Talk:Discord/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Article ideas

https://medium.com/greylock-perspectives/our-investment-in-discord-60a2fe88ceca#.mavhejfn6 Might be a useful reference --Topperfalkon (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

More references:

• http://techcrunch.com/2015/08/27/discord-citron/
• http://toucharcade.com/2015/09/14/ex-fates-forever-developers-making-discord-a-voice-comm-app-for-multiplayer-mobile-games/
• http://www.kotaku.com.au/2016/01/the-latest-app-for-third-party-voice-chat-just-raised-almost-us20-million/
• http://venturebeat.com/2016/01/26/discord-raises-20m-for-voice-comm-app-for-multiplayer-mobile-games/. Sam Walton (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Ooh, thanks. Might see if I can write some more up tomorrow --Topperfalkon (talk) 02:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• https://techcrunch.com/2016/12/09/gamer-chat-app-discord-hits-25-million-users-can-now-be-used-in-developers-own-games/

czar 03:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

NPOV issues?

This reads like a press release. "Huge popularity"? 98.204.181.240 (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, removed that sentence. Been meaning to work more on this article soon. Sam Walton (talk) 18:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Aaaaand done. Sam Walton (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't either both or none of Mumble and Teamspeak be mentioned under "see also"? 2A02:810D:2A40:AD8:A995:9C00:23E9:B20F (talk) 09:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Security and privacy section

Other voip software has sections like these i.e mumble

There is also a privacy policy: http://discordapp.com/privacy Cormac brady (talk) 01:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe Discord has released the mechanics of the security mechanism, but if you can find a reference explaining it, then provide it. Otherwise, a section like you are proposing is needless. --109.145.8.207 (talk) 20:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Discord and hostile behaviour

I think this paragraph should be removed:

> Discord has had problems with hostile behaviour and abuse within chats, with some communities of chat servers being 'raided' by other communities. This includes flooding with provocative topics related to race, religion and politics.

I think it is unfair to pin this onto discord, but not onto other social media platforms, such as twitter. All platforms will have issues like this, and in Discord's case, it's not up to them to deal with this: it's designed to be self moderated, in the way you cannot expect Mojang to ban the same things from minecraft. Therefore, I propose removing the paragraph, or rephrasing it a fairer way. --Nullpixel (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Literally any site where people create their own content (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube) and the like, are targets for such things. Discord isn't unique and the paragraph quoted is worded in a very loaded way to imply that it is Discord's problem. Multiple employees of Discord have condemned the articles as nonsense and trolling, these so-called "journalists" are just creating fear for no reason and making it sound like Discord's problem. Wikipedia's purpose is not to report on such articles that are clearly biased. The paragraph should be removed from the page. --CitroenLover (talk) 17:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The issue that I think these sources have with Discord is that it is meant to be self-moderated, so that unlike Twitter, Facebook, or YT, which have behavior profiles and polices that can deal with hostile/harassing behavior edicted from authority within the service, that doesn't exist on Discord outside of self-moderation, and so such issues have begun to proliforate on the system. --MASEM (t) 17:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Whilst I agree to some extent, discord does remove the things stated here, such as Child Porn, and extensive harassment: they employ a Reddit style self moderation, but you need to remove the smaller things, and deal with issues such as raising, which can be combatted with a high server verification level. I still think the paragraph is unfair towards discord. Nullpixel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I echo this sentiment. If you read the article cited in that paragraph, they admit that it's not a problem unique to Discord, rendering its mention unduly, at least in the Wikipedia page, unfair towards Discord. Editors preserving the paragraph argue that " that journalists have observed that many of these are using discord for this purpose (rather than any other chat software)" but that's just because Discord is rapidly becoming the most popular chat software available. If anything, it be rephrased to sound less negative and/or sound less like it is an issue endemic to Discord -- Voksul (talk) 02:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Discord now has anti-raid prevention. If I do not get any disagreement, I will revert these revisions 48 hours from now. Nullpixel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Opposed to removing the current sourced content. If the anti-raid prevention is sourcable, I would add it to the existing content as Discord's response to such criticisms. This establishes that the criticism was legitimate enough that Discord took actions to address it. -- ferret (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, due to the nature of it, discord have kept it low key. Howeve, staff have littered various mentions of it across servers, and in some cases on reddit. None of these are sourcable in the way I would like. Nullpixel (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Without at least a primary source announcement or reliable secondary source covering it, we can't include it. Even with sources, it still would not be a basis for removing the existing content, simply a supplement to it. -- ferret (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Too many memes and passive-aggressive bias.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.72.42.207 (talk) 1:30 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Stylization of "Discord"

The article says that Discord is stylized as DISCORD (all-caps) but no official Discord communications utilize an all-caps DISCORD anywhere. Saying that Discord is stylized as DISCORD just because the logo is in all capitals would be like saying that the Dunkin' Donuts article should mention that Dunkin' Donuts is stylized as "DUNKIN' DONUTS." I think this should be removed.

Examples of official Discord communications not containing any examples of DISCORD are:

The "About" page where a stylized name would be most likely

Their blog and any particular blog post

Legal communications

Their branding page

Based on this, I think that the mention of a "DISCORD" stylization should be deleted -- Voksul (talk) 02:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Agreed. Even if this wasn't the case, saying that it's styled in full caps is sort of trivial. Many games, software, etc do this. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
• WP:BOLDLY done. -- ferret (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2017

change "Discord runs on Microsoft Windows, macOS, Android, iOS, Linux, and in a web browser." to "Discord runs on Microsoft Windows, macOS, Android, iOS, GNU+Linux, and in a web browser." Jizzonlife (talk) 11:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Per MOS:LINUX. -- ferret (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2017

The last sentence in the History section has a typo - "used" should be "use" to improve readability. 212.159.114.74 (talk) 12:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 12:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit

Preserving here by providing this link; pls see edit summary for rationale. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Undue weight, voluminous POV off-topic digression.

I was casually perusing when the large amount of text devoted to the alt-right jumped out at me as undue weight, POV, and quite a bit of off-topic digression. I edited it so as to be more concise, straightforward statement of the fact of misuse. The article is small and there's no need to go into so much detail, especially in a way that implies malignancy of the subject group (as malignant as they actually are in my humble opinion).

There's a notability problem too. All new technologies get put to use by "unsavory elements" as well as by "legitimate" users. There's just nothing surprising about it.

Afterward, I noticed there had been some controversy about the passage with a number of reversion cycles. I expect my edit will be similarly summarily reverted. So, in anticipation of the need to "bring it to the talk page", I'm bringing it to the talk page here.

As I've argued above, the passages are wholly undue weight. They give a severe non-neutral perspective on an off-topic subject. It's more encyclopedic to keep it short (in keeping with the short article), and to be straightforward and dry in describing the fact of some abuse. Avoid selecting and dwelling on one in a way that casts POV aspersions.

73.119.160.15 (talk) 23:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I think most of us recognize that the section looks very negative relative to the shortness of the rest of the article, but the problem is that with the recent events this summer, the use of Discord by the alt-right has been highlighted and criticized, which has forced Discord's owners - otherwise hands off - to take a more proactive approach to handling those types of groups. It needs to be here, because its one of the reasons it is notable beyond video games. --MASEM (t) 00:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

We report what the sources are reporting, trying to stay to that and not spin our own biases. If the sourcing happens to be negative, then that's just what it is. POV would come into play if there were positive sources we were deliberately ignoring... As for undue, again this is widely covered by reliable sources and doesn't represent any sort of fringe or under-reported view. The fact that the rest of the article could use expansion doesn't mean to cut other valid content. As for off-topic... It's completely on topic to the software, its usage, and its owner's actions. -- ferret (talk) 01:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The shear amount of the material devoted to it is still undue. And, it still creates a negative POV toward the alt-right groups. Instead of simple removal of all the material, it can probably be fixed by trimming the amount of content and by carefully re-framing wording surrounding the alt right. But, the undue weight and POV must be recognized and corrected. 73.119.160.15 (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a negative POV. It describes events that happened, backed by reliable sources, with no real negative wording or adjectives, etc. You'll need to highlight some specific example of how its unfairly or poorly representing the views of sources. Some tightening of the wording might be possible, but we're talking six sentences. Hardly a mountain of content. -- ferret (talk) 19:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I've done a few trims of language I found over-ly ... flowery, removed some extra detail on the rally events (reader can click through), and fixed some terrible sentence run ons. -- ferret (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I renamed the section because it wasn't really a list of other people/entities being critical of the subject. Rather, it looked like the criticism was by the editors because it is a selection of primary sources (made by the editors). "Criticism" sections should be avoided I think, but if they can't be avoided, they should be secondary sources about people being (negatively) critical of the article's subject. To fix it, I just re-characterized the section by renaming it. AbeBruckmann (talk) 22:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Fine with the rename, agree it isn't criticism per say. Not sure what you mean by it being primary sources though. They are all reliable secondary sources. The only two primary sources are used in History and Software. -- ferret (talk) 23:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

It's a finer technicality, yes. Really, a source should characterize an act as "abuse" if it's to be characterized as "abuse" in the text. If the source is simply stating the act as a fact, then characterizing it as "abuse" in the text is an unsupported interpretation. I equate that as making the source more "primary-ish" with regard to an interpretation as "abuse", while it's still solidly "secondary" with respect to the simple fact of the act. (Usually my reasoning is excellent, but here it's a little squishy. Just flow with it! :-) ) AbeBruckmann (talk) 02:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I think the term you are looking for is WP:Original research or synthesis. Hopefully I've been able to reduce that today, there were quite a few bits not really covered by the sources. -- ferret (talk) 02:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I made a few changes in an effort to fix and improve the text (vs. simply deleting it). The original impression and tone of POV came from things such as what I changed. I thinks it reads much better now and doesn't reek so much of the need to shame the alt-right. As shame-worthy as they are in my opinion, we are obliged to be NPOV and straightforward (and dry! :-) ) in the descriptions we create, and to improve it in that direction when we can. 73.119.160.15 (talk) 04:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately these changes remove key context to explain why it became an issue. There is no POV or the like with the existing version. A couple examples: the quote from the SPLC person is necessary to attribute as a claim, as we cannot factually state what they are saying, per WP:YESPOV. The fact that the rally was around white nationalists is necessary, as well as the fact that people that are considered high figures in the alt-right using Discord shows how significant a tool it was for them. These are all neutral elements to understand why Discord came under scrutiny after the events, and took steps to change their stance. --MASEM (t) 05:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

"The fact that the rally was around white nationalists is necessary" is completely off topic -- unless we want to drive home the fact the alt-rights are bad guys. Which isn't our purpose. 73.119.160.15 (talk) 07:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not confident you understand WP:NPOV. The statement "The rally was around white nationalists" does not make any sort of "bad guys" statement, it simply identifies the group involved. It is a neutral statement of a facts presented by reliable secondary sources. It's required because Discord took specific actions, against a particular set of groups, in response to those particular groups actions, and the events at that specific rally. None of this is POV, its neutral presentation of the sources. Otherwise, you make the article read as though Discord simply banned servers because there was a rally, without any context. -- ferret (talk) 10:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Lopsided Melodrama. Choosing what facts to give and what to withhold can easily and often imply a POV, like it does here. It's the cherry picking that makes it POV. What was the alt-right's response to being bullied around by what they surely think of as self righteous censorship? There are about three paragraphs of that in one of the main refs, but it was ignored here, leaving only too much lopsided melodrama. AbeBruckmann (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Could you maybe point out the exact specifics instead of the dramatic claims of "lopsided melodrama", POV, cherry picking and self righteous censorship? I didn't write the original text but I've been doing my best to fix OR and ensure the information is actually in the sources, in response to these discussions. Not much help is being provided to actual point to specific issues or suggest alternative text or missing information, just pushes to erase the content entirely, which is definitely a POV push. -- ferret (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I think the IP did a pretty good job of that (showing what needs to be fixed). It needs to be trimmed of column-inches and scare-wording. Additionally, some counterbalancing weight needs to be given to alt-right's perspective on what Discord did. AbeBruckmann (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Alt-right doesn't deserve a fair shake, but we're obliged to give it to them. 73.119.160.15 (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

So again. Can either of you suggest a sentence to cover the alt-rights response to the bans? NYT has a few small paragraphs but not a lot of details, and quotes from non-notable moderators don't carry much weight. Something like "After the bans, some alt-right users attempted to create new Discord servers, while other looked for alternative chat apps." is about all that could be said. -- ferret (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi guys. I've been away (obviously). I saw the renaming of "Misuse" to "Disruptive Use" by the IP, and I agreed with the rationale, so I reinstated it. I agree with the IP's removal of the rest of the material too, but I left that in place. It's too bad Ferret let (his) administrative powers go to (his) head. A lockout of all IPs was uncalled for. Only the appearance of a "consensus", maintained by two persistent article monitors (one with IP lockout powers) existed here. There was no "persistent" so-called "disruptive" editing, just readers persistently noticing the clear POV bias and undue weight, and persistently trying to do something about it, only to be stymied. AbeBruckmann (talk) 08:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Protection was applied after the IP continuously removed content over several different IPs, which was reverted by at least six different editors. This is disruptive editing. The alternative would have been to block the IP, which would prevent their participation in talk discussions as well. If you believe I've misused protection, you can try WP:ANI. Otherwise, the discussion stalled out and the status quo remained. Neither you nor the IP would answer my last few questions about specific changes or additional content, and which sources to use. If you feel this talk page discussion cannot reach an acceptable consensus for change with the current participants, you could try a Wikipedia:Requests for comment to bring in other uninvolved editors. -- ferret (talk) 12:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2017

Whilst the front-end of the Discord platform is written in JavaScript and HTML as noted, the whole of the back-end is written using Elixir, leveraging the power of the Erlang virtual-machine for their real-time WebSocket communications.

Also, Discord uses Electron for their desktop application, and is a contributor, or rather has its own branch. Electron is written in C++.

Sources: https://electron.atom.io/ https://github.com/discordapp/electron https://blog.discordapp.com/scaling-elixir-f9b8e1e7c29b https://blog.discordapp.com/how-discord-handles-push-request-bursts-of-over-a-million-per-minute-with-elixirs-genstage-8f899f0221b4 https://content.nanobox.io/discord-elixir-concurrency-template-high-performance/ Thomasgak (talk) 12:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

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. Cocohead781 (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, there's no need to ask. You can make the edits yourself. You just need to make 9 more edits (elsewhere) to be "autoconfirmed". Then go ahead and "be bold". AbeBruckmann (talk) 08:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Discord as a forum/venue

Quite frequently Discord is mentioned as a venue or forum for discussion or collaboration (e.g. on mods), not as a piece of software roughly equivalent to Skype or ICQ. We should probably cover this aspect of the service, much as we do at irc, which isn't simply about the protocol and the application software, but also as a community (later multiple, sometimes conflicting communities) of users, with even some article splits like serving channel.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  23:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

While I'm unsure of how it'd exactly be written, I'd definitely be interested in helping write a community-oriented section with common themes pertaining to the service itself, like Pingpopcalypses, Blob emotes, and Dark Theme > Light Theme memes. Masterfireheart (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 03 January 2018

change "As of May 2017, Discord has over 45 million users." to "As of January 2018, Discord has over 87 million users." Source: https://discordapp.com/ (scroll down) rebane2001 (talk) 16:41, 03 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. A claim made on the software's download page isn't a reliable source. An independent source for the figure would be better. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually we did have at least one source (The DEc 7 Polygon article) already with the 87M figure in the body, the lede just didn't get updated with that. I have corrected that. --Masem (t) 16:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2018

I'd like to add the fact that Discord Nitro users can use animated emojis as of the update before the current one. I will add citations once I find them TheFanoulis (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Never mind, seems like I am now auto-verified once I posted the request. consider this answered TheFanoulis (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

"All versions of the client support the same feature set"

This seems inaccurate? Given that a variety of people in the servers I'm on have noticed that functions such as '/me' do not work on mobile? Deadlypleasures (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

On that new WaPost item related to Unite the Right

@Ferret: I actually just added that over to the Unite the Right rally article as it is part of a whole separate lawsuit that hadn't been documented there yet. --Masem (t) 16:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I'm not sure it needs incorporated here just yet, but it came across my news feed. -- ferret (talk) 19:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2018

Discord is available on Xbox One yet this is not listed on the platforms section 110.151.8.195 (talk) 06:42, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Xbox Live support is mentioned. I don't see a comprehensive list of platforms (or a platforms section) anywhere in this article to add to. If I've missed something, please reopen the request and let me know where you'd like this to be added. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2018 (Add Nintendo 3DS & PS Vita via homebrew as platforms)

Please add PlayStation Vita (homebrew) & Nintendo 3DS (homebrew) to the list of platforms that support Discord. 2A02:C7D:B78A:4E00:C18D:980C:F892:5DF2 (talk) 04:43, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

References

•  Not done Homebrews are never added as official platforms and these are not reliable sources to be used. --Masem (t) 04:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2018

2601:547:1200:232A:C4F8:45E7:148C:D4E7 (talk) 04:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)LET ME EDIT NOW

 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. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 04:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2018

Give source for "... while other services like Skype or TeamSpeak were resource-heavy and had known security problems" under History 185.91.152.32 (talk) 10:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

 Partly done: We can't just "give a source", we'd need you to give one, but I have tagged it as needing citation. -- ferret (talk) 12:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Remove, or update last updated sections to be more accurate

Discord is a cross platform, constantly updated software, however the "Stable release" and "Preview Release" sections don't reflect this, and only show when the desktop client wrapper software was updated, and doesn't reflect the mobile app updates, or updates to the application inside the wrapper its-self.

TheLMGN (talk) 23:04, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

i need to edit it

srry for bad english but microsoft was now devolopers of discord and i had to edit it i do believe it tho

Discord specifically refused a deal from Microsoft just yesterday. There is no need to edit in unconfirmed information. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 11:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Mistake I can't fix

As this page is locked i can't edit it. In the third sentence of the last paragraph of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discord_(software)#Controversial_content section it says "Discord moderators" where it should say "Discord admins" or something to that effect. These are two very different groups of people. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.254.120 (talk) 08:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I think moderators is appropriate for that section. Do you have any sources to suggest they are called admins by Discord? Alphavano (talk) 21:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

On the platform they refer to themselves as Discord Staff in the badges, moderators/admins is generally reserved for specific server members, not Discord employees — IVORK _Talk 00:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems a little broad so I'm going to refer to them as Discord moderation staff. Alphavano (talk) 02:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

There is also an error when talking about linking accounts, rich presence doesn't know what game your playing because you've linked steam but because it can look at what processes are running on your computer. Tindolt (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I've got time to kill. I'll look at fixing these both. Alphavano (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I removed the mention for now. I'm going to try to find some sources for what linking Discord to Steam actually does offer. Alphavano (talk) 21:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Definition of Discord server

This page, and the Discord community in general, seem to be using the word "server" and "host" in a wildly peculiar way altogether distinct from the common definition of Server (computing). The help pages are silent. According to the sparse information available, "The Discord servers are actually hosted by Discord themselves". So it seems the word "server" is analogous to a "room" in certain chat servers, or a subdomain/instance of other web software like Wordpress.com, Tumblr, Slack etc. Nemo 17:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

A Discord server is very similiar to a Ventrilo, Mumble or Teamspeak server. The difference being that you reach them by an invite, rather than specifying port and IP. But a "server" is a collection of channels (rooms) for text and voice and the members who have joined it. They are all hosted by Discord though, there is not third party hosting. -- ferret (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

According to the general accepted definition of "server" in computing, a "server" is "a program, a virtual or physical machine, a local or remote service following client-server model". As all of Discord is hosted by Discord inc, only they can set up new "servers", either in terms of physical machines, or in terms of instances of the application. So, the given comparison with Ventrilo, Mumble and especially TeamSpeak, doesn't fit. The mentioned services offer downloading of the server software to set up your own instance. Discord doesn't provide such and each user is required to use the provided services by Discord inc. Hence "setting up a Discord 'server'" is the wrong term. The better term could be used for Discord might be something like "lobby" wich fits it what Discord then provide to its users, whereby a "lobby" then has to be understood as "a collection of one or more 'channels' useable for text, voice and file exchange managed by its creator". So, although the wrong term "server" is used by many, technically it's wrong by general accepted definition of what a server is. 2A0C:D242:4434:200:D17F:B318:5046:7A14 (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Discord and 'cub porn'

Discord recently released a statement saying that cub porn is not against their TOS, while loli porn is. This belongs in the controversies section. sources https://www.polygon.com/2019/1/30/18203692/discord-nsfw-policy-furry-cub https://www.reddit.com/r/discordapp/comments/aknrs9/another_confirmation_from_an_earlier_message_and/ef6uhcr/?context=8&depth=9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:247:C580:1C35:0:0:0:E37E (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Probably should be, the evidence is there an all with the recent events with their T&S stuff but i don't know. what do you all think? Wkc19 :) (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Not saying it can't be added, but we should wait to see how much of a big deal this is. People on Discord and Reddit getting worked up about it but not reported in mainstream sources is something we don't do. And while the Polygon article is a perfectly valid source, it is one source. To say this is controversial we need some additional corroboration. --Masem (t) 00:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

does user backlash count as controversy? 2601:247:C580:1C35:521:CEE5:3500:83FD (talk) 00:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Not without reliable secondary coverage, which is currently lacking outside of one source. -- ferret (talk) 00:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

here you go buddy. https://www.newsweek.com/discord-furries-terms-service-community-guidelines-1323099 please put this up for everyone to know! 2601:247:C580:1C35:A12E:B6BF:CD53:9CDE (talk) 05:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Our goal is not to "let everyone know" (See WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. That second piece helps but again, how much of this is a small group upset over something? It's a sign its being picked up so if anoher major sources comes out, we should definitely cover it. --Masem (t) 06:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

to quote newsweek "site moderators who fail to enforce the platform’s rules because of personal bias, specifically among moderators and community members who identify as Furries." i feel as though you are 'crusading against a certain POV' based on the fact that you did not read either of the articles i linked and your "small group getting upset over something" comment. i'd like a second opinion on this. 2601:247:C580:1C35:A12E:B6BF:CD53:9CDE (talk) 08:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

In the Controversial content section, I have mentioned the banning of underaged content in July 2018 and subsequent controversy over "cub" content, which resulted in policy changes and Discord announcing transparency reports. 9³ (talk) 02:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

meta

>Its not proper to advertise a meta page in a mainspace.

Is it?

I think it would be okay.

Also, it seems to be the norm on other pages, such as Sysop.

Inb4 other stuff exists.

Benjamin (talk) 19:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2019

Minor edit, the X years ago in the infobox needs updated. Scuzzy Beta (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: @Scuzzy Beta: it hasn't finished its 4th year yet, so its 3 DannyS712 (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Jibberish jargon

The page currently contains the block:

In October 2017, Discord offered server verification to game developers, publishers, and content creators, allowing them to display their server's "official" status with a "verified checkmark" after confirming their identity with the Discord team. Developers and publishers with verified servers can use data from Discord to create a "rich presence" within their games, allowing players to connect their game profile to their Discord profile. By the end of 2017, about 450 servers were verified, with about 20 servers using the "rich presence" features.

If anybody can figure out what any of that means, could they please rewrite the paragraph without sensationalist / promotional jingo jargon that means nothing to the rest of us. Thanks! And "alt.right" sounds like a Usenet newsgroup, but I realise someone else chose that name, not this article's authors. Still, its wikilink here could be expanded to be less esoteric. 49.195.61.154 (talk) 14:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Did some digging and I understand what the user was talking about. Going to see what I can do to fix it up now. UPD: it definitely needed work. I've clarified it and updated the info there. Cheers! Alphavano (talk) 03:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Expand on the information near the title

Hello, most of the information in the beginning is very short and could be lengthened. Reading this page has some weirdly out of order news about Discord or seems out of place. Ewong2188191 (talk) 04:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2019

According to this blog post from the official Discord blog, Discord is now using Rust in its backend infrastructure. Please update the infobox, specifically please add Rust to the "Written in" (programming language) section. Rinnean23 (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 22:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request, 26/06/2019

The paragraph

In July 2018, Discord updated its terms of service to ban drawn pornography with underaged subjects. A social media movement subsequently criticized Discord for selectively allowing "cub" content, or underaged pornographic furry artwork, under the same guidelines. Discord moderators held that "cub porn" was separate from lolicon and shotacon, being "allowable as long as it is tagged properly." In February 2019, Discord amended its community guidelines to include "non-humanoid animals and mythological creatures as long as they appear to be underage" in its list of disallowed categories, in addition to announcing periodic transparency reports to better communicate with users.

Could be more informative by mentioning that the change in policy concerning "cub porn" was provoked by the mass outcry from the aforementioned social media movement. This wasn't a spontaneous change that occurred by coincidence at the same time that there was a mass outcry like the current paragraph implies

https://www.polygon.com/2019/2/13/18223726/discord-policy-change-nsfw-cub-furry

RedAlert 007 (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 03:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

Revert Special:Diff/919489297, using the template is better for categorization. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 07:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 07:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Privacy & security

Some mention needs to be made of the fact that the terms of service for Discord mean that They can use any material you post on the platform and any information they gather from your phone or computer in any way they choose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmdean2015 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 8 November 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus against move. (non-admin closure) – Ammarpad (talk) 15:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

---

• Discord (software) → Discord
• Discord → Discord (disambiguation)

– WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Discord (software) has significantly higher pageviews than all others linked in the disambiguation page. Googling "discord" also reveals that the software is the most common use for the term. Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 04:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Disagree that the software is the primary topic. It's one of the more significant hits for "discord" but there's far too many other ranges of topics to make a niche software product the primary. --Masem (t) 06:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - Regardless of any other circumstances, this software is not primary. -- Netoholic @ 08:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose and early close Unbelievable. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Masem and Netoholic. -- ferret (talk) 12:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. The primary meanings are: (a) the musical sense; (b) disagreement among people. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Unlike Amazon, which is a clear primary topic, in my view, the same cannot be said here. It is a generic English word that has multiple uses and no clear primary.--Doug Mehus (talk) 20:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't see how Amazon would be considered a primary topic if Discord isn't. The Amazon River and Amazon Rainforest are both major topics, but there aren't really any major articles that could be confused with Discord. Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 23:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
    • It is not that there is a major "discord" topic, but that discord is a word with multiple long-standing meanings (see Anthony Appleseed's comment) that even if we don't have articles on those meanings, should be the first thing people see when searching on "Discord". --Masem (t) 00:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

      Masem, Yeah, what you and Anthony Appleyard said. ;) Doug Mehus (talk) 02:50, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose The classic meanings are long-standing and still quite significant. The software was released only 4½ years ago and is currently popular, but I think it's premature to suggest that its significance rivals that of the other meanings. BunsenH (talk) 02:43, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Weak support The title of a Wikipedia article may not be always necessary to follow the pageviews in count. Yet I have some sort of support but not that strong from my point of view. It is not much popular unlike the social media platforms. Abishe (talk) 04:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Per WP:NWFCTM but also because Eris (mythology) is also called Discordia, or Discord._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Clearly not the primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Error in software dropdown

There is also an error when talking about linking accounts, rich presence doesn't know what game your playing because you've linked steam but because it can look at what processes are running on your computer. Tindolt (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Controversies

Wouldn't it be a better idea to separate all of their controversies into a new section. The way that it's done ATM, as a subsection isn't great, when it's double the size of the main section. Also mentioning a smaller controversy, under "Reception"(and yes, i am aware, that that seems to contradict what I just said, but this isn't that major to be an actual thing) with their cutesy language that they use in response emails and such, a la this:https://i.imgur.com/ujIumGO.png. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UsnaOS (talk • contribs) 15:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I WANT TO SUPPORT THIS COMMENT: dedicating half the page to controversies, along with a laundry list of white supremacist affiliations seems to betray an agenda/obsession by the folks doing the wiki edits. The fact is that an individual coming from, say,coming to learn about discord for school group that has adopted discord for virtual meetings, gets the impression that the platform is unsafe. And that smacks of political targeting. The controversies laundry list needs to be pared down to what is truly relevant to an encyclopedic entry. It would be necessary to dedicate this much space to the misconduct reported on by every news coverage of race or pornography infractions if and only if that is intrinsically part of the platform identity. To do so in this manner is in fact creating that identity for a platform I am told by teachers and others is actually not a Nazi based haven that it appears to be from reading this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.27.126.28 (talk) 15:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

This comment is nearly a year old. The article changed substantially since with expansion of other areas. Only approximately 15% of the articles word count is dedicated to such controversies. It's been repeatedly culled to as close to the bare simple facts as possible. -- ferret (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

The Discord Service Refers To The 4 Digits After Your Username's "#" As A Tag

It Is Not A PIN, Though Sometimes the Word "Discriminator" Is Used By The Community. There Are Also Lots Of Typos. 213.166.136.5 (talk) 05:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Name

Was someone going to explain the name? Does it come from the quote "let there be discord"? 174.0.48.147 (talk) 13:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Advertising on this article.

While reading the article, i found some critical mentions of concurring programs like Skype and Steam, to name a few. Maybe someone could give this a closer look. Thanks! RABDe 500 (talk) 12:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

You betcha. If you see crap like that (and it's rife in this article) you can kill it yourself. Go to it!  :-) I already got some of it. I was just driving by and the POV was so blatant I jumped right into action. I didn't even see your comment until just now after killing some of it myself. Some promoter must have gotten to this article since the last time I saw it a few years ago. The vermin. 73.219.90.8 (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

A service reporting on its user base is not promotional, though it may be worded inappropriately. We want to know appropriximate user base sizes, and even better when filtered through the reporting of an RS. --Masem (t) 00:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

That's fair. I think what I did and what you did to refine it was pretty good. Much more straightforward encyclopedic flavor there now.

The way most of the rest of the article is framed has that promotional smell to it -- a strong one. We all know that stink when we smell it. Promoters who are naive editors (or even experienced ones) just can't wash it out of their writing. It's like a fact of nature. There's also the cherry picking and undue weight with the long digressions of "positive" facts. Completely neglected is the matter of all the data being stored on their servers and "owned" by them -- a pretty widely discussed privacy/security problem (mentioned on this talk page on 15 Oct) which keeps people seeking alternatives. A datum about the number of users says nothing about the number of people not using it because of various problems. Number-of-users data is inherently biased because of that (I would suggest). According to the article, apart from some misuse by others, everything about it is wonderful and its inventors are all very modern and insightful. 73.219.90.8 (talk) 07:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Protection

This page needs to be protected from Vandalism because Discord is used by so many people. How do you do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConstructorRob18 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@ConstructorRob18: Protection isn't issued based on popularity, but on how much disruption is happening. Currently this article isn't vandalized enough to warrant being protected again. -- ferret (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2020

Change the "Initial Release: May 13, 2015; 4 years ago" line in the info box to "Initial Release: May 13, 2015; 5 years ago", as yesterday (5/13/2020) was the 5th anniversary of the launch of the software. Indyjacob (talk) 05:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: You may need to WP:Purge your cache, that worked for me. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2020

the discord URL is now not discordapp.comm it's discord.com now 99.254.173.140 (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: An odd comment since this is already in the article; and the app url redirects to discord.com anyway... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2020

71.38.24.114 (talk) 02:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

 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. ~ Amkgp 💬 07:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2020

In the article's infobox, change

| author = 
| developer = Discord Inc.<br />(Originally ''Hammer And Chisel, Inc.'')

to

| author = Hammer And Chisel, Inc.
| developer = Discord Inc.

According to Template:Infobox software/doc, the author can be an individual or organization. original author(s) or publisher(s). 84.250.17.211 (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: These aren't separate entities. The company renamed. -- ferret (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Something to say

I wished that instead of saying all the OS that this works on, why not say it worked on all OS? That would be perfect. AceLuan54 (talk) 07:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)AceLuan54

It doesn't work on Windows 10 Mobile, while it does work on all the major OSs, it would be incorrect to say it worked on all — IVORK _Talk 01:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Revised Lead

I revised the lead for clarity and to remove some redundancy according to MoS:LEAD. I chose to remove the word "freeware" as it's not included for Slack, the closest analogue for Discord. Also removed the focus on the gaming community as Discord has been moving toward more general communities. Alphavano (talk) 01:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Does the History section breach WP:NPOV?

I noticed as I was reading through the History section of the article the sentence "This led the developers to develop a chat service that was much friendlier to use and based on more modern technology." In this case Friendlier refers to user-friendliness but is that something that can be quantified to fit with WP:NPOV or is it an opinion that should be attributed? Alphavano (talk) 02:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Article Structure

This article is filled with huge blocks of text that could be separated into categories similar to Slack. I'm going to work on a version of that, splitting Software into Features and Infrastructure (I'm not completely convinced that infrastructure is the best option and I'm open to suggestions). Alphavano (talk) 13:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I've restructured the article to match other pages like Slack and improve how easy it is to read. Instead of huge History and Software sections, which both included features haphazardly, I separated all the features into the new Features section. All previous info (including citations, some 1st party from Discord) was sorted accordingly. Another bored workday tackled. Alphavano (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2020

change "Written in" to "JavaScript, React, Elixir, Rust, Python" NotConstanze (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done We can't use Reddit forum posts for sources. --Masem (t) 18:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2020

We need to add a possibility to search & add already ready discord bots to section 2.6 (Developer Tools) Angrymousex (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

 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. -- ferret (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2020 (2)

Add section that fully describes discord bots (not just mention it in Developer Tools section) Angrymousex (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

 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. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 19:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 20 January 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) BegbertBiggs (talk) 13:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Discord (software) → Discord (service) – The article, and most coverage, is about the service, not the client software. Therefore, the disambiguation for (software) is a bit misleading, and (service) is much clearer. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 04:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - Unlike, say, Twitch (serive), Discord is more a piece of software than a service, just that its driven by a client-server model behind it. --Masem (t) 04:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - Twitch is a service that can be accessed by multiple independent third-party clients - the primary being OBS and StreamLabs' version of OBS, but many others exist. Discord, AFAIK, can only be accessed by the discord client - which means that anyone referring to it as a "service" is necessarily referring to the software Discord itself provides for such service. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Minor note, third party clients for Discord do exist. However, they are against ToS. So the point mostly stands. -- ferret (talk) 03:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Most people use the Discord software to access Discord, so it would be more accurate to describe it as a piece of software._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  Sure, but the article isn't about the software. It's about Discord as a whole, which is a service that happens to provide software. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 07:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose There is only one official way to access Discord and all other ways are either for bots or very rarely used.Tinyds (talk) 02:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - I've never really liked the (software) disambiguator but I don't think (service) would be better. Maybe it'd be worth it to propose moving it to just "Discord" again now that Discord has gotten more mainstream in the pandemic, though I'm doubtful that'll succeed. Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 10:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Berchanhimez ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 21:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Berchanhimez also — IVORK _Talk 03:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reference I can't add

For the citation needed under 'infrastructure': https://blog.discord.com/2016-7-28-change-log-ef98122d3c93 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgp10 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

"Quarrel (software)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Quarrel (software). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 15#Quarrel (software) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 09:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Excessive controversy section

Not sure that it is an actual controversy that discord blocked a forum related to the mob seizing control of the capital. There are "news" sources that covered that, but it is not inherently a discord issue. That edit smacks of an attempt to tar the platform... perhaps from competitive platforms, or from someone with other motives. But frankly it should be deleted. Wikipedia notes like that belong in a news journal rather than an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.199.127.208 (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

how old discord is? // Not urgent

Hi! I was looking at the discord wiki and saw this: "May 13, 2015; 5 years ago" although May 13th 2015 was almost 7 years ago, this should probably be changed to 6/7 years depending on when you'll see this and edit. Anyways that's all! Thankfully it is.

Chezdoesthings (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

May 13, 2021, is still in the future. -- ferret (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Chezdoesthings: above & the fact it's a template that automatically changes the X years ago based on the current date {{Start date and age|2015|05|13}} — IVORK _Talk 01:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected page edit request | Hindi language added

Hello, Discord has added Hindi (हिंदी) as a available language. Can anyone add this to the language section?

 Done I have verified this using the official Discord client and have added Hindi to the language section. In future, please make sure to follow Wikipedia:Edit requests and to sign your name/IP at the end of your message. MBihun (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Update to the Monetization Section

The last paragraph of the Monetization section states that "Discord began testing digital stickers on its platform in October 2020 for users in Canada. Most stickers cost between US$1.50 and US$2.25 and are part of Discord's monetization strategy. Discord Nitro subscribers received a free "What's Up Wumpus" sticker pack focused on Discord's mascot, Wumpus."

However, according to this announcement on their blog - stickers are no longer purchasable items but rather an additional perk of a Nitro subscription and server boosting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99danielh (talk • contribs) 23:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

How is it a social media application

I've never used it, so I don't know for sure, but it sounds surprising that somebody mentioned that it was a social networking service. I couldn't find any details in the article about it. Could someone with more experience please verify this? -bkil (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

The debate we're having is my view is that discord is as social media as other chat apps like irc, matrix, telegram etc.--Cripplemac (talk) 04:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Discord's servers can host hundreds of people, all communicating with each other, that seems to fit my definition of social media. Per Wiki's own page on social media: "Social media are interactive technologies that allow the creation or sharing/exchange of information, ideas, career interests, and other forms of expression via virtual communities and networks." Discord is interactive, can be used to share information. There's more to the definition but Discord fits the bill. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 11:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Postfix can host thousands of people on the same server, does that make email or IRC social media? I think we should not go down the route towards Buzzword bingo and we should rather use proper terminology. You seem to have snipped only part of the definition. Could you please click on the deep link to a possible full definition I have shared above? Discord does not meet this definition according to what you have just told, as it lacks user generated content (like deep linkable and discoverable posts), creating user profiles, connecting user and group profiles. Do note however, that Mediawiki (and hence Wikipedia) may indeed be used as a social networking service in an atypical scenario: you can create your own profile (user page) where you could introduce yourself, you can share regular content on your user space (and of course in the main namespace as well), you can follow (watch) the user pages of others, hence creating social relationships, you can comment on the post of others, you can receive notifications of the messages of others, you can discover and follow new contacts and content easily. -bkil (talk) 11:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

By the way, see List of social platforms with at least 100 million active users, they mix different kinds of services there ("includes social networks, as well as online forums, photo and video sharing platforms, and VoIP apps."). I'm not sure what makes an app "social" or "social media", but the definition of "social networking service" seems to be more clear. Maybe someone could create an overview page about these if one does not already exist? -bkil (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Seems to be 'commercial platform that has influence and mainstreamity', which is why some people classify it as such I guess. Or Gen Z just being their usual dumb selves. 80.189.145.20 (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Email is also a commercial platform (many even pay for an account at better providers), has great influence (it's difficult to find a place to register without an email address) and mainstream (everyone knows what email is, it can be used at many places, even for official business and in government context). Despite all this, email is still not normally understood to be a social networking service. Neither should Discord be. -bkil (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Email is a protocol and not controlled by any one commercial group. You may have a commercial email provider but they are using formats that conform to standards.

The other factor is that social media tends to be "broadcast to all" type of approach, rather than choosing specific targets. When you Tweet, your tweet is public for everyone to see (though followers are notified of it). If you post to Facebook, depending on your settings, maybe everyone or just friends/family can see it. When you make a comment on Discord, everyone in the same channel can see it. You do nothing special to make this happen. (These are all the default modes, I'm discounting direct messages). You can't do the same with email: you have to tell email whom its going to, which may be to large groups but still, you have to take a step to tell it. So that's where email loses a "social" piece, because its not meant to be an open communication platform where the default messaging is "to all". --Masem (t) 22:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Not sure whether you followed the conversation closely, but you can trivially simulate open&closed (multicast) groups by a mailing list and personal followers in a social network as one mailing list created per each person (subscribing to a person's mailing list is equivalent to following the updates/toots/posts/etc of that person). Most email clients (MUA) nowadays integrate with the desktop or mobile and also send you notifications - the better providers also provide you with push email, with which you could actually do instant messaging as well if that is your thing (see also: Delta.Chat built on this). Note that the protocols of Mastodon/Pleroma/Friendica/Diaspora (ActivityPub/et al) are all open, but they still count as social networking services - having closed (proprietary) protocols is not at all a necessity. On the contrary - we have a whole page just for listing social networking services that are built upon open protocols: Comparison of software and protocols for distributed social networking. Also note that FOSS does not rule out being "commercial" - many FOSS projects are heavily and successfully monetized. -bkil (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Obviously it should be clear that whether commercial or open source has no bearing on being "social media". I'm just pointing out that email is definitely not categorically "commercial" though it can be under some providers.

If we start going to other sources, the definition of "social media" tends to be any type of app that allows users to create virtual online communities to be able to share ideas. So for all purposes, yes, you can even argue that email is a social media service if you talk about mailing lists, and clearly Discord fits this. However, if you start reading a bit more deeper, a key distinction on social media is that it has "discoverability", that everything posted is public and can be found. This is a two-way thing: it makes it easier for users to find communities they share ideas in common with, but it also tends to mean that users share far more details than they usually would. (see [1]. Email even with mailing lists tends not to have discoverability. Discord does (all public channel messages are saved and can be searched), and it has means for channel discovery as well [2]. --Masem (t) 23:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Mailing list software include discovery related functionality for both enumerating all hosted channels (lists) along their description and also providing online access to a list archive (the better ones also support search and indexing). Third parties also exist who build "cross-federation" indices of all lists and all messages, like Gmane. IRC loggers with searchable IRC archives also come to mind, that was also a big thing that many used as a reference and sometimes even linked to individual messages. People were able to form communities on IRC, Usenet, BBS and Fidonet as well for regularly sharing ideas, so were those social media as well? Many magazines, flyers and books even listed phone numbers of the better hubs and they were cross-advertising each other on the greeting screen, so I think that can also count as discoverability. I tried hard to come up with something that I could not argue to be social media - SMS. Please share if you know any other example (note that if a category label fits almost everything, then it is not considered very useful for categorization). After having said all that, I think it would help if we could define the difference between social networking services (e.g., Friendica) and social media (whatever that means). It's unfortunate that we have two separate Wikipedia articles about the two with a seemingly similar definition copy & pasted in both. -bkil (talk) 00:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

As our article on social media points out, there's really not a hard definition that distinguishes social media from "old school" networking systems like email/IRC etc. and as you rightly point out, you can point out features of Discord that could be replicated on older systems. Unfortunately, we don't have good sources to make any better argument to that point, only that sources do classify it as such. And as social networking service#Definition goes into, there is no agreed on, single definition. It is a person-to-person network service, and its design to have people engage socially, so most sources that talk Discord in technical detail classify it as such, but they're not going into any type of classification pattern to help us understand that. --Masem (t) 01:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Just to add, totally separate from Discord, but in a antitrust case against Facebook, even a federal judge admitted that "the exact metes and bounds of what even constitutes a [personal social network] service — i.e., which features of a company’s mobile app or website are included in that definition and which are excluded — are hardly crystal clear." [3] pointing to how vague "social media" is defined currently. --Masem (t) 19:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you are right in that our job at Wikipedia is not to classify software, rather to summarize how reliable sources classify a given piece of software and whether various sources differ on this classification or whether they are unanimous about the question. My personal take on this classification is that there ought to be some differences between the term "social app" ("social media"?) and "(personal) social networking service". I would think that the definition of the latter warrants a minimal subset of features from those I have suggested above, while the former term is more in line with what you understand as an app with which you can communicate with people (but wouldn't that be just a "communication app" or messaging app?). From a different perspective, maybe Social media should be understood as a kind of news source similar to newspapers, newsletters, blogs and radio broadcasts, and in this sense, broadcasting (or following by RSS) of such messages in a given channel among friends or coworkers kind of makes it a news source, and the word "social" in this sense should be understood similar to Citizen science, but I would definitely reserve the phrase "social network" to cases when people's social networks (composed of intersecting social circles) are indeed involved (as per above). -bkil (talk) 00:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

There's probably lots of possible definitions, but again, we're at the hands of the lack of any real usable definition out there to work from. Until the tech community as a whole has a strong agreed-upon definition, we're going to have to work from the loose definition used by RSes. --Masem (t) 01:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Nitro controversy, as well as the whole thing of Discord being a thought/grooming platform

There's a lot of recent complaints about the way Discord seems to 'paywall' features behind Nitro that could easily be standard features. Also, Discord as a whole certainly contributed very sharply to the monopolisation of small communities (ever felt a lot of smaller forums, while being on the decline since around 2012, attract next to no new people these days aside from 'older-minded' folk against Discord as a platform?), as well as the obvious mainstreamisation of certain aspects of internet culture and the grooming associated with it (Nintendo, trans 'egg' culture, weeaboos...)80.189.145.20 (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

That would all need reliable sources to cover, rather than just online forums or the like, to be included. --Masem (t) 21:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Eh, there's definitely many sources about Discord grooming, given the sheer quantity of content online that can be found merely by googling it. Can't source the others aside from anecdotes from 'ordinary users on messageboards and the like' that aren't of a qualified enough position to write about these things, though unfortunately in cases like these where a reasonable understanding and current participation of current and past internet culture is required to actually understand what's happening (and many oldgen internet users who would have been part of the early-mid 2000s culture would be extremely unwilling to have shared any personally identifiable information about themselves unlike the current crop of people these days who are actively encouraged to), it's extremely difficult to find any sources that can't be seen as biased/unprofessional in any case.80.189.145.20 (talk) 08:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I did find at least one working source to start related to grooming From Forbes staff so usable but keep in mind a lot appear to be from sites that we'd not use for BLP-based claims otherwise so I'd not want to use here. I'd have to look more for additional sources. Keep in mind that most every major Internet success draws criticism, we want the criticism that actually has reported discussion in reliable sources, and not just what is the latest fad on user-generated message boards. --Masem (t) 13:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Newsweek also has a write-up mentioning grooming but I don't know that this is enough for a whole section. It could be slotted into Controversies but this source is already used there to talk about furry artwork, which is the main focus on the article. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Newsweek post-2013 is no longer a reliable source (per WP:RS/P). --Masem (t) 17:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Possible renaming?

Hello! So I was thinking that the article should possibly be renamed to Discord (service) or Discord (program) as Discord (software) implies to me that the article talks about the downloadable Discord client for Windows and macOS, however in reality the article talks about Discord as a service. However, because the English language is confusing, one word can mean many different things, so software might fit the article based on a certain definition of it. Let me know what you guys think. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 15:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@ACodispo: pinging as they're a recent contributor Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf: I'd be in favour of renaming to "Discord (service)", for the reasons you've given. Also, Discord seems to refer to itself as a service. "Discord is a voice, video and text communication service [...]" link. ACodispo (talk) 15:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

The article itself also refers to Discord as a service instead of just software. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ferret: Pinging as they seem to be smart in deciding on these kinds of things. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

AIM (software) but Steam (service). It's somewhat inconsistent. Open a RM (Better than pinging random editors who've touched the article). -- ferret (talk) 15:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

How exactly do I do that? I've forgotten. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually, considering the proposal failed just 8 months ago, probably not worth reopening this yet. See #Requested_move_20_January_2021. However, the process is described at WP:RSPM. -- ferret (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

discord.py

Hello, you should probably note under the "developer tools" section that discord.py has stopped development. 67.190.114.57 (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

If it's being abandoned and, after skimming the page, not going to work after a few months, it might be replacing it on the page with another library that will continue to be supported. Anybody who knows more about Discord and its libraries, please weigh in. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 23:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Neglecting to talk about any others and just saying "such as discord.js..." is probably the best option. Discord.js and discord.py were the only ones that discord were officially supporting and it seems like they just want to use discord.js in the future. There are other unoffical api wrappers like JDA that you could mention, but like I said only mentioning the official one might be the best option. ― Levi_OP^Talk 15:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Additional Features, 4 October 2021

I'm not sure how to cite this information, but a quick summary of the most recent Change Log for Discord as of 4 October 2021:

• Discord Nitro users now have access to Server Profiles, where they can upload different profile pictures for each server.
• Reduced boost requirement for level 2 and 3 server boost.
• Custom role icons for level 2 and 3 servers.
• Student hubs (evidently related to setting up communities for school-related communities)

I don't have an exact date on these latest changes, but I believe they were changed in late September or October 1st.

Arden arteles (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I know the Custom role icons are the newest as I use Discord myself. However, these will most likely have to have a better source than a Discord change log. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2021

change "In May 2021, Discord rebranded its game controller-shaped logo "Clyde" in celebration of its sixth anniversary. The company also changed the color palette of its branding and user interfaces to a much more saturated one to be more "bold and playful", and changed its slogan from "your place to talk" to "imagine a place", believing that it would be easier to attach to additional taglines; these changes were met with backlash and criticism from Discord users." to "In May 2021 Discord changed the color palette of its branding and user interfaces to a much more saturated one to be more "bold and playful", and changed its slogan from "your place to talk" to "imagine a place", believing that it would be easier to attach to additional taglines; these changes were met with backlash and criticism from Discord users."

The logo is already called "Clyde" since 2015 TropX1 (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Not done: This may need some wordsmithing, but is not strictly wrong. Clyde was also changed in the rebranding, which is covered in the sources. -- ferret (talk) 23:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I sort of see the confusion, however it doesn't explicitly say the rebranding changed the name to Clyde. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 03:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Discord as a Cyber-Fraud Platform

While I gather notable reports on the subject, I want to hear editors other than myself, and a non-cyber-analyst view, regarding the subject. Is the abundance of cyber-fraud and and general cyber-crime coordination on the platform worth mentioning as it's been covered by notable sources? And this is more significant as a known criminal organization is targeting Discord with a priority, but I don't know if this is notable enough for Wikipedia standards as the "popular" coverage is mainly DNS disputes and court records. Kerhwos (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

We would need coverage in major sources to make this assertion, akin to the coverage Discord got when it was to be hosting far right groups. Any conversation platform maybe a platform for crime without regulation of the platform by its operators, but it would need to be deemed an issue in RSes to document here. --Masem (t) 20:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion not really as it is a thing on basically every corner of the internet. Bots swarm forums, waiting for an unsuspecting user to come along and, if they aren't wise enough, the bot will capture its target, stealing money and/or the user's account. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing to really discuss without reliable secondary sources. -- ferret (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2021

In this article it says discord Is released un 2012 but it was actually it was released in 2015 2601:282:4201:A870:890D:8635:7A64:1016 (talk) 01:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: It does not say that Discord was released in 2012 anywhere. It does mention the company doing work in 2012, prior. -- ferret (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Change under the "user profiles" section

The line:

"Discord allows users to connect various external platforms to their account, including Steam, Reddit, Twitch, Twitter, and more. These accounts can optionally be shown on the user's profile."

needs a citation, but Discord seems to have little to no documentation regarding the feature. There are only 2 Discord Support articles regarding it. This one, mentioning Spotify intergration and This one, targeting Xbox Live integration, Microsoft's involvement in bringing Xbox Live integration to Discord is also mentioned earlier in the article and is properly cited.

Having used Discord, connecting external profiles is most certainly a feature, but original research is a big nono.

I'm still new to editing, and specifically citing sources for stuff, so how should one go about sourcing a citation for something like this? AGuyNamedSquid (talk) 22:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@AGuyNamedSquid: Hello Squid! This would be a great question to ask at WP:TEA. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 01:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2022

hey there. theres a change that needs to be made on the screenshot of discord. ever since the discord update that changed the discord logo on the UI, and the colors changing, the discord screenshot on Wikipedia is outdated. i have a screenshot of the latest version of it that somebody can put on the page. contact me on my discord account if you want it (please give me username and tag first before contacting).

discord: gxx#0001 SinisterGX (talk) 01:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: I don't see the need for changing the image, as the menu the screenshot was taken from hasn't really changed much since then (although I may be wrong, and I am comparing it to the online client, not the app). regardless, the image has to be uploaded, preferably at File:Discord screenshot.png, and has to comply with the guidelines for non-free content. 💜  melecie  talk - 03:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 2 March 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: There are approximately 33 supports of the move and 17 opposes. While numbers are not everything, a 2 to 1 ratio is a compelling sign to take the move seriously. Reading the arguments the support votes follow a PRIMARYTOPIC approach and presented numbers both within and outside of Wikipedia to try to show this is the case. The opposes fell into a few camps. Some people found the software to be a flash in the pan. A common argument long-term significant term for discord be something else. The lack of agreement on what the other topic is lessened the weigh of this argument. Others fell back to a DONTLIKEIT approach. In total, the supports were more numerous and made more policy-backed arguments, so the supports have it. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

---

• Discord (software) → Discord
• Discord → Discord (disambiguation)

– This seems like such an obvious change. Per the page views compared to other articles with the same name, Discord is clearly going to be the primary topic for a long time, and I don't see any of the other articles reaching even a tenth of the views for a while. I'd also like to point out that unlike 2019 where the last proposal for this happened, Discord is now significantly more covered in the media with major outlets having entire articles dedicated to the app, such as The New York Times, (article one, article two), Wall Street Journal, and CNN. Thanks! shanghai.^{talk to me} 12:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Previous closure
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Both sides of this discussion are sticking to one prong of PRIMARYTOPIC over the other. I cannot see any consensus in this discussion over which way the balance should tip, despite the noticeable (but not strong enough) majority in favour of the "current usage" prong. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 01:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Link to the page views here! I had issues when I tried to put the link in the template/original post. shanghai.^{talk to me} 12:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Contemporary items should never take precedence over long-standing English terms. --Masem (t) 13:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Masem: This is Wikipedia, not Wikitionary. There are no articles that revolve around the word Discord, heck, the disambiguation page doesn't even mention the actual word itself at all: only says "Discord may refer to:" shanghai.^{talk to me} 13:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. No primary topic here by long-term significance. -- 13:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Necrothesp (talk • contribs) 13:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose 1st, support 2nd Discord should be a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Eris (mythology) as the progenitor of the word, and the primary topic by longterm significance due to being an alternate name for Discordia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  The progenitor of the word is not determinative as per Wikipedia:DETERMINEPRIMARY. Plus, pageviews are just as much of a factor as longterm significance. ― TaltosKieronTalk 14:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Light Oppose. Claiming that something is "clearly going to be a primary topic" isn't merited by the fact that it has media coverage (WP:OBVIOUSLY). I wouldn't say that the software is going to be more notable than the common english word to 90% of people, so Discord should probably just stay a redirect. ― Levi_OP^Talk 14:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  I think that this is a much more difficult situation than normal because of the use of the word "discord". We can look to examples like Apple, or a much more relevant example, Slack. Slack (software) is another very similar messaging app with a name that is also an english word. Slack, though, is a much more common word that would have a lot of other topics that could be associated with it in the context of wikipedia. Discord is very difficult because it isn't as common of a word, and there aren't any other articles that would be a better fit as a primary topic. I'm thinking I might change my vote to support if there are no arguments made against Discord being the most common use of the word in the context of wikipedia. ― Levi_OP^Talk 15:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  Support. After further thought, it would probably be best to move the article. People are comparing things like Apple to the word discord, but this is just not a good comparison. An apple is a common object and something that has its own article and merit. Discord, on the other hand, is a word, and only a word. Wikipedia is not wikitionary. We don't give definitions, but what is primarily associated with the word. As evidenced by the pageviews, the software is by far the most common use of the word on wikipedia, making it the primary use in the context of wikipedia. ― Levi_OP^Talk 16:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Weak Support: Throwing Eris (mythology) in with the various Discords mentioned above for the pageviews in past 12 months (see here), we find that views of Discord (software) far outnumbers the combined views of all other pages. Going back 6 years, pageviews have only grown, with no indication of slowing down. Is it what most people come searching for when they type in "Discord"? Seemingly, yes. And then, it's clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 14:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC).

  The English word "discord" doesn't ever appear in the disambiguation page. As RogueShanghai said, it's not Wikitonary. Discord being a redirect to Eris (mythology) would, however, be a clear case of WP:SYSTEMICBIAS, clearly disregarding the non-European cultures & viewpoints. ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 14:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  How is it systemic bias when the word literally stems from it, including where the software program takes its name from? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

  (I saw this after closure, so couldn't reply then.) I believe it'll be like Wikipedia's textbook Boston example. Almost no-one outside UK would be interested in Boston, Lincolnshire, when they type in Boston in the search bar, even though it was the *original* Boston. If someone claims to make it the PTOPIC because it's the original one, I'd say that the argument is biased towards the UK Boston, disregarding what the rest of the world wants to find. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • C • L)} 06:39, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

  Very few people in non-English speaking areas know or want to know about a discord, that is not a software. Eris is better known as Eris, not Discordia or Discord. Almost no-one would search for her as Discord. Redirecting Discord to Eris (mythology) doesn't sit well with our PTOPIC policy. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • C • L)} 06:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

  Its a common misunderstanding that primary topics are only based on pageviews. Popularity does not in and of itself determine a primary topic, which is why Apple the fruit is still primary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  None of the words at Discord are even close to the cultural significance of Apple fruit. Like, Apple is the first word any English language learner ever learns as a part of their alphabet learning. ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 14:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  Struck down weak. Now, full support. Clickstream data was the nail in the coffin. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • C • L)} 14:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. The status quo of searching Discord leading to the disambiguation page is fine. None of the uses of Discord seem to qualify as a primary topic as each usage of the word seems to apply to a smaller topic (mythology, tech, etc). ― Tuna ^No_SurprisesPlease 14:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  Support. I do agree with what Levi OP said, the terms should go to a disambiguation page but if the Discord (software) article is the most relevant term in the context of Wikipedia, then it probably counts as a primary topic. ― Tuna ^No_SurprisesPlease 16:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)]

• Oppose, lightly per a reason mentioned by User:Zxcvbnm above: "It's a common misunderstanding that primary topics are only based on pageviews. Popularity does not in and of itself determine a primary topic, which is why Apple the fruit is still primary." However, I VEHEMENTLY OPPOSE redirecting "Discord" to Eris (mythology), which I feel would be taking it a step too far. I'd say that NEITHER is primary (especially exemplified by the fact that you've got some arguing for one and one person arguing for the other), and the safest bet would be to have the disambiguation page at the basename. Paintspot Infez (talk) 14:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The popularity of an internet social media service over more basic encyclopedic concepts is driving page views, not importance or long lasting significance. This is akin to AIM versus AIM (software), not to OSE it. No one is struggling to find this page either. -- ferret (talk) 15:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support. As another piece of evidence, check out the Clickstream data. 90% of clicks from the Discord disambiguation page are going to the software article. The next most common target, Discord (My Little Pony), gets less than 3%. It's a huge difference. Some editors have a gut aversion to having a primary topic for a common everyday word that is unrelated to the meaning of that everyday word, but there's no rational basis for this. As the nominator points out, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Editors should not be wikilinking Discord when what they're referring to is simply "Lack of concord, agreement or harmony". And we should not be configuring the encyclopedia to cater to any readers who type "Discord" into the search bar expecting to find information about the meaning of the common noun (and, incidentally, it seems there are very few such users - the dab page links to the Wiktionary entry for discord, but that link doesn't even make the top 10 most frequent outgoing clicks in the Clickstream data). Colin M (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  Discord is not merely a dicdef but also an alternate name for the mythological figure Discordia. The supports in here are misinterpreting it as "only" a word, but ignoring the fact that the word is mythological in origin. At the very least there is no primary topic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:59, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

  I don't see the origin of the word as being particularly relevant. Per WP:DPT: Being the original source of the name is also not determinative. And I'm not ignoring the mythological figure. I just judge it to be far less likely an intended target given the relative pageviews, and the fact that we're talking about a very marginal alternative name (i.e. not only does Eris (mythology) get fewer pageviews than the software, only a tiny portion of those searching for that topic will use the name "Discord" rather than "Eris" or "Discordia"). Colin M (talk) 04:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support as per arguments by User:Colin M, User:CX Zoom, and User:RogueShanghai.― TaltosKieronTalk 17:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Weak Support per the support arguments raised above, however I do also agree with some of the oppose !votes, but I lean more towards support than oppose on this. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 03:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

  Also, I had never heard of it being mythological in origin. However (from what I'm seeing), Discordia is the more common term for the mythological figure so I don't see how that would have anything to do with this (if I'm wrong please tell me though). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 03:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Why did I forget to do that? Lol shanghai.^{talk to me} 03:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

  Because you shouldn't - its assumed. -- Netoholic @ 06:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - per several comments above and long-term significance of the basic term, and especially to prevent bad internal wikilinks by editors intending to link the term or alternate topics. What next... Zoom (software) → Zoom just because of brief popularity? Discord will be replaced someday, just as other voice chat clients have come and gone. -- Netoholic @ 06:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

  Zoom by itself is a frequent word that's commonly used to refer to cameras. On the other side, Discord is a term that's barely used by the general public at large, people usually use "disagreement" or "fight" instead of discord. Where is the long term significance you speak of? And the page views don't lie, most people who go to the disambiguation page for Discord end up going to the software page instead. Discord is clearly going to stay as the cultural relevance grows and grows and more and more media outlets have articles that revolve around it. shanghai.^{talk to me} 06:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support as someone who has proposed this same move in the past. I see this as the primary topic. When someone goes to Wikipedia and types Discord into the search bar, it is highly likely they are looking for the article about the app. None of the other topics of discord are very relevant anymore. In the dictionary sense, the word discord isn't commonly used anymore and Wikipedia does not have an article about the word. And saying that Eris is the primary topic seems ridiculous to me; Discord is not even a proper name for that. Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 07:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support per Levi OP's arguements. Tree Critter (talk) 07:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per User:Masem's arguments. Discord is, although not popular, an English word and term. This is not done for other brands and companies, example being Delta Air Lines → Delta which wouldn't really make sense. User:ZenIsBestWolf (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

  Delta Air Lines is the official name of the company which is why it isn't moved to Delta. That's not the case here. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

  The difference is that a delta is a thing on it's own - a concept, not just a word - worthy of an article. Discord, as a word, does not merit its own article, so something else that is more primary could take its place. ― Levi_OP^Talk 15:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

  There are lots of examples where the primary topic for a common English word is a named entity unrelated to the everyday meaning of that word. For example: Apeshit, Unlikely, Hearthstone. Colin M (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

  Support After seeing Hearthstone, it is clear how Wikipedia treats obscure words that turn into brands that trump the word. In my opinion, Hearthstone's situation is exactly the same as Discord's, meaning we should treat it the same. ZenIsBestWolf (talk) 02:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support for most of the reasons given above. WP is such a funny place. This RM discussion is essentially the reverse of what happened just last week at Talk:Usher (musician), where a barely encyclopedic, lightly viewed article (3 references) on the occupation prevented the musician article - viewed 40 times as much as the occupation article - from being the primarytopic, on "long-term significance" grounds. There's even a Talk:Usher (occupation) pending RM to make the occupation the primarytopic! I obviously have a point on view on both, but the point is that our process often gives contradictory results, and I love it. Dohn joe (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

  Notability (and article significance) is not based on how well-developed or well-written an article is at the current moment. I have no doubt that the occupation would be able to become a Featured Article if there was actually effort put into it (which is more likely if it were the primary topic). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  Does something being the primary topic really make it more likely to have effort put into it? If someone wants to put work into a page, whether or not it's the primary topic isn't going to suddenly change their mind about editing it. ― Levi_OP^Talk 23:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Support per Dohn joe. Rusty4321 ^{talk contributions log} 02:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Looking over the DAB page, this does seem to be the primary topic here. If there were an article written about the term "discord" maybe things would be different, but this is an encyclopedia not a dictionary. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support per Colin M and several users. —❑Jamesluiz102❑— (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support per others. The only other Discord I have heard of is the My Little Pony character. Sahaib3005 (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Some Internet applications really are that important. While maybe not at the level of Google or Facebook, Discord the software is clearly the primary topic by how users act, and has sustained being the primary topic long enough to not be a flash in the pan. In the unlikely scenario of Discord no longer being the primary topic in 2032 after the app goes bust in 5 years, we can do another move then, it's fine. SnowFire (talk) 05:13, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: The apple example is a good one imo. Long-term relevancy is required for a primary topic --Spekkios (talk) 03:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  No it's not. An apple is an object; a noun. Something that is very clearly primary. Tell me when you heard about a "discord". It's not a noun in that sense, so it can't be the primary topic. As far as things called "Discord" on the english wikipedia, the software is by far the most popular and notable topic. ― Levi_OP^Talk 03:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  Discord is also a noun. --Spekkios (talk) 04:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  It's not a noun in the same sense that Apple is, though. There is no such thing as a "Discord", and most people attribute the term Discord to the web service, not any other definitions of the term. Page views don't lie. ― Tuna ^No_SurprisesPlease 04:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  In my opinion the page views are irrelevant in this case. Long-term significance trumps. --Spekkios (talk) 04:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  The long term significance of what? There is no discord article to be more significant. Also, you don't think that page views correlate with significance? If something has the most page view for that term for five years, is that not enough to qualify as "long term"? ― Levi_OP^Talk 13:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  No. Long-term significance isn't always measured on page views. Archer is an example. --Spekkios (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  How is Archer an example...? I don't know of any other terms that could be seen as a primary topic (or another term that would also be called archer). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  See here for an example of when page views does not trump long-term relevancy. --Spekkios (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  That's a lot more terms for archer than I had known. However "archer" is a more common term in the English language than "discord" (and also this isn't Wiktionary but that's besides the point) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 22:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  You're still not addressing the fact that discord, as an english word, is a mass noun and not a countable. "Discord" can't be the primary topic because it's a mass noun, meaning that it's uncountable and static; not an object or concept that could have its own article. Because of this, Discord, the software, is going to be the most popular thing called "discord" that can have its own wikipedia article, making it a primary topic.

  The page views aren't the main argument, but something supporting the fact that in the context of wikipedia, discord has been and will probably continue to be the the most significant thing called discord. ― Levi_OP^Talk 23:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not sure that this analysis holds up. There are plenty of articles whose titles are mass nouns. e.g. Rice, Happiness, Heat. Colin M (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  I would argue that the singular form of rice would be "a grain of rice" and "rice" is plural, however that's just getting really nitpicky. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 01:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  I guess using "mass noun" is not really what I'm trying to say. It just seemed kind of like what I was talking about. What I'm trying to convey is that "discord", defined as "disagreement between people", could be generalized to an article like Disagreements (epistemology), not its own article, because like stated above, wikipedia is not wiktionary. We don't define words, or make articles about every word in existence, but about topics like objects or concepts. I don't know if there is a word for those types of things, but Discord, the software, is going to be the primary topic with this name because of this. ― Levi_OP^Talk 01:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  No part of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC states that Long-term significance trumps. It only claims they are both important factors. ― TaltosKieronTalk 14:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, they are both important. I have considered both of them and have come to my decision. --Spekkios (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  There's also no such thing as "a rice". The only difference you're elucidating is that apple is a count noun and discord is a mass noun. Colin M (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Support The page views for Discord are significantly higher than any other discord-related page. This correlates with Google News, Google Trends, and Special:WhatLinksHere. Google Scholar seems to show "Discord app" being mentioned 26,000 times compared to "discord" 38,000 times (since Discord's founding in 2015). It is clear that Discord's growth has overtaken the term. The argument about Apple doesn't make sense when you consider how widely used Apple is compared to Apple Inc. (500,000 to 80,000 according to Google Scholar). Google Ngrams shows apple being used in .00083% of books, compared to discord's .00002% (the term fell significantly out of common language in the 1800s). elijahpepe@wikipedia 19:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

0.00083% and 0.00002% are surprisingly small! (especially for "apple" which is much more common) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

The point is in context. Apple is used significantly more than dscord. elijahpepe@wikipedia 19:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support. This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, and the common noun "discord" is not something that has (or should have) an encyclopedia article. The case of apple is not analogous. Also, Eris (mythology) is generally referred to as Eris, not "Discord", and should largely be discounted for considering the primary topic of "Discord". Adumbrativus (talk) 05:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. If there were a primary topic for discord, it would be dissonance by long-term significance, or better still an article of its own describing the various discords and their use in various styles of music. I'm a bit surprised we do not already have such an article, the treatment of discords is discussed in many reliable sources such as music theory treatises. The primary topic is certainly not the software! Andrewa (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  I completely forgot Discord can also be a musical term for a funky sounding chord Yes, however in that case the word being used is not discord but dissonance. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  To add on to what blaze is saying, as you linked, dissonance has be decided to be the primary "word" to associate with that topic. There's no need for an entirely different article for discord as a musical term if dissonance and discord are practically the same thing (Some definitions of discord even end by asserting it as a synonym of dissonance e.g. "An inharmonious combination of simultaneously sounded tones; a dissonance.") Any differences could probably be a section in the article if they really were different enough. If any of the sources you have differentiate them in a substantial way, I think more of an argument could be made. ― Levi_OP^Talk 14:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  That doesn't mean that the primary topic for the word "discord" is not dissonance, just that it's not the best word for the topic to be at. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Discord should redirect to Eris (mythology). Showiecz (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  Why? ― Tuna + 14:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support The software is the primary topic in my opinion. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 19:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• Discussion relisted persuant to move review. Please continue the discussion to generate a clearer consensus. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment (I supported the move earlier). Since it came up in the earlier close and at the move review, in case the future closer really is looking for spelled out rationales... I really don't buy that readers interested in Eris would look her up by typing in "Discord". It'd be like arguing that "War" should be considered ambiguous with Ares or Mars. (And the Roman goddess is both far more minor, and called "Discordia" not "Discord"). In the same way, musical dissonance is called dissonance; discord is a rare synonym. So I'm not really seeing that these are majorly ambiguous terms. The only rivals are things like the film & album, but those are extremely minor (but at least called "Discord" directly). SnowFire (talk) 04:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support Based on pageviews, the software is the primary topic since 2018. Clickstrem data shows that 90 % of visitors to the disambiguation page follow the link to Discord (software). In the unlikely case that Discord ceases to exist in ten years and another topic becomes primary, we can just move the article back and fix wikilinks to Discord using automated tools. I see no problem with long-term significance. —Dexxor (talk) 06:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
• Weak oppose because of the likes of Consonance and dissonance. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support We should cater to our readers. It is very obvious that most people want to see Discord the software, not any other page, and no one can deny this. SK2242 (talk) 08:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

  People talk about long term significance, but that is not something that can be clearly defined. The HARD FACTS are that the majority of readers want to see Discord the software, and it is very clearly the Primary topic. SK2242 (talk) 18:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• Strong oppose We should cater to our readers. It is very obvious that most people think of discord as discord, not the software. See "discord" in Google Books. (software) is actually helpful here and removing it makes finding it more difficult not easier. 11:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by In ictu oculi (talk • contribs) 11:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

  Well, No! 90% of those visiting Discord (currently a disambiguation page) are visiting Discord (software) next. The next most visited Discord article is getting only 3%. That's a huge difference as noted by Colin M above. Also, we're not Wiktionary, and the discord that most people may think of as per Google books, doesn't even have an article here. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • C • L)} 11:59, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support per WP:DPT. While the software might not have long term significance, it definitely has the views. Agree with other supports that neither Eris or musical dissonance are primary for discord. As to the dictionary definition, WP:NOTDICT applies. When I first saw this at move review I was a bit surprised and didn't think the software could be the primary term, but the page views and clickstream data is very clear. I agree with Dexxor above, that if that changes we can always revisit. PaleAqua (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support While the software doesn't have the long-term significance as Eris or the My Little Pony character, the software has the most clicks based on the clickstream of the disambiguation by a very large difference compared to the My Little Pony character. 𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 00:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose has not received long-term significance. Page views are not the be-all end-all for determining a primary topic. SportingFlyer T·C 10:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose There are multiple pages with the title "Discord" in it, if someone searches for just discord, the software might not be the thing they are searching for, don't move any of these pages. Sans9k (Talk) 12:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  If someone searches for “Canada” we don’t make it go to the disambiguation page just because there is a band also called Canada. WikiMakersOfOurTime (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom, at this point I think it's clearly PRIMARY, the dictionary term is secondary.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom. I'm a fan and occasional editor of the 20th century art music, and I've rarely if ever heard of dissonance (music) being referred to as "discord" (even our article mentions the term just once or twice); I don't think that usage competes with the software even nearly. Similar analysis hold for the goddess. That, and the pageviews and clickstream analysis clearly demonstrate that the software is PTOPIC per pageviews criteria, and not so bad per long-term significance (probably not going anyway for a decade or so). No such user (talk) 10:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
• Strong support per nom, clear primary topic Indagate (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support I support for the reasons given above by other users. WikiMakersOfOurTime (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. Excerpts from guidance:[4] If an article title has been stable for a long time,[9] and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. and default to the title the article had when the first major contribution after the article ceased to be a stub was made.[10] AFAIK the current name is the same as "when the first major contribution after the article ceased to be a stub was made" over 6 years ago. Thus, "the title has been stable for a long time". [5] The article wikidata says it is also known as discordapp.com, which now redirects to discord.com.[6] I see "no good reason" to change it. Popularity and websites changing names are not good reasons. Therefore, it should not be changed. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

  There is a good reason. People want to see the article about the software. This is proven. What isn’t a good reason is “its been like this for a long time”. SK2242 (talk) 18:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment If it helps anyone, Talk:Nickelodeon/Archive 2#Requested move (and to a lesser extent Talk:Nickelodeon/Archive 2#Move to Nickelodeon) as well as Talk:Madonna/Archive 22#Requested move 18 July 2020 are, to me, similar cases that I imagine could be seen as precedent for primary topics involving old, historical subjects and modern pop culture subjects. (As for the proposal itself, I have no strong feelings one way or the other.) -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 01:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

  I'm shocked Madonna wasn’t already the primary topic. SK2242 (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support per Levi and Zoom. —Soap— 15:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. No primary topic, primary meaning is wikt:discord. Recentism, pageviews are a consequence of online recent popularism. Companies choosing English words should not be allowed to easily usurp the meaning of the word, whether their purpose is close or far from the meaning of the word. NOTDICT means that Wikipedia doesn’t do meaning articles, it does not mean the Wikipedia ignores the primary meaning of words. Many of the arguments in support appear to confuse the purpose of an article title with the Wikipedia internal search engine (H:S). Jumping to a title is not a search. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

  I cannot believe I have to explain to you, someone who should certainly know better, that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says that the primary topic includes a "relevant article". There is no relevant article on the word "discord" because we are... ... ... wait for it ... that's right, WP:NOT a dictionary! The only relevant article for anything related to the term "discord" that registers at all is the software. Red Slash 16:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  There are some stupid things ingrained in PRIMARYTOPIC, and thinking about what is best for the readers trumps. The proposal will astonish some readers and help none. There are too many readers who know about discord and for whom the software company is irrelevant and unknown. Therefore, “no PRIMARYTOPIC”. Understanding that discord is a word is not a violation of NOTDICT. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support - and it's actually per long-term educational significance. There is literally nothing on this disambiguation page that is A) commonly referred to as "discord", B) has encyclopedic value, and C) compares to a worldwide piece of software. People are coming here comparing the software to a word. See Twice (about a Korean pop group), mean (about a mathematical concept), nice (a city in France), friends (a sitcom), Nevermind (an album), and we could go on and on. Instead, remember that we are WP:NOT a dictionary! We are an encyclopedia, and I defy you to name a single topic that is A) commonly referred to as "discord", B) has encyclopedic value, and C) compares to a worldwide piece of software. I defy you to name me even one. So far, looking at the opposes, no one actually has. Red Slash 17:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not arguing against your support (in fact, I agree with it), however I"m a bit confused as to what you mean by "long-term educational significance". What exactly does education have to do with this? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

  WP:PRIMARYTOPIC states: "A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." Red Slash 18:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

  I understand that, but what about this is educational? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

  Now I'm quite confused. If you read the article, doesn't it educate you on something of some importance? A program used by hundreds of millions of people? I think it's quite important, certainly surpassing all other topics referred to by this name. Red Slash 16:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  Ah alright. I think I understand now. Usually when I think of the word "educational" it makes me think of schools and stuff which was why I was a bit confused. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  So what about the "long-term", which on WP usually is something more than 10 years? I mean, if we were in 2032 and Discord the software client was still as popular as it is today, there would be a better argument for moving, but we're still in the short-term right now. --Masem (t) 23:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment (Remaining Opposed to move). IMO the Apple of Discord here is the Semantic discord (also up for proposed move, which I would oppose) over the meanings of "discord".[7] I don't know why the creators of a communication software thought "discord" was a good name; it always seemed strange to me. Maybe they weren't very literate in English; maybe they thought communication is mostly argument and strife; maybe they thought it fitting for the strife and competition in gaming. I do know they succeeded at Search engine optimization, if you define success as dominating search results to the point it is almost difficult to find the definition of the word. I put little weight on page view statistics for the same reason; they can be manipulated. Last, It seems almost fitting, and ironic, that an organization named "Discord" is involved in so many controversies -Discord_(software)#Controversies - and is almost trying to re-define the word and enforce... concord within their "services". -- Yae4 (talk) 11:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Adding: If/when they change name to Concord, will they want that moved too? -- Yae4 (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support I'm convinced by the arguments that this article is what readers are overwhelmingly coming to Wikipedia to find, and that there are no alternatives which come close to being a more reasonable target. Sam Walton (talk) 14:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  If readers are coming for the software, they are best served by the title and url including the term “software”. Even if coming for the software, they are likely aware of the word discord and it’s meanings and would be uncertain that the bare “discord” is what they really want. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support per well reasoned argument of @Red Slash. Note to closing editor: the number of votes is irrelevant, but the quality of them is. Please weigh them appropriately. PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. Especially the arguments put forth by SportingFlyer T·C 10:37, 19 April 2022, but also ferret (talk) 15:12, 2 March 2022; Netoholic @ 06:21, 3 March 2022; and Andrewa (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2022. In addition, I find a proposal that would allow a private company to coopt a common term distasteful; let us not imply "discord"'s primary topic is some product. It is a word with many meanings, only one of which happens to be a software program, with usage likely peaking in the early 2020s. Also, Google had zero trouble finding the page at the current page; there is very little to be gained in helping Wikipedians by moving the page. CapnZapp (talk) 09:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per Andrewa. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Support For reasons outlined above, past precedent from other article moves such as Hearthstone, 90% of Discord disambiguations going to Discord (software), etc. When a new meaning of a word has completely usurped the original meaning of a word, it is worth evaluating whether the default should be changed. Discord as a major chat platform does not show any signs of going away any time soon. Another example I can give is that twitter is also an English word, yet Twitter directs to the social media platform, because most people searching for Twitter on Wikipedia are looking for the social media platform. Sure, twitter may be a word in English too, but most people don't search for twitter on Wikipedia expecting to read about literal tweets. Dangeredwolf (talk) 03:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

add a section detailing the "Activities" games in VCs

Doscord's Activities feature is currently in beta and only being given to a select number of people and servers at the moment, but it allows people to play games such as Sketch Heads (their better version of skribbl.io), chess, poker, virtual golf and more together in voice channels. Those who have been given access to this feature are able to start them in any normal server they desire, but the few servers that have been given access to it have the ability to give only certain roles the necessary permissions to start them. Anyone can go to the official Discord Games Lab server to try them out and provide feedback on this feature. There's also a bot anyone can add to their server that starts the game for them, allowing Activities to be started and played in any server (despite being in beta)! However, in order to play some Activities, the server must be nitro-boosted to a certain level. SaltySemanticSchmuck (talk) 04:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Has it been covered at all by a prominent outlet? Searching brings up YouTube videos and Reddit threads but I don't see much coverage by WP:RS. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 08:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

How should the Infobox look?

Discord

Screenshot
Type of site	Content delivery Instant messaging Social media Video conferencing Voice over IP
Available in	30 languages
List of languages English (UK/US), Bulgarian, Chinese (Simplified/Traditional), Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hindi, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Lithuanian, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese (Brazil), Romanian, Russian, Spanish, Swedish, Thai, Turkish, Ukrainian, and Vietnamese
Owner	Discord Inc.
Founder(s)	Jason Citron
URL	discord.com
Commercial	Yes
Registration	Required
Written in	Client: JavaScript (with React) Server: Elixir, Python, Rust, C++

—ÐW-🇺🇦^(T·C) 19:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

References

But why? There's no guideline to back your position, and this actually reduces the information available to the reader up front. Plus there's the odd curiosity that the screenshot isn't a website. That said, compressing the programming languages a bit wouldn't be a bad idea. -- ferret (talk) 19:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I know the comparison to Twitter and Instagram (both having website infoboxes) but compared to the nature of interactivity Discord offers, it is definitely more a functional service than the more passive nature of Twitter, etc. --Masem (t) 19:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Comparing Discord to Instagram and Twitter isn't relevant in this discussion. The purpose of the Discord website serves the primary function of account creation and downloading the desktop app. Twitter and Instagram, on the other hand, do not have downloadable software outside of mobile devices, and are thus websites rather than software. I'm confident that the majority of Discord users use the app versions rather than the website itself. ― TUNA × 19:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)