Jump to content

Talk:Tumblelog

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconBlogging NA‑class (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Blogging, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BloggingWikipedia:WikiProject BloggingTemplate:WikiProject BloggingBlogging articles
NAThis redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Notable Tumblelogs

[edit]

Perhaps we should limit the Notable tumblelogs to those featured on the Tumblelist? I see Divine Sparks is back, which i'm still questioning... I could see this quickly turning into a lot of spam we need to make sure that we only feature tumblelogs that ARE NOT using a tublmr sub domain..

These are the original tumblelogs

ok 7 then


Andweallfalldown 19:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Why is Bluejway on the list? Andweallfalldown 14:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Someone deleted these. Please post on the Talk page before you decide to do that... Don't just vandalize the page...

Me? Vandalize? I'd lose my sysop bit. Seriously, though, Wikipedia is not a collection of external links. Veinor (talk to me) 21:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC

I understand that, but these links are relevant to the article, and have their own heading, and are going to be kept down to those 7, if you read the above section. These are not a list of spam tumblelogs Andweallfalldown 21:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7 is actually a lot of links. Even if they have their own heading and are relevant... you still have the external link guidelines. I wouldn't even have one. Besides, why those 7? Why not take out X and include Y? You see the fundamental issue we'd have. Veinor (talk to me) 21:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but I still think they are relevant and helping for understanding what a tumblelog is. The 7 are a good sampling of what Tumblelogs can be, and web celebs using tumblelogs.Andweallfalldown 21:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember, we are WP:NOT a linkfarm. One or two links is fine to demonstrate what it is... better yet is to describe what it is here in the article ;). 7 links to random blogs is clearly not needed in this case. —— Eagle101 Need help? 22:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me also note something, we do not need 3 sections of links just for one section of content. One or two examples of a blog are fine, beyond that we have what is called a link farm. Cheers! —— Eagle101 Need help? 22:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd argue against having any links. Then, we wouldn't have the "why not this one" and "me too" crowd beating on the doors. Veinor (talk to me) 22:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Someone seems to have shortened the notable tumblelogs list. I guess that's a fair sampling. Maybe remove the spam tag now? Andweallfalldown 03:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed due to spam

[edit]

http://northerndrift.tumblr.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.188.227.210 (talk) 03:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

obvious plug for tumblr

[edit]

this wikipedia entry is the most obvious plug for tumblr —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.171.214.1 (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Ya wow, did you see that?

tumblelogs? The Aquarium from Blue Fugu Software came first. http://www.bluefugu.info/aquarium

[edit]

Removed links to some blog article and a hacked WordPress install —ThirteenSeven

[edit]

I don't think these should be included. They don't allow much "mixed-media" in their posts and they serve a different purpose e.g., "What are you doing?". Anyone else agree that these should be deleted? --Weakmassive 04:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Tumblr redirect here?

[edit]

People looking for info on the specific service of Tumblr get redirected here. Tumblr needs its own article. Mathprog777 (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree.62.30.141.61 (talk) 00:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't. AFAIK the link is to explain what a tumblelog is. Which is this article, surely? 78.150.248.132 (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, since Tumblr isn't just about tumblelogging, it has the reblog feature and you can have groups... none of those are features of a tumblelog imo 81.8.156.41 (talk) 11:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Tumblr is a web service like Vimeo or Facebook. Vimeo doesn't redirect to "Video hosting service" and Facebook doesn't redirect to Social network service. 202.156.14.74 (talk) 09:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree too --190.21.138.218 (talk) 03:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. A redirect would be justified if this article had a "Tumblelog services" section mentioning Tumblr. Now it's just confusing.--N0nick (talk) 09:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please explain what Tumblr is in relation to a tumblelog. I was looking for specific and neutral info on the services of Tumblr and had to wade around into the discussion forum to make sense of this entry. Mabuse (talk) 12:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

[edit]

Can anybody find a reference to the word "tumblelog" that predates Tumblr? It has always seemed like a back-formation to me, so I'd like to know where the word came from. -Etoile (talk) 00:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RedHanded, April 2005 & Jason Kottke, October 2005, both long before Tumblr (which launched around February 2007, as far as I recall) --c3o (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tumblr needs to be added to Category:Blog Hosting Services

[edit]

This page should be added to the Category:Blog Hosting Services. Here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Blog_hosting_services I see Twitter there as well as many others, but Tumblr isn't there and I'm not sure how to add it myself. Thanks! --Carl236 (talk) 01:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not about Tumblr, and Wikipedia has no article about Tumblr (see discussion above). This article is about the "tumblelog" neologism, not any particular service that hosts tumblelogs. If Tumblr is noteworthy enough it may well need its own article, though that is for discussed above. mmj (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger with micro-blog

[edit]

I am not sure when this was suggested, nor who it was that suggested it. But I strongly disagree with it.

I will quickly outline, however, the fors and againsts:

For:

  • Many people do indeed use Twitter and other micro-blogs as a tumble log of sorts — an ongoing link sharing service pointing out parts of the Internet that are interesting, with brief commentary.
  • The use of a micro-blog as a tumble log is becoming more predominant with the use of hashtags.

Against:

Thus, I argue that while adding the concept of a tumble log may be wise to a micro-blogging article, and indeed the concept is a necessary one to add to the purposes of micro-blogs as people tend toward Twitter as a way of using the "short commentary" concept (although, by necessity, a touch more cryptic or poetic, depending on whether you dislike or like Twitter), I can honestly say that a tumble log is an entirely separate concept, noteworthy in its own right and most importantly, notable in its own right as a separate idea, as link commentary as del.icio.us is notable in its own right. No one has suggested that sharing links, another major purpose of Twitter should be merged. Nor has anyone suggested that IRC, another frequent source of on-going news and idle and somewhat cryptic chat with friends, is the same thing as micro-blogs.

Let us not try to condense concepts, unless the concept of a tumble log is so dead as to rank with gopher — that is, strictly a hobbyist pursuit and completely overwhelmed by its successor. And then, it properly belongs in the history section, with a brief note as to say, "The original concept has its origins in ..."

Jessica Schmidt (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tumblelog&oldid=1143856623"