Jump to content

Talk:Joomla: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
m moved Talk:Joomla to Talk:Joomla! over redirect: change to the official name.
(No difference)

Revision as of 06:04, 25 September 2009

Further Reading Suggestions

I suggest two changes to the Further Reading Section.

I would like to see two books removed:

  1. Dawson, Brandon & Canavan, Tom (2007), Joomla Cash, Packt Publishing, ISBN 1847191401
    -->This book is about how to make cash while using Joomla, not about how to use Joomla.
  2. Graf, Hagen (2007). Building Websites with Joomla 1.5 Beta 1. Packt Publishing. ISBN 1847192386.-->This book is about an obsolute version of Joomla, and has been replaced by the stable version. I see no reason to keep this book as it has been updated (and no one should be using beta 1).

Does anyone have any reason to keep either of these two? Nathandiehl (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one has posed an argument to keep these two books listed, I have removed them. Nathandiehl (talk) 13:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first item deals a great deal with third-party Joomla components, such as SEF and e-commerce components. In short, it deals with Joomla as viewed from a business perspective. Accordingly, it has been reinserted. 70.62.164.12 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Examples

Recently an IP editor added a few links to websites that use Joomla! as examples under the heading "Well-known Joomla-powered sites". This was quickly reverted. However in reading through the article from the perspective of a casual reader one of the biggest questions that looms in my mind is "what kind of result does Joomla! create on the web?" The article doesn't answer that question at all. I actually think that the IP editor had a good idea in the the article should provide links to some examples of Joomla! websites. The danger, would of course be that many commercial concerns will add their own websites as "examples", so I would like to propose that we keep it to just perhaps three in number and use only non-commercial websites that use Joomla! This can be indicated with a comment in the section. I know of quite a number of non-commercial Joomla!-powered sites that would be good examples. I also think this section should be at the very bottom of he article as a separate external links section from the present one and labeled "Examples of Joomla! websites". Are there any objections to this proposal? - Ahunt (talk) 13:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think what we're lacking here is a source that says these are "well known"; I'd assume that Joomla probably has information like that somewhere, or its possible that a third-party has reviewed Joomla and given examples. Also, I'm a bit concerned that this is less encyclopedic content and more something that you'd expect as a marketing piece, in which case, readers would hopefully use the external links (like the one to Joomla's own site) to find that information. Shell babelfish 14:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "well known" is far too subjective. I was more suggesting including "good examples" rather than "well known" examples. I would rather include asome example links than have readers try to find them on their own. There is an example list on the Joomla! website, but I thought a short list here would save people from going to look for it. Maybe we should just link to that page instead? - Ahunt (talk) 13:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lacking any further input then I will add the link to the Joomla examples page. - Ahunt (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit] :::::Well-known Drupal-powered sites - on the Drupal page, so I suggest you guys do something similar to facilitate comparisons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.22.168 (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the example format on the Drupal page. A few example links to sites (under 10) on the main article in my mind provides both evidence of Notability and makes the articles a more useful tool in which to compare CMSes. A link list at the bottom of the article titled "Examples of Joomla! websites" would be appropriate, located above the External Links list, though I think they should be accompanied by a reference stating their attribution to production/authorship in the software. Rthrash (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I too prefer a few direct links to some Joomla websites, but as you can see above I didn't find any consensus to do that. My own concern was that it would quickly be added to as website owners would see it as carte blanche to add tons of spam links to their own sites. Also I see no need to list "well-known" websites, but rather "good examples" of the range of designs possible and use only non-commercial websites, too, to avoid the trap mentioned above. - Ahunt (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The external links here and on Drupal do not meet WP:EL and are WP:NOTLINK. 16x9 (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:16x9 - you need to explain exactly why you think that examples of the subject of the article are prohibited by WP:EL and/or WP:NOTLINK. I have read both of those and I don't see it there. These are not extraneous or spam links - they are on topic, relevant and add meaningfully to the article comprehension. - Ahunt (talk) 02:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. They're definitely on topic and relevant. They provide nothing more than a minute representation of a list that would otherwise extend into the hundreds of thousands of entries, and greatly facilitate comparisons between CMSes in an encyclopedic manner. Further, removal of such links would seem to violate WP:Preserve and if demonstrated as a pattern of behavior, show evidence of WP:DIS. I see no consensus for removing such representative links, thus WP:Preserve should prevail. Rthrash (talk) 12:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further to this point, I interpret WP:NOTLINK as actually supporting inclusion of representative lists of related information. The key word here is the purposefully and carefully chosen first word in each definition: "Mere…". If the only article content were such links, I would agree with the removal. As it stands though, my opinion remains that removing such Notable information only serves to devalue the article and weaken WP's credibility. If the links failed to meet WP:EL formatting criteria, then the editor should follow WP:Preserve and fix them, rather than delete them which WP:DIS defines as a potential form of disruptive editing, which in good faith I am sure it is not. Rthrash (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - just waiting for User:16x9's explanation of why it was removed. - Ahunt (talk) 14:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More evidence for including such links can be found in a careful reading of WP:ELYES, particularly sections 3 and 4. Examples are certainly relevant, and in my opinion qualify as an exception of WP:ELNO (which includes the key qualifier word normally in its heading) section 10 and 11, and definitely do not qualify under section 4 of the same. I can see how in good faith though one could lump them other those categories without careful, deliberate and time consuming consideration. Normally, it would merit removal, but not in this case. I think a request for User:16x9 to revert the deletions to their original content and make and corrections that deviate from WP:EL formatting standards per WP:Preserve is in order. I'm just a rookie here or I'd make the proper formatting corrections! - Rthrash (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of these links are subjective and spam. Because website X uses A software does not add value to the article. Additionally, WP is not a WP:DIRECTORY. If your individual products want to have a showcase or case study of their product it can be listed elsewhere. WP:PRESERVE does not apply here as it is just links. 16x9 (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I disagree with you - the links you deleted were all official Joomla website links which are specifically allowed and encouraged at Wikipedia:EL#What_should_be_linked. Official websites cannot be considered spam.
On the question of whether example websites would be allowed or not WP:EL says:
I believe that a consensus-agreed and limited number of links to non-commercial websites to illustrate what Joomla websites can look like would be specifically permitted under WP:EL.
I believe you have erred as well in saying "If your individual products want to have a showcase or case study of their product it can be listed elsewhere." No one is proposing adding links to their own websites (if any) here. The ELs you deleted were all official Joomla pages and the ones I proposed are not my websites, if fact I never named them. They are non-commercial websites I have come across that show what can be done with Joomla. I had three in mind as examples:
So here is what I would like to propose:
  1. Reinstate the deleted official Joomla site links that were deleted by User:16x9 since these cannot be spam and are permitted by policy
  2. Add the three example websites listed above as WP:EL permits these and I believe a small number of non-commercial Joomla website links is justified for illustrative purposes. I think the illustrative links should be limited explicitly to perhaps six examples and a comment inserted to that effect.
Let's see if we can find some consensus here. What does everyone think? - Ahunt (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ahunt. I further have no issue pointing to commercial websites as example only, since they provide a meaningful way to gauge CMS capabilities. Six seems like a very reasonable number. Rthrash (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't understand the policy then. The offical website for Joomla! is linked. Linking to additional pages on that website are not need as WP:DIRECTORY. The example websites are also unencyclopedic as they are subjective and really any idea or feature can be duplicated with other technologies. Rthrash (talk · contribs) has a WP:COI here ... does anyone else edit this article regularly because consensus may be hard to get without WP:CANVAS. 16x9 (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay you seem to be just repeating yourself. There have been a few others working on this article in recent months - let's give it a few days and see who else comments. Also you may want to note that WP:EL is not a policy, it is specifically a "style guideline" and is therefore not mandatory, even if you are interpreting it correctly. - Ahunt (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for repeating myself, I don't know how to explain it any better . 16x9 (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point 16x9 is that you don't explain. Citing policy without describing the details of your interpretation is what is happening. The point of discussion is to build understanding and develop consensus among editors. Ahunt mentions that WP:EL is part of the style guide and therefore is a guideline not a policy that requires strict enforcement. This is an extremely important distinction. Jaygilmore (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I neglected to add that I support the inclusion of Example Links. Such links support facts and provide evidence of how the detailed features of the application works beyond what could be described in the content and shown in screenshots. I also support the limitation of the number of links and do not object to commercial websites since it is a key use for content management systems. I would not object to ensureing such links were selected by merits and discussed prior to inclusion to prevent and police spam. Jaygilmore (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You, like you little friend Rthrash are WP:COI and can run along. 16x9 (talk) 13:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:16x9: Making unsubstantiated accusations like that is not how you find consensus on articles. If you have a problems with some editors then you will have to indicate why you think they are in a conflict of interest. Otherwise it just comes over as bullying. - Ahunt (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I will explain. Jaygilmore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Rthrash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are developers of or work closely with the MODx software. I recently put the article up for deletion. Now the two of them claim Unequal standards. The only reason they support the inclusion here is because they want the same inclusion on their vanity page. 16x9 (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am a co-founder of the MODx project and I have never attempted to hide this fact. Would it not be simple to create a fake account of a third party to make these types of edits? As such, I am highly cognizant of the ultra-critical importance of maintaining a NPOV. Anyone is welcome to add criticism to MODx and point out functionality it does not address or just outright areas that it fails in. In fact, I have added "negative" information to the MODx article from Reliable Sources (see Water & Stone and Secunia tracking).
From WP:COI: "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." Please present evidence that shows me to be in violation of this bolded statement at the very top of the article. I firmly stand by my intention and now publicly stated goal of participating in this entire discussion in absolute and total good faith. My desire is to improve the quality of all WP articles on content management and to possibly help reach WP:Consensus between editors of a format to use across all articles. If it is a COI to want to improve the information across all similar pages, then yes, I absolutely 1000% am guilty as charged of having a COI. If we had a format to follow then the rules would be clear. I thought this is what WP:Consensus is all about?
My understanding of being encyclopedic may be complete off base and I would appreciate education on this front. When WP:NOT states that it is not bound by the constraints of traditional encyclopedias and may have longer listings, I too that in good faith that more comprehensive coverage is appropriate and helpful to WP readers. Personally, I'd rather have a sole source of representative information on a subject that links to directories of links if more research is merited and where appropriate. Long overdrawn lists of links is certainly overkill and each CMS in this section could have thousands of sites listed. I fail to see how 5-6 sites violates WP:EL.
User:16x9 I find it your overt hostility saddening, and unfortunately at this point I have to be openly honest and say I don't know how I can maintain the core WP tenant of viewing your edits as done in good faith. Please carefully consider WP:DBF and WP:5P (especially the last two). Rthrash (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So as I understand it then you are saying the only reason that these two editors want to see the external links included in this article is so that this can be used as an example for the type of links that can be included on the MODx article? That isn't much of a COI, especially if that other article gets deleted. - Ahunt (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I can butt in and try to help out a bit - Ahunt has explained why he feels that policy and specifically the external link guidelines support the inclusion of these links - 16x9 you've said you disagree, but you haven't give much of a persuasive argument as to why? Perhaps there's a software Wikiproject that could help shed some light on whether or not these types of sections are customary? I'll have to admit I haven't seen many articles that have a section on "Good examples of x software" - most programming languages, platforms and frameworks seem to get by without these. Shell babelfish 17:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Example section as you stated seem like an ad. There are hardly verifiable and are subjective. WP:ELNO see 1,2,4 and 14. If a casual read wants to find out what type of results they should visit the main Joomla! website and look for additional content. 16x9 (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Shell_Kinney - Thanks for jumping in! I would have to say that most software cannot be shown by website examples - CMSs are probably one of the few that can be illustrated by websites as examples, hence the lack of other examples of this. Most other software is illustrated by "screenshots". I don't think screenshots would work for this article subject, because the content in the examples is copyrighted and its use in this article, as opposed to in the article about the organization that owns the website, wouldn't qualify as "fair use" under US copyright law.
User:16x9 "There are hardly verifiable and are subjective". Actually they are 100% verifiable, if you check the three examples that I gave above and read the source code for the pages (Ctrl+U on Firefox) you will see that the generator is listed as "Joomla!" - therefore it is verified. "Subjective" - I can't see how the word is relevant to an example website - what is a "subjective website" as apposed to an "objective website"? I merely suggested these three because they are fairly good examples of the range of websites that can be generated by Joomla, they are non-commercial and I have no connection with them personally other than I came across them on the web, checked the source code and noted that they were Joomla generated. How much more objective than that do you want, or are you talking about something totally different here? - Ahunt (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would looking at the source code not be original research? Also you can make the genertated by meta date say whatever you like. It is subjective in you determination that it is a good website. You can make anything look good with time/money (well almost anything :P). 16x9 (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:16x9 - To specifically address your comment that including examples would violate "WP:ELNO see 1,2,4 and 14." again I have to disagree. Using the three websites I listed above as typical examples:
1 - "Any site that does not provide a unique resource..." They actually would add a resource to this article, because unlike most other software articles that contain example screenshots, this article contains no examples.
2 - "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" - clearly that is not applicable. The three sites I listed are all valid examples of Joomla sites and furthermore in reading their content there is nothing that meets this exclusion there at all. They are all earnest and non-controversial websites run by upstanding people or organizations, with accurate information as far as I can tell.
4 - "Links mainly intended to promote a website" - again since these would be added to illustrate the software and not promote the websites and because these websites are not in anyway connected to anyone proposing including them this is also "not applicable".
14 - "Lists of links to manufacturers, suppliers or customers" - again "not applicable". Because Joomla is free open source software, the people or organizations who own these websites being proposed as examples are not "manufacturers, suppliers or customers". Specifically they are not customers, because they didn't buy anything. I guess you would have to classify them as "software users".
Looking at source code to determine the generator of a website is the same thing as reading a book on a subject to use it as a reference for an article - it is not doing calculations or drawing conclusions, it is just reading a reference to see what it says. As far as the owners of these websites designing them on something else and then putting "Joomla" in the generator metatag, don't you think that is a bit ridiculous? The three sites I suggested above are all reliable organizations/individuals. Two are national sporting/aviation organizations and the other is a Canada research chair for internet law at a leading university - all fairly unlikely to falsify their website generators. To be honest I really think you have reached the point of "grasping at straws" here. - Ahunt (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is how I see them.
1 - A screenshot of the software can be taken and compared. you are trying to add links to examples of sites that cannot be verified. This article is about Joomla! the software not X website that runs Joomla!
2 - see above
4 - The links are mainly to promote Joomla!.
No I don't think it is unreasonable for a website to have bad code or a misplaced gernator meta data. Some software doesn't included the tag and some webmasters clean the tag before publishing. In your search for these three websites is original research because you selected them. It is original thought and not backed by third party reliable sources. This article is about the software Joomla! NOT about what it may or may not produce with X amount of time and effort. 16x9 (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I find your arguments spurious, but at least I think I understand the depth of your objections, so let's see what the other editors have to say. - Ahunt (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the good faith :P 16x9 (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 - Great idea for including a screenshot of the UI. I still maintain that showing the "what" (example sites built in Joomla) are more valuable than the "how" (UI).
2 - Then use examples where there is an associated blog post or forum topic discussing the implementation of a particular listed website in Joomla.
4 - I see this as a valid objection to the example links based on a strict interpretation of WP policies. I likewise view the merits of including examples are a valid reason to use the 5th pillar in WP:5P and make an exception. The example site links demonstrate capabilities of a particular piece of highly specialized software, in this case a CMS. For instance, suppose Joomla powered Slashdot and a person was looking to build a similar site with the same scaling challenges. Would it not be topical, relevant and notable to mention that as an example? That one link would provide a tremendous amount of information, and possibly save a WP user time in the research phase of compiling a short list of suitable CMSes. That said, I would likewise find a suitable compromise of being able list links to "made in Joomla" galleries from the features section of an article. User:16x9 deleted these types of external links on the MODx, Drupal and Joomla articles. Rthrash (talk) 12:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good thoughts. It may actually be possible to use a screenshot as an example - any copyrighted website won't be usable because its use in this article wouldn't fall under "fair use", but the first example website I proposed above Michael Geist, professor at University of Ottawa and Canada Research Chair of Internet Law is licenced as "Creative Commons" and therefore could be. Perhaps this idea could be used as a compromise - use a CC screenshot instead of links to provide at least one example? - Ahunt (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While this is a good idea, that particular website is licenced as CC 2.0 which is not free enough to be uploaded on either Commons of Wikipedia itself. That would require a 2.5 or 3.0 licence. Perhaps if another example can be found that has a freer licence? - Ahunt (talk) 14:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is still about the how not the what it might possibly produce. 16x9 (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still think there needs to be some way of showing what the software produces. It is almost like an article about Ford that don't show any of their cars. Sure they are a company, but the point is really the product. - Ahunt (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


how about using the {{dmoz|Computers/Programming/Languages/PHP/Scripts/Content_Management/Joomla/|Joomla!}} template in the external links section? I will place it there if we agree 16x9 (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine, although it doesn't seem to get us an answer to the question of examples. - Ahunt (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bidirectional templates

Somebody has misread the claim that there are no bi-directional templates as a claim that there are no RTL templates (there are) and has deleted it. In fact there are NO bidirectional templates other than those that come with the Joomla install. With the exception of "Bees" these also have bugs.

Joomla is designed in such a way that templates can support RTL and LTR natively. However all designers (unless working specifically in a RTL language) seem to be too lazy to add the RTL support. Anyone who disputes this, please provide evidence that bidirectional templates are significantly available. Hell, show me just one :) 89.5.237.175 (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to "Mambo Open Source Development Team - Letter to the community"

This section Andrew Eddie, a.k.a. "MasterChief" wrote an open letter to the community[3] currently refers to OpenSourceMatters. [1]. Retrieved on 2007-03-14.. Unfortunately that is now giving error 500.

Is this forum post http://forum.mamboserver.com/showthread.php?t=57645 the original open letter by Andrew Eddie that was referred to in that History section? If yes, can we just refer to that URL that is still available, instead of the OpenSourceMatters one that is giving error 500? -- sabre23t (talk) 04:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is actually the original post of the letter. I have updated the link. Thank you for catching this. Nathandiehl (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joomla&oldid=316074091"