a countable. "Discord" can't be the primary topic because it's a mass noun, meaning that it's uncountable and static; not an object or concept that could have its own article. Because of this, Discord, the software, is going to be the most popular thing called "discord" that can have its own wikipedia article, making it a primary topic.

  The page views aren't the main argument, but something supporting the fact that in the context of wikipedia, discord has been and will probably continue to be the the most significant thing called discord. ― Levi_OP^Talk 23:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not sure that this analysis holds up. There are plenty of articles whose titles are mass nouns. e.g. Rice, Happiness, Heat. Colin M (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  I would argue that the singular form of rice would be "a grain of rice" and "rice" is plural, however that's just getting really nitpicky. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 01:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  I guess using "mass noun" is not really what I'm trying to say. It just seemed kind of like what I was talking about. What I'm trying to convey is that "discord", defined as "disagreement between people", could be generalized to an article like Disagreements (epistemology), not its own article, because like stated above, wikipedia is not wiktionary. We don't define words, or make articles about every word in existence, but about topics like objects or concepts. I don't know if there is a word for those types of things, but Discord, the software, is going to be the primary topic with this name because of this. ― Levi_OP^Talk 01:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  No part of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC states that Long-term significance trumps. It only claims they are both important factors. ― TaltosKieronTalk 14:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, they are both important. I have considered both of them and have come to my decision. --Spekkios (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  There's also no such thing as "a rice". The only difference you're elucidating is that apple is a count noun and discord is a mass noun. Colin M (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Support The page views for Discord are significantly higher than any other discord-related page. This correlates with Google News, Google Trends, and Special:WhatLinksHere. Google Scholar seems to show "Discord app" being mentioned 26,000 times compared to "discord" 38,000 times (since Discord's founding in 2015). It is clear that Discord's growth has overtaken the term. The argument about Apple doesn't make sense when you consider how widely used Apple is compared to Apple Inc. (500,000 to 80,000 according to Google Scholar). Google Ngrams shows apple being used in .00083% of books, compared to discord's .00002% (the term fell significantly out of common language in the 1800s). elijahpepe@wikipedia 19:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

0.00083% and 0.00002% are surprisingly small! (especially for "apple" which is much more common) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

The point is in context. Apple is used significantly more than dscord. elijahpepe@wikipedia 19:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support. This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, and the common noun "discord" is not something that has (or should have) an encyclopedia article. The case of apple is not analogous. Also, Eris (mythology) is generally referred to as Eris, not "Discord", and should largely be discounted for considering the primary topic of "Discord". Adumbrativus (talk) 05:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. If there were a primary topic for discord, it would be dissonance by long-term significance, or better still an article of its own describing the various discords and their use in various styles of music. I'm a bit surprised we do not already have such an article, the treatment of discords is discussed in many reliable sources such as music theory treatises. The primary topic is certainly not the software! Andrewa (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  I completely forgot Discord can also be a musical term for a funky sounding chord Yes, however in that case the word being used is not discord but dissonance. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  To add on to what blaze is saying, as you linked, dissonance has be decided to be the primary "word" to associate with that topic. There's no need for an entirely different article for discord as a musical term if dissonance and discord are practically the same thing (Some definitions of discord even end by asserting it as a synonym of dissonance e.g. "An inharmonious combination of simultaneously sounded tones; a dissonance.") Any differences could probably be a section in the article if they really were different enough. If any of the sources you have differentiate them in a substantial way, I think more of an argument could be made. ― Levi_OP^Talk 14:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Discord should redirect to Eris (mythology). Showiecz (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  Why? ― Tuna + 14:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support The software is the primary topic in my opinion. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 19:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• Discussion relisted persuant to move review. Please continue the discussion to generate a clearer consensus. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment (I supported the move earlier). Since it came up in the earlier close and at the move review, in case the future closer really is looking for spelled out rationales... I really don't buy that readers interested in Eris would look her up by typing in "Discord". It'd be like arguing that "War" should be considered ambiguous with Ares or Mars. (And the Roman goddess is both far more minor, and called "Discordia" not "Discord"). In the same way, musical dissonance is called dissonance; discord is a rare synonym. So I'm not really seeing that these are majorly ambiguous terms. The only rivals are things like the film & album, but those are extremely minor (but at least called "Discord" directly). SnowFire (talk) 04:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support Based on pageviews, the software is the primary topic since 2018. Clickstrem data shows that 90 % of visitors to the disambiguation page follow the link to Discord (software). In the unlikely case that Discord ceases to exist in ten years and another topic becomes primary, we can just move the article back and fix wikilinks to Discord using automated tools. I see no problem with long-term significance. —Dexxor (talk) 06:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
• Weak oppose because of the likes of Consonance and dissonance. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support We should cater to our readers. It is very obvious that most people want to see Discord the software, not any other page, and no one can deny this. SK2242 (talk) 08:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
• Strong oppose We should cater to our readers. It is very obvious that most people think of discord as discord, not the software. See "discord" in Google Books. (software) is actually helpful here and removing it makes finding it more difficult not easier. 11:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by In ictu oculi (talk • contribs) 11:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

  Well, No! 90% of those visiting Discord (currently a disambiguation page) are visiting Discord (software) next. The next most visited Discord article is getting only 3%. That's a huge difference as noted by Colin M above. Also, we're not Wiktionary, and the discord that most people may think of as per Google books, doesn't even have an article here. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • C • L)} 11:59, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support per WP:DPT. While the software might not have long term significance, it definitely has the views. Agree with other supports that neither Eris or musical dissonance are primary for discord. As to the dictionary definition, WP:NOTDICT applies. When I first saw this at move review I was a bit surprised and didn't think the software could be the primary term, but the page views and clickstream data is very clear. I agree with Dexxor above, that if that changes we can always revisit. PaleAqua (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support While the software doesn't have the long-term significance as Eris or the My Little Pony character, the software has the most clicks based on the clickstream of the disambiguation by a very large difference compared to the My Little Pony character. 𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 00:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose has not received long-term significance. Page views are not the be-all end-all for determining a primary topic. SportingFlyer T·C 10:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose There are multiple pages with the title "Discord" in it, if someone searches for just discord, the software might not be the thing they are searching for, don't move any of these pages. Sans9k (Talk) 12:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  If someone searches for “Canada” we don’t make it go to the disambiguation page just because there is a band also called Canada. WikiMakersOfOurTime (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom, at this point I think it's clearly PRIMARY, the dictionary term is secondary.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom. I'm a fan and occasional editor of the 20th century art music, and I've rarely if ever heard of dissonance (music) being referred to as "discord" (even our article mentions the term just once or twice); I don't think that usage competes with the software even nearly. Similar analysis hold for the goddess. That, and the pageviews and clickstream analysis clearly demonstrate that the software is PTOPIC per pageviews criteria, and not so bad per long-term significance (probably not going anyway for a decade or so). No such user (talk) 10:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
• Strong support per nom, clear primary topic Indagate (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2022

hey there. theres a change that needs to be made on the screenshot of discord. ever since the discord update that changed the discord logo on the UI, and the colors changing, the discord screenshot on Wikipedia is outdated. i have a screenshot of the latest version of it that somebody can put on the page. contact me on my discord account if you want it (please give me username and tag first before contacting).

discord: gxx#0001 SinisterGX (talk) 01:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: I don't see the need for changing the image, as the menu the screenshot was taken from hasn't really changed much since then (although I may be wrong, and I am comparing it to the online client, not the app). regardless, the image has to be uploaded, preferably at File:Discord screenshot.png, and has to comply with the guidelines for non-free content. 💜  melecie  talk - 03:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC)