Talk:Online chat

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep

Instant messaging merge

This article should ne merged with (the better) Instant messaging. Marc Mongenet 22:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Merge. Not certain which way. Online chat seems to be the better title, but Instant messaging is much better written. Bring all Instant messaging here and redirect? – edgarde 05:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Better or not, these are two entirely different articles. Online chat is a little poor, yes, but it is an article which should covers more than one format. Though Instant messaging seems to imply the term includes all forms of instantaneously delivered messages, in practice the term "IM" only covers some. Instant messagers are based around a contact list, where a user has a specific log-in account. That account connects to a server where there is a list of friends with whom one communicates. Online chat is not at all required to have an account based system, or to have a list of contacts. Online chat can be as simple as connecting to a server (IRC) or website with an anonymous name, never 'logging in', never using the same nickname/handle, and never forming complete, permanent friendships or a contact list. An IM is not "chat" by definition, but it can be USED to chat. (like any instantaneous communication medium) When IM went mainstream with programs like ICQ it's appeal originally was, in my experience, that it added this contact list feature, and it could be run in the background without paying attention (you have to pay attention to chat), and you could even get messages popped up on your screen while you were out (if you had a dedicated connection). Oline chat, if anything, INCLUDES Instant messaging, but definitely isn't synonymous with it. This merge is no go. - BalthCat 06:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: Other articles which are a part of Online chat but conflict with Instant messaging are: Voice chat, IRC, Chat room, MUD - BalthCat 07:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. IM overlaps with online chat, but they are not equivalent and there is plenty to say about each. Viveka 10:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. These are not exactly the same. It's like saying running is the same as walking. 142.58.206.114 23:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion closed. Not merged. Thanks everyone. – edgarde 23:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Chat room merge

It seems that these two articles address the same things, but that the other goes into greater detail of one aspect. -- MCG 20:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Both of the articles are kind of poorly written, so there might be some benefit to doing a thoughtful merge. But I think the terms Online chat and Chat room really do refer to different things. Online chat can refer to any kind of real-time text-based communication. Chat rooms are one kind of online chat, and the other major kind is Instant messaging. There are also some more technical, jargon-laden articles that could be merged here. Online discourse sounds a lot like Online chat, and a Synchronous conference sounds a lot like a Chat room. -- Afolentes 20:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Information on IP banning someone from chat

Hi, I'm looking for information on how a permanent ban can be implemented in a chat room? There doesn't seem to be any information on the wiki page. I understand that you can ban someone by IP address... but can the user not simply call their ISP and receive a new IP address?

Protocol Listing

I have a feeling this listing is once again redundant with similar listings in similar articles and even with Category:On-line_chat as such. was about to fix the alphabet and add missing candidates, but is it worth it? Ha! And now somebody even added Meetro TWICE. SPAM! SPAM! --lynX

Adding a link

I work for the America's Most Wanted Safety Center, a new department of America's Most Wanted getting away from the capturing of criminals, and branching out to all aspects of safety. I feel a link to our post about keeping kids safe online would be appropriate and mutually beneficial, particularly because an interesting video narrated by John Walsh is prominently featured. The link is http://www.amw.com/safety/?p=48 please consider it.

ALSO, we have a post about chat lingo that could be helpful to parents, or really anyone curious about chat lingo. The link is http://www.amw.com/safety/?p=35 please consider it as well. Jrosenfe 15:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

What is this, a promotion? 66.91.215.97 11:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe this is a well intentioned attempt to be constructive, however Wikipedia is not a handbook, and so the links are not really appropriate especially for this article. Small sections on security/risks in online chat, as well as links to articles about online lingo are not a bad idea though, and fit in with the idea that this should be a super-article from which others like IM and IRC "branch off". I think this should be a much bigger article. (Though, off-topic, insisting on branding a "general safety" organisation with the AMW brand is pretty lame. America's Most Wanted Bike Safety?) - BalthCat 15:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

new article

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

It does not appear to be a notable protocol. One of the references cited on that page doesn't even mention Webcrossing OR Webx. - BalthCat 16:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Listing software

I've removed the section listing examples os Online Chatting softwares and sites. They serve only for spam and advertisement. Unless we can define a neutral criteria for defining which websites and software should be listed, we shouldn't be listing any (or otherwise we wouldn't have a reason not to list all. --Damiens.rf 18:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that we should remove this information, the article is well maintained and new spam can be dealt with as it gets added and I don't think we should be removing useful information to guard against an hypothetical scenario. About a defined inclusion criteria for entries, a mandatory wikipedia article seams to block advertising for now. - 83.254.215.235 (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

We're not talking about an hypothetical scenario. We're talking about the current state of this article. It's already full of spam. What's BobChatter? It was added by the sole author of the BobChatter article. What's Flickim? It was it was added by the sole author of the Flickim article. The same for Userplane. It doesn't seem the article is well maintained. Most of edits are by single-purpose-accounts or anonymous ips adding their pet-software. --Damiens.rf 19:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You have a good point regarding the 'online chatting sites' section, I think this section is attracting the most spam at the moment and I don't have a strong opinion on keeping it. However, the 'software and protocols' section is a different thing. It has only a few relevant links (compared to e.g. P2P article) and I would say that information is lost if we delete it, especially since the article text is so short and readers could have a hard time finding related information. - 83.254.215.235 (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

So, I'm going to remove the 'online chatting sites' section right away. About the P2P article and about "information is lost if we delete it", please see WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:LOSE. In the case you have more ground objections, just let me know. --Damiens.rf 20:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Please don't delete more information without establishing consensus. - 83.254.215.235 (talk) 21:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is made by arguments. Do you have any? --Damiens.rf 22:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"The neutrality of this article is disputed" on the article page... is this still needed and if yes is there anything that can be done to improve it? - 213.115.160.83 (talk) 13:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. What we need to do to improve it is to establish a neutral criteria for defining what is a "common chat program", so that we can keep the list spam free.

In the case we found out no such neutral criteria is possible, I would favor the complete removal of the list.--Damiens.rf 14:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No it's fine as it is and I strongly oppose the deletion of the software list. The current list inclusion criteria is "wikipedia article needs to exist" and there is no problem of keeping the list spam free. I don't see the urgent need to define a "neutral" inclusion criteria or the benefit of changing it at the moment. - 83.254.208.192 (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course we need a neutral inclusion criteria, since we're writing a neutral article. And if you want to make "wikipedia article needs to exist" your criteria, you should better create List of Online chat Softwares instead (since Wikipedia contains both "commmon" and "uncommon chat programs". --Damiens.rf 23:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

There already is a neutral inclusion criteria, no need to complicate things. You fail to explain the necessity and benefits of your proposed change, in the current state the article would benefit more from expansion than from formal theoretical improvements. - 83.254.208.192 (talk) 00:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is an suggestion, how about the following inclusion criteria: Wikipedia article needs to exist, with at least one independent reference in the article (such as a neutral 3rd party website or RFC). This would be easy to verify for editors and keeps spam and short lived software projects from the list. We could also get rid of the word "common" and simply say "The following is a list of chat programs and protocols". Because with common programs we would just need to list the big five (IRC, WLM, Yahoo, Skype, Jabber) and can not provide diversity.... which I guess is the whole point of having this section. - 83.254.208.192 (talk) 08:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Can we solve this dispute now, more suggestions? - 213.115.160.72 (talk) 11:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)