Talk:RSS
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
Index
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
- To discuss rss syndication feeds from wikipedia, visit Wikipedia:Syndication.
Aaron Finch's contribution?
Anybody trying to figure out what Aaron's contribution was? The article doesn't state any. --Greatder (talk) 04:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2022
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section "Current usage" it is stated that Mozilla removed RSS support from Mozilla Firefox version 64.0, joining Google Chrome and Microsoft Edge which do not include RSS support, thus leaving Internet Explorer as the last major browser to include RSS support by default. This is not entirely true, ad Google Chrome for Android supports RSS feeds. I recommend removing Google Chrome and leaving only Microsoft Edge. One of the sources is The Verge (https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/8/22716813/google-chrome-follow-button-rss-reader). 188.124.192.128 (talk) 15:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Please change "Mozilla removed RSS support from Mozilla Firefox version 64.0, joining Google Chrome and Microsoft Edge which do not include RSS support" to "Mozilla removed RSS support from Mozilla Firefox version 64.0, joining Microsoft Edge which does not include RSS support".
- Google Chrome for Android does support RSS feeds. 89.111.251.26 (talk) 09:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Partly done: I felt the change should be done in the paragraph about its revival. Ping me if you're unsatisfied. SWinxy (talk) 05:38, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
No sources on RSS compared with Atom
That entire section only contains a source with a dead link.
The claim "Atom has (...) less restrictive licensing" is very odd, since the RSS format is completely open and the specification document has a CC-SA license like Wikipedia. On the other hand, the Atom RFC does provide some more restrictions. Daniel.sousa.me (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
- I fixed the dead link, I'll add additional citations if needed. yvanyblog(talk) 11:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Requested move 17 September 2024
It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved somewhere else, with the names being decided below. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}} . Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log |
- RSS → ?
- RSS (disambiguation) → RSS
– This is clearly not the primary topic for RSS. Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh Pageviews states that Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh gets 2x pageviews, virtually all of which come from RSS (no one can remember the whole name, similar to BJP). Therefore it should be disambiguated. Though I'm unsure where this page should go, that can be decided with discussion. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 19:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose No evidence provided to support the claim. Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh might well have more pageviews, but that is not evidence that 'RSS' (the literal 3-letter term) is more widely used to refer to this name. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- RSS is also commonly used for the right wing organisation. See Google News and you'll see many references to RSS for the organisation. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? -
uselesscontributions} 17:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- RSS is also commonly used for the right wing organisation. See Google News and you'll see many references to RSS for the organisation. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? -
- Oppose because RSS is clearly the primary subject and any title changes would not make sense per WP:CRITERIA or WP:COMMONNAME. There is already WP:NATURAL disambiguation. TipsyElephant (talk) 10:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
is clearly the primary subject
what makes you think so? This argument seems eerily similar to WP:JUSTNOTABLE. You have to back up your argument. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? -uselesscontributions} 17:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)- My argument was that we already have WP:NATURAL disambiguation and that RSS is the WP:COMMONNAME for the web feed format and that changing the name doesn't make sense under any WP:CRITERIA. No where did I say anything about it just being notable. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Per WP:DPT, let's try to have a look at some general statistics. All-time mass views of everything listed at RSS (disambiguation) indicates that about one half of all traffic went to the presumed primary topic. Can we have an analysis of long-term significance of the rest of the items listed?
- While RSS has been a common sight on websites a decade ago, it looks like major interest in it has waned since about five years ago, per pattern at all-time monthly page views of RSS.
- I would tend to agree that this particular Indian political topic might not suffice to indicate general ambiguity, but the sum of all the other topics might. --Joy (talk) 09:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but you can't assume that the sum of all the other topics listed at RSS includes their being identified as RSS. The question is when people are looking for RSS, what are they typically looking for? Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose clearly the common term for RSS. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)