Talk:RSS

To discuss rss syndication feeds from wikipedia, visit Wikipedia:Syndication.

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2022

In the section "Current usage" it is stated that Mozilla removed RSS support from Mozilla Firefox version 64.0, joining Google Chrome and Microsoft Edge which do not include RSS support, thus leaving Internet Explorer as the last major browser to include RSS support by default. This is not entirely true, ad Google Chrome for Android supports RSS feeds. I recommend removing Google Chrome and leaving only Microsoft Edge. One of the sources is The Verge (https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/8/22716813/google-chrome-follow-button-rss-reader). 188.124.192.128 (talk) 15:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Please change "Mozilla removed RSS support from Mozilla Firefox version 64.0, joining Google Chrome and Microsoft Edge which do not include RSS support" to "Mozilla removed RSS support from Mozilla Firefox version 64.0, joining Microsoft Edge which does not include RSS support".

Google Chrome for Android does support RSS feeds. 89.111.251.26 (talk) 09:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: I felt the change should be done in the paragraph about its revival. Ping me if you're unsatisfied. SWinxy (talk) 05:38, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

No sources on RSS compared with Atom

That entire section only contains a source with a dead link.

The claim "Atom has (...) less restrictive licensing" is very odd, since the RSS format is completely open and the specification document has a CC-SA license like Wikipedia. On the other hand, the Atom RFC does provide some more restrictions. Daniel.sousa.me (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I fixed the dead link, I'll add additional citations if needed. yvanyblog^(talk) 11:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 17 September 2024

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: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Killarnee (talk) 03:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

---

• RSS → ?
• RSS (disambiguation) → RSS

– This is clearly not the primary topic for RSS. Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh Pageviews states that Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh gets 2x pageviews, virtually all of which come from RSS (no one can remember the whole name, similar to BJP). Therefore it should be disambiguated. Though I'm unsure where this page should go, that can be decided with discussion. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 19:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose No evidence provided to support the claim. Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh might well have more pageviews, but that is not evidence that 'RSS' (the literal 3-letter term) is more widely used to refer to this name. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  RSS is also commonly used for the right wing organisation. See Google News and you'll see many references to RSS for the organisation. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 17:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose because RSS is clearly the primary subject and any title changes would not make sense per WP:CRITERIA or WP:COMMONNAME. There is already WP:NATURAL disambiguation. TipsyElephant (talk) 10:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  is clearly the primary subject what makes you think so? This argument seems eerily similar to WP:JUSTNOTABLE. You have to back up your argument. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 17:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  My argument was that we already have WP:NATURAL disambiguation and that RSS is the WP:COMMONNAME for the web feed format and that changing the name doesn't make sense under any WP:CRITERIA. No where did I say anything about it just being notable. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• Per WP:DPT, let's try to have a look at some general statistics. All-time mass views of everything listed at RSS (disambiguation) indicates that about one half of all traffic went to the presumed primary topic. Can we have an analysis of long-term significance of the rest of the items listed?

While RSS has been a common sight on websites a decade ago, it looks like major interest in it has waned since about five years ago, per pattern at all-time monthly page views of RSS.

I would tend to agree that this particular Indian political topic might not suffice to indicate general ambiguity, but the sum of all the other topics might. --Joy (talk) 09:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but you can't assume that the sum of all the other topics listed at RSS includes their being identified as RSS. The question is when people are looking for RSS, what are they typically looking for? Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose clearly the common term for RSS. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:07, 24 September 2024 (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.

followup to move discussion

Since the above was closed, I have to post this separately :)

So we don't know what the people are typically looking for when a primary topic is in place, because the search engines learn our navigation layout and then send the readers looking for the web syndication topic to RSS and readers looking for whatever else over there. We only see a part of the organic lookups of "RSS" in our statistics, and we can't really tell how big of a part.

With meta:Research:Wikipedia clickstream we can try to analyze reader behavior once they get here. https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=RSS shows that in August, there were over 43k views, and the top outgoing link was to the Indian organization at 509 identified clickstreams, and the generic hatnote got 218. In total, there were 5067 identifiable clickstreams to 59 destinations. So these ratios aren't obviously bad for the presumption of primary topic - 727 is just ~1.7% of incoming and ~14% of identifiable outgoing.

However, we did have a number of examples where this wasn't critical, I've been collating a list at WT:D#on what statistics should look like for hatnotes, primary redirects, primary topics and there were cases where there was actually ambiguity.

We should come back to this topic in the future and check again if there are any further hints of ambiguity. --Joy (talk) 08:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the page views graph from before had periods of intense spikes in 2017 and 2018, which sound like some sort of artificial traffic.

The WikiNav graph for August also showed 16k incoming from search, 11.5k with empty referer, 6k in the "other-other" category and 5k in the other-external category. This could indicate that there's still some amount of traffic where the the appearance of reader interest might be getting artificially inflated - places that cause readers to make this traffic for some reason. It's not totally clear how organic that interest is - are these readers genuinely curious what RSS is or are these websites doing something to promote clicking on this link beyond what would usually happen. --Joy (talk) 08:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)