Talk:List of bulletin board systems

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Hola En esta pagina podemos hablar en confidencia. Espero que no te moleste pero pues asi estan las circunstancias. Voy a checar esta pagina diario

Donde estas?

No extrano tu amistad Te extrano a ti extrano como era tu sonrisa extrano como sonaba tu voz extrano ese raro olor a ti extrano esos brazos peludos extrano ese chon salido extrano esos abrazos desabridos extrano esos besos de comisura extrano como no nos besamos extrano como no nos abrazabamos extrano como nunca nos acostamos extrano como nunca te dije lo que sentia extrano como evitas que te lo diga extrano como nos distanciamos extrano como excribir poemas para ti extrano ir por papas extrano verte por la ventana extrano contarte de mi vida extrano que me cuentes de la tuya extrano que me digas con quien te acostaste extrano que me digas que no sabes que hacer extrano tu figura extrano decirte que hacer y no hacerme caso extrano no sostener tu mano extrano no dormir junto a ti extrano no ser feliz junto a ti extrano oir musica contigo

Te amo.

Self-contradictory

I do not see a contradiction. Recommend this page be taken off of the Self-contradictory list. --Technotaoist (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Seconded This page has no contraidation at all, it's only a list. I'll remove the tag, if there's any (real) reason to keep it up, then I appologise, and I will put it back up. Walksonwalls (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continua

Hola?

Hola ya estoy de regreso

Pues me la pase bastante bien pero ahora empieza otra vez la busqueda de trabajo que no es nada sencilla para ella

Me alegro de ver que estas saliendo adelante del lado sentimental aunque solo sean distracciones. Si quieres salir de ahi ten preparado tu CV cuando vengas por aca. Como esta tu ingles? Tal vez puedas conseguir algo temporal y ya despues algo mas relacionado con tus estudios.

Un beso —Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.79.167.12 (talk) 08:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sherwood Forest

This link doesn't link to an article about the BBS, but rather about the acutal forest; furthermore, a page doesn't even exist on this BBS in the disambiguation page for "Sherwood". Therefore, this BBS has no article and probably should not be linked. Xonybubba (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. This should be removed. When you edit the page, it asks that there be no "red" links.ReveurGAM (talk) 02:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it. I hope the originator will create a qualified article and add it to the list.ReveurGAM (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SHORT list?

Why is this list so incredibly short? This is not titled the "List of notable BBSes" but the text says they are notable.

What defines notable? Is notable determined by illegal activities, number of users, number of lines, having nodes on the Internet, how many years it existed, user activity, international fame, quality of services or something else?

There are resources on the Internet, including "antique" lists of BBSes from back in the days when I ran the BBS "Tower of Babble" in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. If we define notable based on user activity or international fame then my BBS would qualify since it was one of four BBSes from Wisconsin that made it onto international lists and I had European users plus, in its heyday, my one-line BBS produced more messages on its message boards than did multi-line chat giant Online Data Systems, which had nodes on the Internet.

It seems like this list is more subjective than objective, so I will add a link section pointing to some of the extant websites that show lists of BBSes. ReveurGAM (talk) 02:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)(content edited)ReveurGAM (talk) 02:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I ran [!a]braxas/diabolic in Los Angeles. More notable than 90% of what I see on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.147.77 (talk) 09:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think for the purposes of this List we should confine it to just BBS's with already existing articles on Wikipedia. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 22:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? What's the point in that? Including a "notable" BBS here might spur someone to creat the article. What is this stubbornness amongst Wikipedia editors all about??? It's always "my way or no way". Grrrr...ReveurGAM (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You provide no convincing argument to support your choice. If we put BBSes on here, it may spur people to write the articles. If not, then it still stands as a record that can be used by researchers. Do they have to rely on just old BBS lists and www.bbsmates.com to get their info?ReveurGAM (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason to only include BBSes with articles is that the existence of the article (assuming the article has stood up to scrutiny over some reasonable amount of time) confers notability, as Wikipedia articles must be on a notable subject. Read WP:N for more insight on what Wikipedia considers notable. --SubSeven (talk) 17:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is established externally from the project. If it has coverage in RS it's notable (particularly when considering media ecosystems of the era).

A parent article is helpful and additive, but need not exist.

So long as external RS can vouch (within reason of scope and weight): such entries are suitable for inclusion – same as everything else within the project. -- dsprc ^[talk] 20:12, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notable BBSes that are missing

In looking again at this list, I can think of two BBSes that are worthy of their own articles, and they still exist: 1) Online Data Systems (ODS) - this multi-line BBS was based in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where it was run by 2 former members of The_414s (a hacker group composed of 6-7 talented Explorer Scouts), along with other supporting members of the computing community, including computing notable Scott Klement (www.scottklement.com) aka Darkangel. This system offered chat, online gaming, Internet newsgroups and forums, local forums on a separate WAN, and several other features, and held user events on an irregular basis, including a yearly anniversary party, the Full Moon Club - a gathering held on or near the night of a full moon, starting at midnight until everyone went home- picnics, etc., as well as user-initiated meetings. The Full Moon Club was resurrected by Scott Klement and other former members and has a page on FaceBook. Aside from these reasons, ODS was ExecPC's main (only, really, as the other multi-line systems in the metro-Milwaukee were all small) competition in the area and continues to exist to this day (Bob Mahoney, ExecPC's creator, graced one ODS anniversary party with his presence). Online Data Systems was later remaned Online Data Services and currently exists as Operation DataStorm BBS (ods.ods.net).

2) Metropolis BBS (MetroBBS) (www.metrobbs.com) is a giant multi-BBS system which still exists and that was accessible via local phone numbers (and is now accessible by the Internet) in many states other than where the servers were located when I used it in the 1990's. Larger than ExecPC BBS, which was more business-oriented, and also much larger than ODS, it offered many of the same services offered by ODS but, whereas most ODS users were in the metro-Milwaukee area, Metro had users from all over the US as well as Canada.

I can think of other Milwaukee BBSes that might be nominated as notable for one reason or another, such as The Keep - a major source of pirated software; The Tower of Babble - high forum activity, online games, counseling services performed by caring users, international reputation, and a large library of software and text files; Lightning Systems - a major distributor of Phrack Magazine; Far East Network (FEN), a sprawling collection of computer peripherals on an Apple computer and using highly customized software that served a small but dedicated community and was run by Scott Klement. However, I doubt that certain individuals would deign to include them here, and there is unlikely to be supporting documentation about them other than on sites like BBSMates.ReveurGAM (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of bulletin board systems. 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/20120106004705/http://www.bbsdocumentary.com/ to http://www.bbsdocumentary.com/

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) 17:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria for list entries is same as all other content on-Wiki: WP:Notability.

CSC or whatever other random opinions are on offer within various essays are fine and dandy but have no bearing upon the selection criteria used here.

Scope is exceptionally narrow: historical, computerized bulletin board systems, which meet WP:GNG.

If there is dispute whether a particular entry meets these criteria: please address such concerns here on talk. -- dsprc ^[talk] 15:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSC is a guideline, not an essay. A reminder that guidelines are "a generally accepted set of best practices that editors should follow". I see no reason not to follow the guideline's advice, specifically "Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the near future". Unless there are any draft articles in the works that I'm unaware of, all the red links in this list article should be trimmed out, per the above. 162 etc. (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since we're lawyering instead of addressing whether the BBS in question are actually notable:

Forgot the "common sense" line included in that header, btw… which is policy.

And the "…likely to have their own article […] ever…" part… (see: end)

Entries are notable. Cited reliable sources vouch. That's all that matters.

Amateur Action BBS is exceptionally notable, which I can source all day long.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]

Again: AABBS meets all criteria for inclusion within this encyclopaedia (even Britannica is lording this one over us! [9]), and this list.

Also: AABBS technically had an "article" in 2006(!) that got PROD (so, it is very likely to have one, because we had one… a shitty one, but one nonetheless). It also got a REFUND to user space; where it has sat because life outside Wikipedia exists… -- dsprc ^[talk] 01:55, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a fan of WP:IAR arguments, and I'm inclined to ignore IAR itself - which is policy ;)

If the entry is notable, please be WP:BOLD and write an article for it. If there's no article, its inclusion on the list is of no benefit to readers. 162 etc. (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]