Jump to content

Talk:Discord

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ludoyo (talk | contribs) at 19:29, 22 February 2023 (Undid revision 1140970281 by 192.24.218.227 (talk)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2022

Change the discord stable release version from 137650 to 142510. TreesOnTop (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TreesOnTop Please give us reliable sources that support the change. Thinker78 (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Per Thinker78 ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you look on the app it will tell you what the version is. There won't be a news source for every time the stable release version is updated. Keeping it as an older version just because you can't find a RS probably means we shouldn't have the section there at all. ― TUNA × 17:13, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thinker78 This is a situation where a WP:PRIMARY source is perfectly acceptable. You may want to ponder who you're replying to when you quote all those guidelines. I'm well aware of all of them. At the moment we're stuck either forever displaying inaccurate information, or using the clear and obvious facts that can be PRIMARY sourced to ensure it's accurate. Versions are rarely covered by secondary sources. Additionally, you restored outdated 'unsourced' information, as the only source present is for the old Preview release, which I removed. The "latest" release listed is currently unsourced regardless. I'm not sure why you would restore my removal of the preview release information since you yourself have noted that the source does not apply and is unquestionably WP:USERG and unreliable besides. -- ferret (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Ferret. I generally do not check who I reply to when editing a page or reverting, I only check Wikipedia guidance. I did not object to a primary source. The reason I restored outdated info is because it had a citation and there was a notice regarding that citation. I did not restore the data that I reverted previously because there was already an edit request about that. We were waiting for reliable sources, which not necessarily need to be secondary. I tried to find some but was unsuccessful and did not know how to read the technical info in the citation.
If you deem the citation unreliable, we can work from there. Although I have to mention that WP:USERG is a guideline and it uses the word "generally". Context matters. But in my opinion, there needs to be a reference for the information at hand. Otherwise, people can put whatever number harder to verify. Expecting editors to have Discord to check the info is not proper. But Im not sure if that was what you were saying when you wrote "the client" on your edit summary. Thinker78 (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thinker78 The Discord software, "the client", displays the version in the options panel. This is a WP:PRIMARY source that is easily accessible and verifiable without deep technical knowledge, per WP:PRIMARY bullet 3. This is freely available and has no real barrier to check. As for the github in use now, this is someone's personal data mining project with *no actual connection* to the Discord platform. It is a user-generated source and inherently unreliable. I'm not sure why you are pointing out that WP:RS (Where USERG is from) is a guideline while simultaneously demanding an RS? I will be reverting to my version, with the current easily verified release version and removing the outdated and unreliably sourced preview version. This is far more proper and inline with guidelines than what we have now. -- ferret (talk) 22:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, remove the version information entirely. I don't believe it's that important. But this infobox field is almost ALWAYS a WP:PRIMARY sourced field when it is in use. -- ferret (talk) 23:01, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since Discord does not actively promote its version number unlike other software (like browsers) I tend to agree its not required to be included. Masem (t) 23:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most versions don't even get a change log note. But regardless, the number is safely within the realm of what WP:PRIMARY allow. It's just also meaningless. So we should either keep it up to date, as I have done, or just remove it, as the number means nothing on it's own. -- ferret (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferret If your revert was not an administrative action that legitimately overrules this thread per Wikipedia guidance, I think you should wait for consensus, per WP:INVOLVED. Thinker78 (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't something that requires the talk page to reach a formal close. Can you provide a policy backed reason for us to keep the unreliably and outdated content that you want? The edit you wish to restore is a direct violation of WP:RS. Keeping status quo for the mere sake of it is not helpful. As mentioned above, I'm also ok with removing the content entirely, if you'd like. What I'm not ok is you insisting on keeping unreliable sources and failed verification. -- ferret (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's remove the version number. I definitely see this as a WP:BLUE situation where it is blatantly obvious what the correct stable version number is (verifiable through launching the Discord software itself). Theoretically, we could have some kind of awkward citation like <ref>[https://discord.com/download Discord application - User Settings menu]. Retrieved 2022-08-23.</ref>. However, as others have mentioned above, the specific version number is pretty meaningless for an application like Discord; my guess is it probably changes anytime the Discord developers push any trivial code change to production, and I'm not a fan of forcing Wikipedia editors to have to constantly update the number every time this happens. Mz7 (talk) 01:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mz7 It is not reasonable to require editors to install software to verify information in Wikipedia articles. Besides, I don't think it is obvious the version number. I do have Discord and I have never seen it obvious that I have x or y version. If the version number doesn't have reliable sources that backs it, then I am in favor of removing it as well. Thinker78 (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not unreasonable, any more than we might "require" an editor to go to a library to find a physical book to verify something. It is the editor's choice whether or not that is a step they wish to take, but the ability to do so has no remarkable barrier, per WP:PRIMARY. -- ferret (talk) 18:32, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thinker78: It's definitely a nonstandard approach, and I'm not really a big fan of it either (hence why I am most supportive of omitting the information entirely), but I will say that if it were a choice between going with what you can see in the Discord app and going with the version you kept trying to revert to, I would definitely say go with the Discord app. The version you reverted to is clearly problematic: in addition to being outdated, you yourself correctly flagged the cited source as "irrelevant". See also WP:SOURCEACCESS: Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources are not easily accessible. In this case, Discord would be a reliable source for mundane information about Discord itself (see WP:ABOUTSELF). Mz7 (talk) 04:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferret: I am not insisting in keeping "unreliably and outdated content". I am insisting in looking for consensus and adding a reliable source for the content, because it doesn't seem to be obvious information, per WP:INFOBOXCITE. Thinker78 (talk) 18:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well you're simply wrong then. WP:PRIMARY is policy and perfectly fine to use for this, though its now moot as plenty agree to simply removing it. In reverting me though, you restored unreliably and outdated information, and kept insisting it should be restored. Please consider that in your future edits. Developing a consensus does not require or necessitate keeping content in place that violates policies/guidelines. It's fine to fix clearly wrong material and continue discussing. -- ferret (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Ferret, but I don't understand why you keep pointing out WP:PRIMARY. I already stated that Im not in opposition of using primary sources as reference for the information. The problem is that you restored information citing your word, instead of adding the source you accessed. With this interpretation, then editors wouldn't be required to place inline citations if they merely read the information on a reliable source themselves. I don't think this is proper.
I think maybe your opinion is that the version number of Discord is obvious. I don't see how it is obvious, specially to the non-technical reader of Wikipedia who may not even have Discord. But yes, I am in favor also of removing the version number per the above discussion. Thinker78 (talk) 18:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2022

Change Hammel & Chisel to Hammer & Chisel https://twitter.com/discord/status/951774194307682305 207.81.187.41 (talk) 01:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done EnIRtpf09bchat with me 07:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Hammer and Chisel" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Hammer and Chisel and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 21#Hammer and Chisel until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. MB 17:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Archive

Someone manually created a new archive page while the bot was still adding sections to the first, which meant that the archives became out of order. I've blanked the second archive and merged the sections into the first archive, so everything should be in order now. --Spekkios (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 201 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kathyljy (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Kathyljy (talk) 13:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New font

Discord has recently rolled out a new font for the entire platform which they call "GG sans". So far I've only found 2 articles about it. 1 (which seems relatively reliable, the guy who wrote the article says they're a computer science engineer) seems to go into some detail about the crticism of people about Discord not providing any previews on the font preventing people from being able to provide feedback. The other (which I have concerns about the reliability of due to the sheer amount of ads on the website) seems to go into some detail about the font and the reasoning behind the name. (1st source is sort of a 2 part, one before it was released and one after it was released. part 1 is here and part 2 is here. Second source is here). Seem like something to add to the criticism section? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:17, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not every significant change in the UI needs to be documented, and barring any major commentary about the font, its not necessary to include. Things like the servce subscription offers, on the other hand, are significant to include. Masem (t) 20:36, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I know that not every change needs to be documented. Just figured I'd ask if it should be added given the current sources. There might be more sources to come since the font was only just rolled out yesterday so I guess we'll just have to wait and see. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2023

64.82.204.2 (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

mmmmmmmmmmmmmm

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Khrincan (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Discord&oldid=1140982953"