Talk:Discourse (software)

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Software. This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as Low-importance). Open (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.OpenWikipedia:WikiProject OpenTemplate:WikiProject OpenOpen

Considering the software is not gold, this page sounds like a soapbox advertisement to promote the software (which isn't even a forum software tbh) --86.141.34.30 (talk) 20:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Agree with this user. This is just advertising a software that isn't available and incomplete. --81.153.155.91 (talk) 16:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Also agreed. It meets criteria for speedy deletion as it's quite clearly advertisement right now. Given it's been several months and no useful content has actually appeared, it does not meet the standards of wikipedia in any way at all really. --86.8.80.137 (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Nine years later, this article (still?) reads like an advertisement. Dropping a link to the **non-negotiable** NPOV policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Very Fantastic Dude (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Can you explain what in the article "reads like an advertisement"? I understand the comments from 9 years ago, when it was still in beta iirc, but it is a widely used piece of software at this point, and is completely FOSS. Ruphous99 (talk) 12:27, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Article doesn't need separate citations to FAQ, license and something else, as well as landing page! I will prune.

Also, am adding wikilink to biography of Josh Kopelman, as Discourse is in his BLP article. --FeralOink (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

In sub section Server requirements:

Discourse requires an outgoing MTA ...

Abbreviation "MTA" has not been introduced. --Mortense (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Right now the wikipedia claims that discourse is dead. I find the structure of the article VERY strange. If this is the case, why is this not mentioned in a later section? Who wrote that part? Right now I am a bit suspicious; looks like vandalism, but I can't say. Either way, could someone have a look? 2A02:8388:1641:8380:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 06:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

It's vandalism. Discourse is still alive and well. 209.122.160.79 (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply