Talk:Blogger.com

The following is an archive of the Blogger move and redirect discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was do not move. Consensus is to move somewhere besides Blogger. Since that would not require administrator assistance, I am simply closing this. Feel free to continue the discussion as to the correct final location. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move to Blogger

Requested Move

• Blogger.com → Blogger … Rationale: All websites are referred to without the ".com" suffix, as is Xanga, MySpace, and Google. The company themselves refer to the company as "Blogger" and never as "Blogger.com". —–- kungming·2 | ^{(Talk·Contact)} 09:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support Make article "Blogger" with a redirect from "Blogger.com" --mtz206 (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, In this case, the more common definition of "blogger" (for which there is no current article, but could and probably should be) should take precedence over a website called Blogger. HGB 00:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, "Blogger" could easily refer to a person who blogs... no necessarily a website called blogger.com. --Pjvpjv 03:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment If so, then Blogger should be a disambig for Blogger (person) and Blogger.com or something like that. --mtz206 (talk) 03:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Not as "Blogger.com", but maybe as Blogger (website)? ALso, please keep in mind that the current "Blogger" link directs to this article.–- kungming·2 | ^{(Talk·Contact)} 05:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I agree - it shouldn't go to "Blogger" but to "Blogger (website)" Alternatively, it could be moved to "Blogspot" as that's how it's refered to by many people (to avoid confusion, and because that's where the actual blogs exist.) --Tim4christ17 09:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

So, are we arguing that Blogger should be an article about "one who blogs", with a {{For2}} tag pointing to Blogger (website)? I'd support that. (Blogspot.com should be a redirect, if anything) --mtz206 (talk) 11:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Three points: (1) I am not sure we have anything encyclopedic (i.e., more than a dicdef) to say about "one who blogs," so I don't see that being a main article. Am I wrong? What would the content of Blogger-the-person be like? (2) Not all Blogger blogs are hosted on Blogspot. (3) I think it should be Blogger (web application) or Blogger (company). Some Blogger users never actually visit the website after they sign up--it's the service that is important, not the site. Let's try to sort this out before we do any moves. · rodii · 14:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, As said, Blogger could define a person who blogs. --yongblood 17:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Further Comment: Then, I see, there is an overall consensus for changing the name of the article to Blogger (insert something here). I think maybe Blogger (service) is the best - it could then refer to the web service that allows one to make and publish blogs, or the service then the allows people to host their blogs on Blogspot. The problem is actually, I hear much more people say "go to my Blogger" than go to my Blogspot. We should address both of them in one article, -putting them in two seperate ones would be confusing. Also, as another side note, I believe Pyra Labs coined the term "Blogger" before the term came into widespread usage among speakers of the English language - correct me if I'm wrong. Pyra Labs was founded in 1999, and the term "blogger" began to be used widely starting from approximately 2003-2004.–- kungming·2 | ^{(Talk·Contact)} 17:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments here:

Just be bold and move it, with an explanation in the edit summary and here. · rodii · 16:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I would move it myself, however there are problems when trying to move it. I believe that an administrator had to first delete the exisiting "Blogger" article, then move it. –- kungming·2 | ^{(Talk·Contact)} 23:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it should be moved to Blogger (website) because it does not have .com in its name and as mentioned above, 'blogger' is a general term for someone who blogs. Perhaps redirect 'blogger' to 'blog' with a 'Blogger redirects here...' top disambiguation on top of blog. In any case, this is a tough one. -newkai | talk | contribs 19:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Blogger redirect, again

Perhaps a better redirect for blogger would simply be to blog (rather than a stub "one who blogs"). Seems more links into blogger would actually want information on blogging in general, not Blogger.com. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

That's true, and it's a good idea - but here we're trying to determine the moving of the Blogger.com site itself, though the term "blogger" is now of importance as well. Blogging has received so much attention in recent times that any changes made will certainly be really big. Any more ideas? –- kungming·2 | ^{(Talk·Contact)} 06:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think a dab page is the way to go instead of a redirect. Most people entering that search term will be looking for Blogger the app, I think, and be surprised when they go to blog. How about this as a dab page:

• A blogger is someone who maintains a weblog.
• Blogger is a weblog publishing service owned by Google.

Something like that. I used kungming's proposed Blogger (service)--makes sense to me. · rodii · 12:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, rodii! Blogger.com has now moved and a disambiguation page has been made for Blogger. –- kungming·2 | ^{(Talk·Contact)} 16:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)