Talk:Crossposting

Wiktionary this?
One way to deal with this page would be to trim it down and move it to 	Wiktionary. Thoughts? Regards, Ben Aveling 07:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems like it is a pretty reasonable article to me, perhaps it could be expanded. In any event, I think removal of the cleanup tag is probably about due.  --Hansnesse 20:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Welcome to Wikipedia. Pages flagged for cleanup generally have entries on Cleanup (or an archive listed under Category:Cleanup by month) explaining what needs to be cleaned up.  And even if they didn't, then just because you don't know what's wrong with the article doesn't mean that it doesn't need cleanup. -- Smjg 21:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for drawing my attention the cleanup page; I did look at it but must have been going to quick, since I missed your post and only saw the one below it. Perhaps a  tag is more appropriate.  Thanks, --Hansnesse 21:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything wrong with the article really. It should be expanded actually. --Allemannster 16:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Where has my cleanup message vanished to? Cleanup/November just redirects to a page claiming to be now empty.

The whole point I was making is that it blurs an important distinction: that between crossposting and multiposting.

"Crossposting is the act of posting verbatim copies of one message". On Usenet (and NNTP-based newsgroups in general), crossposting is posting only one copy, addressed to multiple newsgroups simultaneously. OTOH if you post multiple copies, it's multiposting. There are also a number of webpages, e.g.  that go into more detail on the significance of this distinction and the rights and wrongs.

Of course, on other kinds of message board systems, which don't support crossposting in the NNTP sense, the distinction probably isn't made on these terms. There may also be some systems on which a user can address a message to multiple forums simultaneously, but once they are on the server they are indistinguishable from messages posted manually as separate copies (except that the timestamp may match to the second). But this doesn't affect the fact that whatever we do, we should make the distinction that does exist clear. -- Smjg 17:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Duplicate Pages
Both http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crosspost and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-post exist. They should be combined. 82.163.24.100 (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Palosirkka (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I suggest that the newer article Cross-post be merged with this one, as they clearly cover the same topic - there is no need for two articles. Terraxos (talk) 05:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Palosirkka (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Multi-posting preferred?
The article states that multi-posting is preferred, but personally I can't see the advantage in this, and there are certainly references which prefer multi-posting: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/unice.htm Boardhead (talk) 14:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Both of the references that you quote state a preference for crossposting rather than multi-posting. 86.7.30.217 (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Difference?
This article says "Crossposting is the act of posting the same message to multiple information channels; forums, mailing lists, or newsgroups. Crossposting is perceived as inconsiderate[1], poor etiquette[2] and is banned from Usenet newsgroups and virtually all email lists.[3][4] This is distinct from multiposting, which is the posting of separate identical messages, individually, to each channel, (a forum, a newsgroup, an email list, or topic area)."

Those sound like exactly the same thing. Whether one posts items automatically or individually is simply a matter of method, not of substance. Why the distinction? Particularly since cross-posting between journaling/blogging sites such as LiveJournal, DreamWidth, InsaneJournal and so on are more and more commonly accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookgrrl (talk • contribs) 04:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)‎
 * With NNTP there was a substantial difference. A reply for a crossposted message was pointed by default to all affected newsgroups (i.e. the crossposting can be inherited), unless redefined by Followup-To. And with Followup-To a reply was pointed by default to some (sub)set of newgroups independent of current newsgroup of the replier. But replies for a multiposted posting were pointed to different newsgroups, depending on which of several distinct messages in several groups has to be replied. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What has it changed to now??? — Smjg (talk) 14:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * HTTP — Preceding unsigned comment added by OMPIRE (talk • contribs) 16:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Leader is incorrect and badly cited.
The leader para currently contains the following: Crossposting is perceived as inconsiderate, poor etiquette and is banned from virtually all email lists. The first reference quoted does not even mention crossposting. The second (IETF document) states that crossposting (in its Usenet context) is preferred to multiposting. The third and fourth refer only to specific mailing lists. This entire sentence needs to be rewritten and properly cited. 86.7.30.217 (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Given the misrepresentations of the cited documents, I'm removing this sentence (I've preserved it and its citations, above). If someone else wants to fix it and put it back I'm fine with that. 86.7.30.217 (talk) 14:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

every channel would look exactly the same

 * In the extreme case, if all messages were crossposted to every channel, then every channel would look exactly the same.

This statement was clearly incorrect, and I fixed it. --Beroal (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't use your supposed logic, use reliable sources. Your "fix" made a drastic change to the essay which completely changed it to something completely incorrect and a meaning that it has never had. I've restored the version before your change, and reapplied the correct modification by the IP editor who came afterwards. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 04:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)