Do we have a source to cite for this definition, quoted in paragraph 1?
--morganiq 00:50, 16 Dec 2004 (GMT)
No, that was a definition we refined from the raw. Why was Introduction to Blogs moved to Introduction to Blogging?
--Carthik 00:50, 31 Dec 2004 (GMT)
Okay. As it's currently written it implies that we're quoting someone, so we should probably reword it to sound less like a quote.
"Introduction to Blogging" sounds more natural to me, and more title-like. I thought "Introduction to Blogs" sounded off.
— morganiq 01:54, 31 Dec 2004 (GMT)
It's actually an aggregation of several definitions. I agree we should cite when we quote. Introduction to blogging sound okay by me, maybe we should all agree to make a brief note explaining moves in the future, and clean up the trail, by visiting "what links here" for the old page and updating links :) Glad to see you busy, morganiq!
I'll make a point of adding something to the Talk if I rename a page. It's unfortunate that we can't make a comment when we actually do the move, and create a history entry like normal changes. But alas. ;-)
Thanks for the idea of visiting the redirect to see what links to it; that's something I never thought of. I've been wishing for a while that there was a Special: plugin available that would list all links to redirects, but that's a great way to accomplish the same thing. Thanks!
— morganiq 01:29, 1 Jan 2005 (GMT)
With too much time on airplanes over the past few days, I did some drastic edits on this wonderful article. The wealth of information is incredible, but the ability to digest it needed fixing.
I rearranged it so that it flowed from basic information needed to know as an introduction to things the blogger needs to know like basic terminology and references. I sure wish I had this info when I started out. It took me ages to understand what a trackback and ping thing was.
I have the original information saved, if someone wants it back or needs something from it. The "Advanced Blogging" information was put in the form of a discussion, bits and pieces spread out and little cohesion. I cleaned it up to be informative and collected.
When it got into too much detail that was already repeated in the Codex elsewhere, I edited it down to a link to that page, keeping the most critical information in the article.
Whoever wrote this originally - kudos for excellent information!
Lorelle 20:52, 17 Feb 2005 (GMT)
I don't remember where I got that quote from. A Google search turned up a couple of other sites that contained it, most notably an NPR page, but I don't think that was where I found it.... However, it maybe have been a different NPR page, though. I vaguely remember them having some sort of blogging resource page a while back.
Yes, I should have attributed it properly way back when. Doh.
This section suggests it's going to explain what blogging is, though it expands into explaining what WordPress is and this will confuse readers and leave them with the impression WordPress is almost entirely a blogging platform - which is obviously no longer the case. I'm recommending we update this by removing any content that talks about how WordPress functions and let it focus strictly on the basics of what blogging is.
While it's true that it's used for more than just blogging. But WordPress is still primarily a blogging platform. I don't have any statistics to back that up, but I'm assuming that at least half of all WordPress powered sites are blogs. Styledoesmatter 11:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I have substantially re-written and re-ordered the content of this section both to make it more accurate and to flow clearly and logically.
I was strongly inclined to delete the last paragraph as it is now irrelevant, but decided to do less rather than more. Natcolley 03:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)