Talk:Thread (online communication)

This needs examples of what threading looks like and a better plain English definition.

I originally edited the topic thread page, but have now moved my edits here, as they are a more general discussion of threading.

The first paragraph is a poor definition, in my opinion, since it does not concentrate specifically on what differentiates threaded discussion from other forms of discussion on the net.James Harvey 11:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Photo
I added a photo, but phpBB is a poor example of threading. Anyone have a better one? ff m  22:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Should get a shot of KAWF. It's a very good example of threading. Big-Pat Talk 07:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Threads
Is this article about usenet threads (tree), or all threads - forum threads (phpbb, linear) too? 83.68.80.123 (talk) 03:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The lede (first paragraph) says all threads, e.g., for online discussions. That may be overly broad. Tedickey (talk) 14:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

phpBB discussion example is weak.
show something with fully threading, a reply with a quote is ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.69.80.208 (talk) 08:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is a "thread"?

 * 1) Does it start at the root and branch out such that all replies to the root post and all replies to those replies are all part of the same thread, or
 * 2) Is it a single line of conversation that starts at the leaf and ends at the root such that a single root post can have many threads, or
 * 3) Is it all messages under the same headline, and changing the headline makes it a new thread? --Traal (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Types of threads section
I think it should be deleted or entirely rewritten. It provides no relevant information and has a misleading/incorrect title; it covers only one "type", making "Types" wrong, and I'd argue that what is discussed is not a type of thread at all. The title of the section makes it seem like it will be about different ways in which conversations can be threaded (aka different types of conversation threads), while the actual content is just an example of a topic that a thread might discuss. As the article is on conversation threading (a method of displaying conversations in certain media) and not conversations themselves, I don't think topics of conversation have any place in this article.

Additionally, "open thread" can refer to a litany of things other than what the current page uses it as, so saying that it "refers" to that is somewhat misleading. It is a very specific usage of that phrase and I think a supporting source is necessary if the page is going to assert that as the common usage of the phrase. And regardless of the usage of the phrase, I do not believe that it has a place in that section of this article. (I apologize if my use of pronouns made this confusing but I do not currently have the time to find a cleaner way to write it)

I do not know the procedure about these sorts of things (whether it's better to leave it so that someone can rewrite it, or if there is a way to flag it, or what) so I'm just going to delete it under the assumption that it will be corrected if I acted wrongly.

Mechanism section
I'm inclined to think that the Mechanism section should move below advantages/disadvantages, or maybe to the RFC article, even? It's a technical discussion and not as relevant to the topic as the aforementioned. Grahamtalk/mail/ e 23:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)