Talk:Web chat

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why such a complicated name for this page? Why not just Web chat? I propose a move. The move will automatically leave a #redirect page in place.

--lynX 14:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is called Web chat site instead of Web chat because it is about web sites like chat-avenue and spinchat that provide chat rooms with web interfaces. There are many of these web sites, all of them are fairly small, and they have a lot of features in common in terms of technologies used, interfaces, ways they try to foster community, and so on. I think it would make sense to have an article about web chat, but it would have to have a broader scope than this one does. It would need to cover things like web interfaces to instant messengers, and web chat systems used on web sites that aren't specifically devoted to chat, like the interfaces many companies use to provide technical support, and the chat services integrated into social networking websites. -- Afolentes 01:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in the spirit of the 'wikipedia is not a web directory' rule I'd say that a page merely talking about web sites doesn't quite cut it. I don't see why Web chat sites can't be one of several paragraphs in a generic Web chat document. After all we'll find sites that operate on open-source technical solutions or use IRC as the server back-end, so the two subjects end up being closely tied together anyway. Also I tend to see IM and IRC web gateways more on the edge of the term Web chat - we can mention them, but it's not like they really fit the term. Web chat should describe the vast culture of self-written communication tools, all looking different, all having different commands. They aren't something the Internet needs to be particularely proud of, but they deserve proper description. A huge amount of manpower has been put in writing those thousands of web chat solutions, proprietary or not. --lynX

You make a strong case for having a Web chat article. I wrote this article about web chat sites because I started a web chat site, and I've used them, and I feel qualified to write about them. I don't think I would have been able to write a good article about Web chat by myself, because my perspective is skewed towards these sites. I'd be happy to contribute to a more general article, and willing to gut this article of material that applies more generally to web chat. Could you come up with an outline of topics you would like a Web chat article to cover? -- Afolentes 16:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I've been doing webchats for a decade now and I think your article covers most of the points and does just fine! The most relevant point about webchats is the unnecessity of installing some software, which you clearly point out right at the start. I'd extend a few aspects like

• maybe in the US it's different, but in Germany large webchat communities are often part of a company's website known for completely different things, like a newspaper or a brand of liquor, so the term Web chat sites to me sounds limited to only dedicated sites whereas webchats are a popular add-on to any kind of website.
• I'd mention server-push-based webchats which do not depend on Java being installed. They have been a lot more popular in Europe than applet-based webchats, long before Ajax strolled along.
• I'd go into detail of some special application webchats like customer support webchats and event chats, where user's are taken to a moderated chat event with a VIP.
• Webchats in Europe have a much larger userbase than IRC. But I don't have the figures at hand.
• At the same time webchats are a sort of historic phenomenon, as a lot of the users have moved on to IM and social software. So they only forms of webchat which are really expanding are the special application webchats I mentioned above. Again no hard evidence at hand.

So, what do you think.. can we go ahead with a move? :) --lynX 13:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can just rename the article to web chat. It has too much information about web chat sites that doesn't apply to web chat in general. Like I said, I think it makes sense for there to be a new article just about web chat, so I wrote this Web chat draft, incorporating some of the points you mentioned above and material from the existing chat site article. I'll move it into article-space if you think it's ok. I also wrote a new Web chat site draft without the duplicate information. -- Afolentes 00:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. I can see the distinction in the first paragraphs, but the rest of the Web Chat Sites article also applies to any Web Chat. Why should web chats limited to a certain site have different technological implications than any other web chat. In any case you have a technological problem to solve and there are some software solutions to do so. I disagree that two articles are necessary, all of your content is welcome in a Web Chat article. How do we get some feedback from other wikipedians on this? --lynX

What in the world are you talking about when you say "the rest of the Web Chat Sites article also applies to any Web Chat." I specifically created the Web chat draft article as a place to put extra information in the Web chat site draft article that can apply more generally outside of web chat sites. So if you think something belongs in one article and not the other, please, this is a wiki, stop whining, and just go ahead and move it. I don't know what you are talking about with "technological implications" and that mumbo jumbo. All of the detailed technological information has been moved from the Web chat site draft to the Web chat draft. I kept the HISTORICAL information in the Web chat site draft article intact since, to the best of my knowledge that information applies only to web chat sites. If you have more information to share about the history of web chat in general then we could conceivably expand those paragraphs and move them to the other article. The last section of the Web chat site draft also pertains only to web chat sites and not web chat in general. But really, if you think something needs to be improved, go ahead, make your improvements, and let's discuss them specifically. -- Afolentes 04:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing back yet... I'm going to do a little more work on the Web chat draft then I guess I'll move it into article space. If that happens, and you really want the chat site article to go away, I guess you can propose a merge. -- Afolentes 17:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you care about this distinction, I don't mind, so go ahead and do it your way.  :) Season's greetings. --lynX 09:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments about the article name. I would also be in favour of renaming it to Web chat. First it is shorter, secondly the article (as of today) already represents web chats in general and less a list with web chat sites (also see WP:NOT#DICTIONARY). The history and technology section offers the best overview about webchat technology I found on Wikipedia, it could be interesting for readers to find even more information with recent developments (JavaScript+DOM, AJAX, streaming, instant messengers with web interface such as AIM Web API, etc). Considering that web interfaces play a bigger role now then in the late 1990s, web chats are less a marginal phenomena and become more another communication tool. - 83.254.215.235 (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is another article that has a list of online chatting sites, added it to article text. - 83.254.215.235 (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.