Jump to content

Talk:Discord

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Guerillero (talk | contribs) at 20:47, 12 May 2022 (→‎Requested move 2 March 2022: Closing discussion (DiscussionCloser v.1.7.3)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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 WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]


– 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Contemporary items should never take precedence over long-standing English terms. --Masem (t) 13:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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_OPTalk 14:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    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_OPTalk 15:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    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_OPTalk 16:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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).[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    (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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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 NoSurprisesPlease 14:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    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 NoSurprisesPlease 16:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)][reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • Support as per arguments by User:Colin M, User:CX Zoom, and User:RogueShanghai.― TaltosKieronTalk 17:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 03:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    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 WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 03:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as proposer. Why did I forget to do that? Lol shanghai.talk to me 03:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Because you shouldn't - its assumed. -- Netoholic @ 06:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Support per Levi OP's arguements. Tree Critter (talk) 07:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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 WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    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_OPTalk 15:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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_OPTalk 23:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Dohn joe. Rusty4321 talk contributions log 02:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Support per Colin M and several users. —❑Jamesluiz102❑— (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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_OPTalk 03:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Discord is also a noun. --Spekkios (talk) 04:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    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 NoSurprisesPlease 04:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion the page views are irrelevant in this case. Long-term significance trumps. --Spekkios (talk) 04:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    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_OPTalk 13:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Long-term significance isn't always measured on page views. Archer is an example. --Spekkios (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    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 WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 21:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See here for an example of when page views does not trump long-term relevancy. --Spekkios (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    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 WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 22:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    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_OPTalk 23:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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 WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 01:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    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_OPTalk 01:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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)[reply]
0.00083% and 0.00002% are surprisingly small! (especially for "apple" which is much more common) ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The point is in context. Apple is used significantly more than dscord. elijahpepe@wikipedia 19:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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 WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    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_OPTalk 14:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • Oppose. Discord should redirect to Eris (mythology). Showiecz (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? ― Tuna + 14:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The software is the primary topic in my opinion. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 19:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion relisted persuant to move review. Please continue the discussion to generate a clearer consensus. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Weak oppose because of the likes of Consonance and dissonance. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Strong support per nom, clear primary topic Indagate (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I support for the reasons given above by other users. WikiMakersOfOurTime (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. Excerpts from guidance:[1] 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". [2] The article wikidata says it is also known as discordapp.com, which now redirects to discord.com.[3] 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    I'm shocked Madonna wasn’t already the primary topic. SK2242 (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Levi and Zoom. —Soap— 15:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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 WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I understand that, but what about this is educational? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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 WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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".[4] 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)[reply]
Adding: If/when they change name to Concord, will they want that moved too? -- Yae4 (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Strong oppose per Andrewa. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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.

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Discord&oldid=1087498525"