Talk:Clubhouse (app)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2021 and 30 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Landon05, Zedahg, Nryyuh, Kouichi0331.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Competition

Do we need dedicated sub-sections for each competitor or potential competitor (currently number is seven)? I believe, for now, we should just shortly mention that A, B, and C, etc. have launched or announced competing services. If there are some significant events that affect Clubhouse, they should be mentioned, but I believe focusing on specific features of competitors is giving undue weight. I will tag "Competition" with {{Undue weight section}}. Politrukki (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for your explanatory note, but I'm in favor of pulling the undue weight tag. I find the competitor information useful, as there is currently a great deal of jockeying for position going on in the field of audio-only apps. This info helps readers understand the overall options. Jusdafax (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with Jusdafax that right now it is useful to have more information about competitors. At this moment in time, Clubhouse is the "leader" in terms of attention. Every other service is trying "to be better than Clubhouse". Everyone is reacting to Clubhouse, and so I can see it being useful to list them all here - for now. Maybe in six months it could all be summarized as a paragraph listing competitors. An alternative would be to create a Social audio page that has the list of various competing platforms, including Clubhouse. - Dyork (talk) 01:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• It's worth noting that Clubhouse's current notability is centered around all these other services trying to mimic it. It's a two-way relationship where one service gives notoriety to the other and vice versa. I do think some of the sections could be trimmed because the nitty-gritty should be saved for the pages of those services. As it is, the section should provide solid information about the services launched in reaction to Clubhouse. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 09:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I think the competition section should be removed and relevant statements should be added to the history section. Anoop (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Anoopspeaks what exactly is the justification for removing the section altogether? I could see an argument for shortening it but completely deleting it out of the blue is a tad strange. Like I mentioned in an earlier reply, Clubhouse stayed relevant through all these other services doing the same thing, I'd say they are integral to the app's narrative. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 12:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

ASpacemanFalls I'm truly sorry, I didn't do it to hurt anybody's feelings. Reasons, first the section gets bigger than the main topic and describes the history of all other apps in this section. Second, when it was written, there was no article for social audio. Now social audio has a page and I think this should be put there. All competitions are also described in the introductory section. But if you have objection you are free to revert it. I don't have any objection. or write a concise section about the topic. Anoop (talk) 14:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh no, no hurt feelings, sorry if I came off too stand-offish. I section the section deserves to be there but I agree it should be shortened. I'll work something out and maybe restore a piece of it. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. The article needs a reception section too. But it is very tricky to write contents which are not repeated, at least for me. One of the reasons I haven't tried to make the competition section shorter. If possible write a reception section too. Anoop (talk) 19:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Clubhouse (app)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ProcrastinatingReader (talk · contribs) 22:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Apologies but I think this is a quick fail at this time, in the sense that I don't think it could meet the good article criteria after a typical review period. Some specifics, which hopefully might be of help:

It doesn't meet criteria 1 at this time. There are some grammatical errors throughout, a number of headings contain content only a sentence or two long which makes for choppy reading, and the "Competing platforms" section needs to be reformulated to address WP:PROSELINE. I'd suggest doing the same for the "History" section, albeit to a lesser degree. WP:GOCE is usually helpful in resolving some of those issues. There are also some issues with criteria 3b (some sections go into too much detail and read a bit like a guide). The lead is very short (1b). I'll add that I'm not sure the sources are there for this article at the moment (and in fairness, it is still a pretty new app), but if the other issues are addressed you could renominate it, and another reviewer might see that point differently. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I'll try to make the article better based on your remarks. Anoop (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Did what I could to extend any one-sentence sections. Added more useful information on App Icons, Creator First, and controversies that made media headlines. Can add more information based on being a Clubhouse user and attending townhalls, but the ephemeral nature of the platform makes this difficult. Couldn't add more to "Business Model," as the company isn't transparent about this. Don't know enough to add to the technical section. Hope this helps.BPac180 (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

See also section

Just to be clarify, because I think ASpacemanFalls's edit summary in this edit was connected to my edits, I removed or modified a couple of wikilinks: [1][2][3] My rationale is in WP:SEEALSO: As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body.

I neither support nor oppose ASpacemanFalls's edit. I just note that this is not a matter of consistency. Politrukki (talk) 14:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah, that's my bad then, I'm sorry. Although, looking at it, I'm not sure WhatsApp or Line are relevant for the topic. I know WhatsApp doesn't really have a feature like Clubhouse does, though perhaps Line does? I'd keep them removed for now but if any Line user can confirm they have anything like an "audio chat room", it should be added back in. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 14:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)