Talk:Internet relationship/Archive 1

ARCHIVE PAGE 1: 2006-2008

Comment

It's a relationship based on internet in a virtual environment.

What are you talking about? -Anonymous Coward 12 Aug 05 1906 local time

Meeting in real life

I have been told that if you are quite introvert in real life and have good friends on the Net, then once you meet face-to-face you may not have so much to talk about with them -even if you have talked countless hours in MSN. If anyone has experiences or comments on this, then lemme know:) (maybe I'm just being paranoid?)

I,m new to this stuff - if soneone leaves a note on an article I have written saying they want to be my friend, how do I reciprocate and get in touch?....engineman

Meeting in real life, discussion:

I think that feelings of disappointment or success following a face to face meeting, after spending so much time and effort to get to know someone online, is highly situational. It depends on the people interacting. Sometimes you find that they are exactly who they portrayed themselves to be and sometimes you may feel they've deceived you. Chemistry that was present online may not be present at all in person. You have to feel it out.

Before I commit to meet someone in person, I usually throw it out there that I'm shy and it may take the first visit, or more, to feel comfortable. When this is understood, it's so much easier to talk in person and open up and I believe it relieves any anxiety for the other person as well.

I also have a general idea of some questions to ask that will make it easy for both of us to begin a safe conversation, an ice-breaker, if you will. You already know what the person is generally about, but meeting face to face is also 'meeting' that person for the first time. Keep the knowledge that you have about that person in the back of your mind while introducing yourself and getting to know that person.

To avoid disappointment, don't hold the person to expectations that you've formed during online chat; it's not the same. Take it slow, begin a friendship with no pressures or expectations and the person will be more comfortable with you, too. I hope I've explained this well enough without babbling....but this is my experience with meeting an online friend or "lover" in person.

Kit —Preceding unsigned comment added byKitgoininsane (talk •contribs) 01:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Title

It seems to me that "Internet relationship" would be a more accurate title for this article, as almost all of it is about romantic relationships rather than friendships. Would anyone object to moving it? René van Buuren (talk) 09:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the page is more about romantic online relationships, than online frienships. Online relationships deserve a page of their own. Celianna (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion: Merge With Friendship

I do not believe this article ought to be merged with "Friendship" because this is a highly specialized subject and requires special attention. I believe as references are added & sources cited, this article will stand up on its own. Any arguments to the contrary are welcome. ELizama (talk) 16:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

All I can say is that I believe the article should be merged with the friendship article but there should also remain a seperate article as there currently is for users who are not sure what it is, for easier finding. Sorry, I'm not making much sense.151.196.239.26 (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)KB

I believe wikipedia should undergo the UBER Merge, since thats what it seems everyone wants to do. Seriously, mergers don't help wikipedia, they HURT it (although there is no saving wikipedia anyways). A good 2 page article merged with a 6 page article quickly gets trimmed down to nothing... Screw it anyways, not like my opinion counts. —Preceeding comment has been left unsigned by the author because said author believes in freedom of choice.

IP-address, a redirect can easily be arranged; if the reader searches "Internet friendship" then they will be redirected to the specific section of "Friendship" that details internet friendship. I am in strong support of the merge. Internet friendship itself does not meet Wikipedia:Notability and is poorly written. "Freedom of choice", We can create a separate section in "friendship" for "Internet friendship" so it won't have to undergo major trimming. Internet friendship is just another form of Friendship; it is not notable on its own. IceUnshattered (talk) 01:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Unwilling to actually go out and read the article, I'll say that it probally misrepresents Internet Freindship just for the ease of the situation. The first question is if Internet Friendship persists outside of the Internet, or "in RL" as the lingo goes. If there are instances in which an Internet Friendship can be formed but, if able, a "real" friendship does not then you have a distinct difference between the two. Meaning that a catagory incorporates ITSELF and one or more subsects. If an Internet Friendship can exists WITHOUT a Friendship then it is NOT a subsect of friendship. (UNLESS, you want to make the claim that the IDEA of friendship superceeds reality ((Meaning that we use the CONCEPT of Friendship as the catagory rather than the "reality" of friendship [which, of course, is all too confusing to do and the Friendship article sucks enough already]))

(Also notes that WP:Notability is a double edged sword... (unless I am making a mistake)... and means the data shouldn't be on wikipedia, not just the article.)

But my complaint is accurate, if this article were to be merged it would be reduced to a few sentences. (Illegible Derogatory Statements about Wikipedian Society).

That asside, EXPLAIN merge. I made the point that people seem to merge everything and you're in agreement to the merge, but explain the point of merging. WP:"Something about Article Length" tells us (meaning it may not specifically say) that good merges are when the merging article is a stub and the "merge to" article is not over the WP Size Guideline. (Of course, WP Society doesn't know what a stub is in the first place). This "may" be a stub, but it looks to have enough sentences to be otherwise.

On topic again, simply putting in links to Internet Friendship solves problems and stuff...

• Suddently stopped caring*

—Preceeding comment has been left unsigned by the author because said author believes in the freedom of choice.

The article is too lengthy and irrelevant to be featured as a section to the friendship article, not only that but this article focuses more on internet relationships than actual friendships, it would fair better if it was just renamed as opposed to moved. Besides the subject will severely reduce the quality of any article it was merged with due to the article's mediocrity, contributers should focus on improving the article as opposed to moving it. As for it's current status as a stub an article requires more than content to be promoted to a higher assessment. It's filled with weasel words and other point of view pushing information, I spent an hour on deleting the terms "some people think insert editor's opinion here" from every paragraph of this poorly sourced article.K.H (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

LMAO =

Yahoo Answers is cited as a source. Removing it now.. im going to grin about that all day!- 210.18.211.154 (talk) 06:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your revision, this article is very poorly sourced and the last thing those who contribute to it need is a citation to an inaccurate forum. UniversalBread (talk) 02:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge

Let's see if we can gain a consensus about the state of the article. UniversalBread (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Support Name Change to "Internet Relationships"

• The content focuses on internet romantic relationships rather than online friendships, infact the term "friend" isn't used once in the entire article. Rather than completely rewriting the article I believe we should change the name to "Internet Relationships" to make the content more relevant. Furthermore, IceUnshattered stated that internet friendship doesn't meet the Wikipedia Notability Guidelines anyway. Rather than completely trim this entire article down we should merely change the topic. UniversalBread (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
• I agree, as this article covers both topics. And do not merge with friendship. Why not keep it as a whole article? → C Teng ^[talk] 15:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
• I agree. This is nothing about friends. Back in my day, we would just move this without all this weird bureaucracy... 75.72.66.109(talk) 12:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Well we're trying to get a general consensus based upon the opinions of multiple editors so no one can contradict the name change stating their opinion wasn't taken into perspective. I don't like it much either but it's policy. UniversalBread (talk) 23:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)