Talk:Glossary of blogging

This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-08-26. The result of the discussion was keep.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Journalism#Internet|journalist blog]] Anchor Journalism#Internet links to a specific web page: Internet. The anchor (#Internet) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

This long list of blogging terms was split off of the main Blog page to reduce that page's lumbering size. A fair number of these terms are crap and not in general usage in the blogging community. Others represent the penchant for some bloggers to coin portmanteaus. Feel free to pare down or expand upon any of these terms. Thesquire 22:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

Ugh. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, thesaurus, or a list of neologisms. Does anyone have a reason this article should not be deleted? Friday (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought collecting all the blogcrap related terms in here would be better than having 30 articles about each one, avoiding giving the capability to plug <insert favorite blog here> on each of those articles. What do you think (though I do agree, some of these terms are bullshit). --Timecop 06:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This so blatantly violates WP:NOT that I'm going to try turning it into a redirect to Blog. If it lasts that way for a few days, I'll work on cleaning up the things that point here. Friday (talk) 14:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this take, for several reasons. So many pages and redirects link here, that this move is rather... disruptive. Also, several other related lists DO, in fact, exist on Wikipedia. See List of computing and IT abbreviations and List of Internet slang. Because of the number of double-redirects this move has created, I'm going to move it back for now, until further consensus is reached. You also might considering listing the article on WP:AFD if you think it should be removed. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 22:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to think of redirects as bold rather than disruptive, but maybe that's just me. Also, I don't see any merit in the "article X has the same problem as this article, and it's here, therefore this one must stay" type arguments. Each article is considered on its own. However, since there's disagreement with the redirect, I'm not going to put it back it or anything. I'm not convinced Afd is likely to produce discussion of much value, particularly with a blog-related article. Too many "blogs are saving the world and removing this article is censorship" fanatics tend to come out of the woodwork in Afd. Blog culture is shamelessly self-promoting, so people will continue making up their own neologisms and sticking them in this article. However, maybe that's OK if it keeps them out of other articles. Friday (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to see this page and all of the people using these terms to be erased permanently. When this is placed in Wiktionary, could site specific terms be culled? What Daily Kos or Free Republic users refer to themselves as do not belong in a dictionary, but instead should be confined to an embarrassing footnote on the articles for those sites. Sund 04:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just check Wiktionary for blogroll, this term doesn't seem to have made the transition. I'll try to fix this & do some checking of the other terms when I have time. 28 August 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.169.161 (talk) 23:09, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Arguments against deletion

I'd argue that this is the very kind of material beloved of social historians, followers of fashion, nostalgia buffs and other collectors of ephemera. (Anyone who finds nostalgia buffs pitiful probably hasn't reached 50 yet!) Further, having this list of terms as an adjunct to an encyclopedia article provides the kind of context so necessary to understand their meanings in a wider sense than any dictionary currently encompasses. Therefore my vote is for the article to be retained. This, however, does not argue for the article to include any self-promotional material. It needs to focus on relevant and objectively verifiable fact. (And by the by, Sund, one does not erase people, one kills them. Is this what you really want to do?) yoyo (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the main page

'Another word missing is "Blinking" (sometimes called "b-linking" or "b'linking"): a synonym of blog hopping, clicking from blog to blog via links on the page.

Lurking (reading someone's blog and never commenting) is missing from the list too.

What about blogmemes and tagging?'

Thanks,

Computerjoe 's talk 12:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flog

"A portmanteau of "fake" and "blog". A blog that's ghostwritten by someone, such as in the marketing department."

I think this gives too negative image about flogging. I would belive that some individuals does fictional blogs, with the same reason why some writes stories about fictional persons. A new type of phenomenon?

eQualizer 10:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2007-02-7 Automated pywikipediabot message

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary.
The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.)
Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary.
Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 08:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is blogroll as a term possibly related to the British slang word, "bog roll"? I can't believe I'm the only one ever to have made a connection... Evilteuf 18:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that originally (since a blogroll is long and full of crap) but apparently it's modelled on "logroll" (US political term). 86.153.9.2 (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what is a blogroll? please define the term on this page. (the blogroll entry is redirected to this page, but the definition is missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.196.23 (talk) 01:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of English blogging terms?

I was thinking that this should maybe be changed to "List of English blogging terms" since that's what this is? --220.110.237.219 (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English wikipedia. If you were referring to the geographic region rather than the language, I'm afraid I don't understand. arquin (talk) 09:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NAUSEATING

Nauseating, nauseating! If half of these are even real terms.. ugh. --98.202.73.104 (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A neologism?

The word "clashback" appears in the entry for "Troll", thus:

"The word trolling means literally 'to fish', ie. when the troll fishes for a clashback from the blog writer and/or pro commenters."

I've searched for this word on Wiktionary and using Google; it appears as a witty pun on "the Clash" (punk-rock band) and "flashback" in a 1999 review of a documentary on the band; as the name of a Clash tribute band from Detroit; and as a house music band or label. I've yet to find its use anywhere as a noun meaning "reaction" or "retaliation", which is how the "Troll" entry uses it. Therefore I suggest the word be changed to "retaliation" - any problems with that? yoyo (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has objected, so I will change the text to "... when the troll seeks to provoke a response from ...". yoyo (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary.

I'm not entirely sure this article should exist, at least not on Wilkipedia. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and all that. But if it does exist, the cruft has to go. And that means anything without a citation, any neologisms, anything whose article has been deleted and redirected to blog with no mention of the term in that article, needs to go. It's just not useful stuffing it full of terms used once or twice by a handful of people. --Carbon Cal (talk) 21:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missing: What's a Blogroll?

Don't understand the sections "Blogroll" and "RSS" in Wordpress - what are they designed for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.59.215 (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki links

Balabiot (talk · contribs) messaged me about my revisions, so this was my response:

The reason the bots are linking blogroll to the glossary page is because "blogroll" redirects. There was an AfD decision on this. It used to go to "List of blogging terms", but that was moved to the glossary. Point is that it's not fallacious; if people on other wikis want to see the English page for blogroll, they would have to check the glossary. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I am moving the discussion here. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that; however, this is not what the rules for interwiki linking say. Only pages that match exactly the topic can be interwiki-linked. It is likely that other terms mentioned in the glossary have a separate page in other wikipedias, and then it would be wrong to have multiple outgoing links to the same language (not to mention the disasters that bots could do in that case). Balabiot (talk) 07:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linkroll ?

I've followed a wikilink (in Delicious (website)) to Linkroll, which is a redirect to here (more exactly to Glossary of blogging#L). But I can not find any Linkroll entry here. --188.10.28.199 (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Food Blog

Could someone write a description of a food blog, and maybe basic characteristics? And popular food blog websites from which to draw inspiration that would be awesome. I think we should keep this... just because one person doesn't like it, doesn't mean another person can benefit from these articles as it relates to blogs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.89.236 (talk) 21:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Glossary of blogging. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060109234222/http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=15000 to http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=15000

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]