Talk:Persistent Chat

Structural/tonal issues
This article has some pretty significant form/structure issues.

Right up front: Is this an article about (as the lead says), or is it about a feature specific to that they call "Persistent Chat"? ...Because, if the answer is the former, then... FeRDNYC (talk) 13:44, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) The title should be "Persistent chat", and all of the "Persistent Chat" capitalizations should be lowercased to "persistent chat" (unless they're at the start of a heading/sentence). We Don't Do™ "Capitalized Names" for article subjects unless they're proper nouns, and a concept cannot, by definition, be a proper noun. The 'scare quotes' also need to be removed from the instances where it's referred to as 'Persistent Chat', because we don't do that either.
 * 2) The article needs to be much more balanced. Currently, the entire thing is about Microsoft's Persistent Chat, all of its references are to coverage of Microsoft's Persistent Chat feature (or its direct ancestors), and the whole thing reads like a product review for Microsoft Persistent Chat that just forgot to include details like version number or a download URL. Surely there are other implementations of the persistent chat concept beyond just Microsoft's? If it truly is a general concept, then it needs to be illustrated with more than just a single example.
 * 3) * The Stack Exchange sites, for example, have a semi-persistent chat that's used to offload Q&A comment discussions that get too... well... "chatty". Rooms persist for at least 7 days after the last user abandons the discussion, and chats worth preserving can be "frozen" administratively to persist indefinitely. Stack Overflow alone currently has over 100,000 frozen chats.
 * 4) * I would imagine the web-based chat systems many companies offer as part of their customer support offerings would also persist the conversations, at least for internal review. (Which brings up an interesting, but currently unexplored, question: Does a chat's persistence have to be public, or does persistence on an internal server that's only accessible to authorized users still qualify as persistent chat? For that matter, does the original chat have to have been accessible publicly, or do archived one-on-one conversations (like customer support chats) still count?)
 * 5) The section that discusses other types of chat persistence in terms of how they're not "Persistent Chat" don't do the article's generality any favors. If "persistent chat" is truly a general concept, then "chat that persists" IS persistent chat, because that's the same term expressed in a slightly different way. Otherwise, if we're to apply a narrower definition of what qualifies as "Persistent Chat", then that definition needs to be cited to a whitepaper, or a standards document, or something other than the Microsoft implementation of their Persistent Chat product feature. Because as things stand, the only definition we have right now for what makes something "Persistent Chat" is the one used in the article itself, which makes it original research and therefore unacceptable content by Wikipedia standards.