Talk:Messenger (software)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Section on user response and reviews

Where's the section on user response and reviews? This is a controversial forced change for mobile users, and not mentioning the controversy is akin to white-washing critical responses. 126.210.149.223 (talk) 12:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

If you're looking for a section that has "Criticism" as its title, see WP:CSECTION. Reliably sourced responses and reviews can be added to the "Reception" section. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 18:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC) [edited 20:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)]

Privacy

When the Facebook Messenger app came out, many were hesitant to get it. Many privacy issues came up regarding the different permissions needed to get the app. After a while, the media hype about the privacy issue died down and more people decided to get the app and use it. Haddad26 (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Facebook Messenger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160708213226/https://fbnewsroomus.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/secret_conversations_whitepaper.pdf to https://fbnewsroomus.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/secret_conversations_whitepaper.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120824190213/http://techit.co.il:80/2011/12/%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%A2%D7%93%D7%99-facebook-messenger-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7%A8-%D7%9E%D7%A2%D7%A8%D7%9B%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%94%D7%A4%D7%A2%D7%9C%D7%94-windows-%D7%9C%D7%94%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%93%D7%94/ to http://techit.co.il/2011/12/%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%A2%D7%93%D7%99-facebook-messenger-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7%A8-%D7%9E%D7%A2%D7%A8%D7%9B%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%94%D7%A4%D7%A2%D7%9C%D7%94-windows-%D7%9C%D7%94%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%93%D7%94/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

XMPP?

Why does this page belong to the category "XMPP clients", while there is no mention of XMPP in the article? Either the relation between Facebook Messenger and XMPP should be clarified, or the page should not belong to that category. Vurp0 (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Old comment, but they used a modified ejabberd server in the past. Now the protocol seems different and somewhat reverse engineered. Timofonic (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Features section and lede

I think this version of the Features section has too many subsection headers dividing up its content. Giving a dedicated subsection to each and every little feature in the app clutters the article and inhibits the flow of the prose. I tagged this as something that needed to be fixed on July 3. Nothing has improved since then, so I thought I would do something about it myself. I think moving the individual features into a table and summarising the most important contents of the table with one or two paragraphs is the best way to go forward. I also think that the lede gives undue weight to things that are of importance only to a small population of fans (WP:CRUFT): Most of the information in the Features section is sourced with technology blogs such as The Verge, TechCrunch, Engadget and Android Police instead of mainstream news outlets. The two paragraphs that summarise the Features section would work well as the paragraphs that summarise the contents of the proposed features table. A more concise summary can then be added to the lede, mentioning features that are relevant to a more general audience.

I have already done most of the work. However, this was reverted by User:LocalNet with the summary: "Sorry, but I honestly don't see this as an improvement. Wikipedia prefers prose, this moves way too much out of the lead, I don't think tables are meant for this, and this means all the regular text in "Features" is unsourced." I had not added a short summary of Facebook Messenger's features to the lede, but I did suggest in my edit summary that this could be done later if necessary. I also hadn't added inline citations to the text that I moved down from the lede, because I didn't think that the text was unsourced: all of the sources were in the table. As for tables not being meant for this, I think that's debatable. As a reader, I would certainly appreciate the ability to quickly read through a lede section, and if I were interested in learning more about the app's features, have a section with a summary and a table consisting of three (or more) columns and 15 rows instead of a section with no introduction and fifteen subsections, most of which only contain one to three sentences. A table would allow us to easily display data such as when a certain feature was introduced and if it is limited to a specific platform or region.

I have now moved the contents in the Features section back into a table and moved the two summarising paragraphs down from the lede a second time, this time replacing them with a short summary of Facebook Messenger's features and adding inline citations to the text that I moved to the Features section. I also added Platforms and Availability columns to the features table. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Dodi 8238: Having taken a proper read through your edit and your reasoning here, you clearly know what you are talking about. I think I am going to keep the edit you made, but I'd like to explain a little of my thinking on the topic too.

While I do understand your point that too many subsections can cause clutter and prevent readability, I believed that some of the sections, mainly "Calls" and "Bot platform", featured enough information to warrant their own section to properly give attention to the functionality. Furthermore, while the "Accounts" section focused on features enabled back in December 2012, the "Messenger Day" and "Reactions" info takes place in 2017, two clearly different time periods. However, you cited a Wikipedia policy that clearly states that "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading", and darn, makes sense, can't compete against policy.

"I tagged this as something that needed to be fixed on July 3. Nothing has improved since then, so I thought I would do something about it myself". Just to make you and anybody else reading this aware, not seeing any changes does not mean nothing was attempted. I made several experiments to change subsections into a paragraph-based prose, but I repeatedly failed, eventually opting to keep the current layout. There's obviously no way you or anybody else could have known that, however, so it was my mistake of not having written a dummy edit to explain so. LocalNet (talk) 20:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Update: I was not originally going to write this, but I want to. In the future, I would recommend that you avoid placing tags altogether. Fix the problems yourself or go to the talk page to start a friendly conversation about issues. I was quite proud of my work on this article, and others placing tags feels impersonal and like a slap in the face. Just wanted to write that, because not everybody is aware that tags can be considered uncivil. LocalNet (talk) 09:55, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. In an effort to not give the impression of "drive-by" tagging, from now on I will add a comment to the talk page explaining the problem and beginning a discussion on how to fix it. I will also avoid tagging articles if I can easily and confidently fix the problem. Please do not take maintenance templates personally: They are not meant to criticise previous editors. They highlight problems that anyone visiting the page can help to fix. Keep in mind that, according to Help:Maintenance template removal, "it is not okay to remove maintenance templates until the issue flagged by the template is remedied first—that is, only once the maintenance tag is no longer valid, unless it truly did not belong in the first place." I could have reverted your removal of the maintenance template and cited WP:WNTRMT, but decided to assume good faith because you said you would take care of the issue. If the tag had stayed in the article until the issue had been fixed, it would probably have been fixed sooner. You can still be proud of your contributions: As far as I can tell, they are all still in the article. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 11:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Dodi 8238: Wow, there are literally rules regarding when to remove article tags. I'm surprised, and yet I don't know why I am surprised. Seems Wikipedia has rules for literally everything. Sorry, this doesn't concern you specifically, I am just frustrated with policy. To me, the lead now just looks like it is significantly lacking information. But you pointed out WP:CRUFT and WP:UNDUE about my version, which confirm your stance. This isn't the first time I have objected to someone shortening the lead in one of the articles I have significantly contributed to, and it's policies like WP:LEADLENGTH that ruin my interest in editing Wikipedia. There's just too many rules, in my honest opinion. I get why they exist, but they prevent editing from being fun for people like me. However, as they are currently policy and consensus, I can't singlehandedly override them. But I am going to take a break from Wikipedia for a while. LocalNet (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

"Most of the information in the Features section is sourced with technology blogs such as The Verge, TechCrunch, Engadget and Android Police instead of mainstream news outlets." To be fair, The New York Times didn't even report on Messenger Day, so if we were to rely only on mainstream news outlets, this article would be almost empty :P But in regards to information in the lead, I do see your point in regards to the fan-based aspect of it and what is actually essential information. The lead looks so empty in your edit, but I guess that's technically because mine was overflowing rather than yours being too little. :P

Good argumentation on tables. I do like the layout of Availability and Platforms.

Alright, your argumentation clearly wins over mine. Good work. I will revert back to your edit. LocalNet (talk) 20:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Update: Hi again @Dodi 8238: I was going to copy the lead summary here into the Facebook article for consistency, but that requires adding sources. The information on "exchange photos, videos, stickers, audio, and files of any type" is not covered in any source. I don't know how to reword/rewrite that differently. Would you be able to help here? :) LocalNet (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I can't find a source for "files of any type" right now, so I'll reduce that to just "files". Here are sources for the exchange of "photos, videos, stickers, audio, and files": [1] [2]. If you ask me, though, I think the Facebook#Instant_messaging section is OK as it is. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 11:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, I wasn't suggesting that we should only rely on mainstream news outlets. Looking at the source is a way to gauge who its intended audience is. A good WP:LEAD tells the reader the basics in a nutshell and should also be written in a clear style that is accessible to as broad an audience as possible. According to MOS:INTRO, "it is even more important here than in the rest of the article that the text be accessible. Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article." --Dodi 8238 (talk) 11:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:A140:63DD:381B:417B:89CE:5194 (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

In all the social media websites, there must be login type added.

In all the social media websites, or the websites in which there is login, we must added proper description that how a user can login. like in some social media there is only login by phone number or in some email is only login or in some any of both are valid. There must be Login Type added in Infobox Software. Examples

Login Type - Only by Phone Number Login Type - Only by Email address(or Username) Login Type - Phone Number or Email address(or Username)(Any) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niharpatel123456 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

rename to Messenger?

Facebook just calls it Messenger. Should it be renamed to Messenger (perhaps disambiguated with parenthesis)? Or are we refusing to let them make this trademark grab? :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.233.218.98 (talk) 21:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

messenger

Yeah messenger is fukked here wth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.83.128.61 (talk) 03:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Wedding turmoil

Anybody ever have such a terrible bacholer party that it ruined your life and was the reason you did not get married? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:300B:6C8:4000:7C16:BD26:FFF8:B357 (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Feature: Sign up without a Facebook account is no more available

MrOllie Please check why you reverted my edits. [3] It was supported by this news [4] Salona Choudhury (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Facebook Messenger Rooms into Facebook Messenger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To merge as the Rooms feature is best described as a feature of the programme or platform; the formal merge reason is context. Klbrain (talk) 13:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

---

The article is very short and it primarily discuss Facebook Messenger. Therefore, it be merged into the Facebook Messenger article. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 03:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

TheBirdsShedTears, I'm in dilemma. Your merging request totally valid and I support it. But, at the same time, we have to take this fact into the account... in the post-COVID-19 world, there is a rise in videoconferencing software and apps listed under this category, Web conferencing. I suggest let's give this article some time. If anything substantial is added by other editors, then well and good. If not, then we always have your suggested option to merge with Facebook Messenger. - Hatchens (talk) 04:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

IMO there is nothing else to add to this article, and it is still very short. Unlike Zoom, this isn't a standalone app and there's little to none to cover in terms of features, reception, etc. That's why I agree with merging. ITSQUIETUPTOWN.public • talk 12:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

It can be rewritten more specifically. I might need a bit help here. If anyone will to, I believe it would be great. ~ A. Shohag (ping_me||Talk) 11:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I think that the article Facebook Messenger Rooms should stay standalone. Article is now too specifically for standalone article for me and it is notable (per references). Patriccck (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support This article is very short that it can be covered in the Messenger article. I rewrote some parts in the meantime. ITSQUIETUPTOWN.public • talk 12:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support Facebook Messenger Rooms is more of a feature that would be suitable if intergrated into the Messenger article itself DownTownRich (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

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.

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 13:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

The merge between Inbox and Chats

Facebook actually used to have until a certain point two types of messages, it had an inbox and the chat, and they were merged at some point. The chats weren't saved, they were with online users, and I think they didn't migrate this data into the merged interface, which is unfortunate, although they probably has these logs. The inbox was used for offline messages, you had a section for messages, and you could choose several recipients and a subject for the message. Now, luckily, the Messenger is more of a IM. Does anybody know when exacly they did it? Galzigler (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

XMPP?

According to Kopete and Category:XMPP Clients, Messenger once supported XMPP. We should add info about when they supported it, when they stopped, their stated reason for stopping, and whether they still use non-federated XMPP internally like Hangouts did. Galagora (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Galagora:Almost a year now... do you have a source on that now? — Python Drink (talk) 17:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

o 117.103.93.203 (talk) 23:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)