Talk:List of Facebook features

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Facebook features)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Websites / Computing  (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (marked as Low-importance).

Facebook platform[edit]

this section needs to be expanded. Headit 3523 (talk) 10:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

expanding for api's and structure is needed. Headit 3523 (talk) 07:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


This article needs to be moved to "Facebook Platform" for the fact that Facebook "features" are but apps sitting on the platform, please discuss. ephix (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Removing paragraph about most feed comments[edit]

There was a paragraph in the article reading thus:

Facebook also provides the option for users to comment items in their Friends' News Feed. The largest number of comments is 100 on a user being marked as 'in a relationship' posted at 22.17, 07/01/2009 - the actual number of comments was slightly higher, somewhere between 110-120, but once the 100 mark was reached earlier comments were deleted from the feed and the participants stopped commenting in order to preserve the discussion. Other users joined in, however, and several of the original comments were lost. The closed nature of facebook (only Friends can see or comment on a users News Feed) makes it difficult to verify if it is in fact the highest.

I removed it for a few reasons:

  • Firstly, it's irrelevant and trivial - not useful information.
  • Secondly, it sounds like original research, which shouldn't be shown.
  • If not original research, it seems to be someone trying to get attention for themselves.
  • If not personal advertising, I can't find enough references for it to be notable.

Also, I'm pretty certain that there will have been more comments than that on other feed stories. Without Facebook posting this information themselves, I can't see that anyone will really find out the true figures. Nonetheless, this article doesn't need it.

Hope this clears up any questions. Greggers (tc) 17:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The groups in facebook must be polite.The people who joined tehese groups are refrees wikipedias article about lies.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omerli (talkcontribs) 20:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC) 

25 random things about me[edit]

'25 random things about me' is a Facebook Internet meme, specifically using Notes Facebook_features#Notes, that has been in the news recently involving 5 million users.

Reference for the Notes subsection is from NY Times

Some other Google results...


USA Today


Inside Facebook


There is even a reference in the Jerry Brown article to his '25 Random Things'. #18 as of this writing.

The Huffington Post -

Petersam (talk) 10:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

timeline, and connections[edit]

anyone remember the timeline thing that let you see all your friend details, and the connections map that showed how all your friends were connected? Impasse 06:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

API examples & technical details in article[edit]

This looks too much like a manual entry, and details things that aren't really important OR guaranteed about the facebook platform API. I've replaced the following text accordingly Rejun (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC):

The FBML for a profile box is set by calling profile.setFBML through the API. The FBML is cached on Facebook's server until profile.setFBML is called again through a canvas page. The official FBML documentation is hosted on the Facebook Developers Wiki.

This FBML adds the following parameters to any HTML form:

<input type="hidden" name="fb_sig_profile" value="[profile ID of the user using the app]"/>
<input type="hidden" name="fb_sig_user" value="[user ID of the user using the app]"/>
<input type="hidden" name="fb_sig_session_key" value="[browser session hash key]"/>
<input type="hidden" name="fb_sig_time" value="[current timestamp]"/>
<input type="hidden" name="fb_sig" value="[fb_sig variable]"/>

The fb_sig value is generated using all of the other fb_sig_ parameters (but without the "fb_sig_" prefix included in their names) identically to how it is generated in the API authentication scheme. The fb_sig_user and fb_sig_session_key parameters are included only if the user has a valid session with the application.[1]

Difficult to follow. And what does tagging people mean?[edit]

As one who has recently joined Facebook, but feeling somewhat baffled and finding Facebook help unhelpful, I turned to this article. It is helpful, but IMHO too hard to understand. It rattles through various features in a random way and one loses the overview of the whole thing. Also tagging friends in photos and videos is mentioned with no explanation. I haven't the foggiest idea what it means. APW (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I was looking for an explanation of tagging myself. This really needs a section for that purpose. I added something but if what you say is true, maybe there was something here.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Why are the limits 420 and 1000?[edit]

Are they arbitrary, or is there a reason? Шизомби (talk) 05:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Easter Egg[edit]

The "Go to one of your friend's page..." egg no longer seems to work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iandowe (talkcontribs) 15:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Live Feed versus News Feed[edit]

FaceBook users now have a choice of seeing a "Live Feed" or a "News Feed".

But what they heck is the difference? RK (talk) 02:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Page structure[edit]

I have made a couple of edits to the structure. It seems very disorganized; just a large number of sections on different things with no clear organization. I've grouped photo and video under a section and added pages to groups and networks. I'm sure similar moves could be made to make links between things more clear. Richard001 (talk) 12:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


This page is lacking here. Problem is the fair use squad will be on the case if too many are added, but at least one or two more would be useful. Also, it should be possible to create free images that show the basic layout without technically being screenshots, but that would require people to make them, and illustrators are hard to find here. Richard001 (talk) 12:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Future facts[edit]

There's a sentence down ate the bottom that says that the Gifts feature was removed on August 1, 2010. It's only July, so is this an upcoming event, a rumor, or something made up? ~ Wikipedian19265478 (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It's planned to be removed on August 1. I was the one that added the information. I worded it that way otherwise I'd forget to update it after the date was passed. I'm watching this article in case anything new comes up, anyway. If there are others keeping this article updated, then feel free to correct it. Gary King (talk · scripts) 17:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone should add that Pixable released a infographic that said Facebook has an estimated 100 billion photos by summer 2011 [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akakkar (talkcontribs) 19:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


Don't know where to put this or how, so I trust someone will forgive and fix. It would bg great if the page covered fb features such as like boxes, comments, etc. Plug-ins, I guess. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

AS long as it stays within a neutral point of view, and has sufficient citations.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Video Chatting[edit]

Someone should add a video chat section if it fits here.See this link for my source(facebook's blog)--Nyswimmer (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


I think the article should mention that fb recently changed their chat format, and the sidebar shows only "who you’ve interacted with most frequently" (whether they be online or offline), and that you can no longer scroll through a list of your online friends [1]. It should also mention that some users don't like the change [2][3]. (talk) 05:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Facebook like thumb.png Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Facebook like thumb.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

FB Chat Sidebar Disabler[edit]

Hi everybody,

I did restore a link to the FB Chat Sidebar Disabler in the article, that was previously removed. It has been removed again now (although I didn't enter it the first time.) Since it's a fact that users like me are disappointed with the sidebar, and since that extension really works, I thought to restore the link. What's wrong with this?

Thanks. -- (talk) 23:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the article is about 3rd-party add-ons to FB. See Wikipedia:External links.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree, it shouldn't be in the article. Falcon8765 (TALK) 23:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay... But at least we could restore the text without the reference to the extension, since it's a fact that fb introduced the sidebar... -- (talk) 23:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
It is, but that users don't like it needs a reliable source. Falcon8765 (TALK) 23:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Are the millions of users of FB Chat Sidebar Disabler a reliable source? -- (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Nope. Read what is considered a reliable source in the link I gave you. It seems counterintuitive I know, but these policies are in place for a reason. Falcon8765 (TALK) 23:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, I don't think that there are reliable sources that say the sidebar is hated... There are only lots of user comments on FB pages and various blogs that say that thing.
Maybe this can be used as a reliable source for the fact that a browser extension exists? It's from a computer newspaper famous in all Europe: -- (talk) 23:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


On a page, what does the "xxx are talking about this" mean? For example, "114 are talking about this." --Reverend Edward Brain, D.D. (talk) 02:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Networks, Groups, and Like Pages[edit]

Aren't "Like Pages" termed "Community Pages"? (They are here.) -- Trevj (talk) 09:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Who's the biggest poker?[edit]

There is no source saying one particular person pokes the most.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


"Per last known numbers, today in the world, highest number of photos are hosted at Facebook."

This is memo-speak and should be translated into grammatical English. (talk) 02:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


I added a small sentence about other features that were left out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspieg (talkcontribs) 15:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The current article says that the Wall was replaed with a timeline. In today's Washington Post, I read ""The Islamists that Pegida has been warning about for the past 12 weeks, have shown today in France, that they are not just incapable of democracy, but see violence and death as a solution!" a post on the movement's Facebook wall read." This brought me to the article on Facebook to find out what was being referred to (I assumed it was some sort of digital equivalent to a bulletin board that people who use Facebook can see). Is the WaPo simply using an outdated term, or what? Kdammers (talk) 09:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Timeline POV[edit]

The section on timeline is written strongly favoring the much-criticized format change. I'm not saying the section should be a tear-down of timeline, but it should at least mention the common criticisms. Very few people outside of facebook HQ actually like timeline, and that's not my opinion, that's a fact. It can be statistically proven. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Conversion of all user accounts to Timeline is indicated as having been completed, but it has not; many Facebook profile pages still exist in standard format, as of this date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


If the Timeline has replaced the Wall, perhaps both should be in one section titled "Wall/Timeline". That way my description of tagging can be in the right place.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Facebook Chat[edit]

There seems to have been a section called "Chat" in this article at some point in the past but it was removed back in April ( seemingly in favour of the Facebook Messenger article. I was directed here by a redirect page though that points to the missing section ( and even the Facebook Messenger article has a link in it which points to the missing Chat section of this article. I have no idea what Wikipedia's policies on fixing something like that are. Perhaps someone could take a look? (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I vote to readd and merge the information. I don't see why it was all deleted. It will need summarising, but I think it should be added back. Not sure what others think. ( --Jwikiediting (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

List of Facebook groups[edit]

There is a controversial Reddit communities article, any possibility of this for Facebook groups that have gained notability in the news? For example recently one called Teen Dating and Flirting was referenced in several articles in the paper:

"Washington Post". 
"Chicago Tribune". 

In this case the group in question is linked at and has become the subject of controversy, labelled a "parent's nightmare", etc. Are there other communities like this which have made the news extensively enough to put together a section discussing them and compile a controversial Facebook groups or similar? (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Facebook features. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Why is this purely promotional advertisement allowed on Wikipedia?[edit]

Why is this purely promotional advertisement allowed on Wikipedia? Facebook has systematically limited its features over the years, so in actually it has virtually no features that the user can choose to include, other than entails privacy issues. And that was simply a legal cover for Facebook to protect itself against lawsuits from exploitations of privacy by people either pursuing criminal or civil transgressions. Facebook has to be one of the most restrictive technologies of the last 30 years, so how can it - without having public relations people add spin to it, such as here - actually have features? Features are NOT technologies. News feeds are not features, because the user or participant does not control the "news feeds", if that is the terminology one would like to assign to it. The Timeline is another example. No one on Facebook controls their Timeline. Facebook tells you what you they define as a Timeline based on "their criteria" for a timeline. In both cases, neither technology provides any information whatsoever that can enable another participant to actually become acquainted with another. That is Facebook is only designed for people and companies (look at how many companies are on here) - particularly politicians and movie stars and rock bands to promote their wares on a digital platform - a digital billboard, if you will... That is really all that it is and its only purpose - to be a digital billboard... So why would we misrepresent the presence of Facebook as anything but a contemporary promotional advertising platform? If anything this article should be organized into two parts. One with its alleged current features (but actually including real features) and the second part being the "features" that have been removed over the years to restrict and streamline user participation. That would make it an encyclopaedic article. Currently, it is a promotional article, undoubtedly initiated by Facebook managers and employees to promote itself...Stevenmitchell (talk) 01:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Why are 2 press releases from Facebook actually posted below, that are embedded in this page? This is utterly dishonest... Stevenmitchell (talk) 01:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@Stevenmitchell: I am not familiar with all of the recent changes that were made to Facebook. Which specific sections of this article do we need to modify? Jarble (talk) 05:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)