Jump to content

Talk:Drupal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 70.53.102.186 (talk) at 12:05, 2 September 2011 (→‎Good article nomination). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleDrupal has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 10, 2011Good article nomineeListed

Examples

Let's get a few things straight here.....

  • The "Examples" section was wrongly named "High-profile websites built using Drupal" since it's impossible to accurately measure whether they are high-profile or not. If you can suggest a better heading with a good reason, I'm all ears.
  • Next, the manual of style specifies that lists should be sorted alphabetically, not by some arbitrary third party such as compete.com. If you wish to sort by third party data such as page views, include them in the list and keep it updated.
  • Lastly, you should only add notable entries (has article or has ref) and most importantly it should be OBVIOUS that it's built on Drupal, either on the website itself or via the ref. Failure to do so will result in removal.

I hope this clears things up a bit. DO NOT just revert my edits. See WP:BRD and WP:3RR. Thanks.

--Hm2k (talk) 12:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"it's impossible to accurately measure whether they are high-profile or not" Seems like a slightly ridiculous thing to say to me, is it impossible to accurately measure whether the Whitehouse site is high profile? Also not sure why it should be capital letters OBVIOUS that a site is built on Drupal. Most good sites (and this applies to all CMSs) will not advertise the platform they are built on, as it's rarely something that users need to know. This means that pretty much any notable site will not be allowed to be listed. Demonstrably built on Drupal would be a much better test. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.140.88 (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're assuming that the Whitehouse website is high profile, without actually providing any reliable measurement. That's why its not feasible.
  • In order for it to be in Wikipedia it needs to be verifiable. If you're able to verify that it's built on Drupal, it's a good example. They don't need to advertise, it just needs to be verifiable.
  • How does being demonstrably built on Drupal differ from being obvious? Surely demonstrating it's build on Drupal automatically implies it was obvious.
--Hm2k (talk) 12:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The website representing the office of the 'leader of the free world', the most powerful person on the planet. Would this be a high profile website? How about a bit of common sense.
  • Obvious is completely different from demonstrable. As I said, with many, many sites it is not at all obvious which platform they are built on, and yet it can be demonstrated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.95.207 (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense says that just because you think it's important, doesn't mean it is important. If you can demonstrate which platform it's on, I'm sure it would be pretty obvious. --Hm2k (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is what the Wikipedia policies and guidelines are for. Check the dictionary yourself, it states that demonstrably means "in an obvious and provable manner", so yes, demonstrable does indeed imply that it is obvious. --Hm2k (talk) 22:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WordNet is a combination of a dictionary and a thesaurus. Check the entry for 'demonstrably' in WordNet for yourself. You are wrong. --Hm2k (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, look up the definition in a dictionary. The word 'demonstrable' has a different meaning to the word 'obvious'. You still seem unable to grasp that quite basic fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.147.109 (talk) 11:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are different words but "demonstrable does indeed imply that it is obvious" --Hm2k (talk) 21:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's the other way around. Obvious implies demonstrable, demonstrable does not imply obvious. For example, Fermat's Last Theorem is demonstrable (as in it has been demonstrated), but it is by no means obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.241.43 (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are these links to the Wikipedia pages of the organizations whose websites are written in Drupal? Surely if I click on one of the links under the "Examples" header, I expect to be taken to an example of a website authored with Drupal, rather than a wikipedia page for an organization who chose to use Drupal to author their website. Ruke47 (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. I've added external links to the section. Plommespiser (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about usability, so much as being a reference supporting this article. You should follow the reference and read about how drupal is used instead of following the Wikilink or visiting the website. --Hm2k (talk) 07:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Distributions

Should there be a separate entry for each distribution (ex. OpenPublic) or should they be covered within Drupal? While it is exciting to see more emerge, it also warrants thinking about how to scale the Drupal article to accommodate them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizabeth N2 (talk • contribs) 11:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pressflow is not an install profile! It's a performance hack/fork of Drupal core 5 and 6. It also happens to be 100% compatible with Drupal modules, and I would recommend using it over any standard Drupal 6 core. ( Written by a drupal professional, who is too lazy to edit the article himself. )

Inaccurate Usage Statistics

First of all, apologies if I get something in the etiquette for this wrong, I've never posted to a discussion page before so please just let me know if I've gone about something in the wrong way.

The first paragraph states "It is used as a back-end system for at least 1.5% of all websites worldwide[5][6]". There are two references given. The first [5], is: http://trends.builtwith.com/cms/Drupal

Looking at this, the stats only show usage statistics for the top 10k, 100k and one million websites. The 1.5% stat was obviously taken from one of these, although the quoted sentence doesn't state which. It is obviously not the top one million as that is currently only at 1.31%. The others are both over 1.5%, so obviously the stat is also old.

After the graph on that page, it states "We know of 279,440 sites using Drupal". Looking at the BuiltWith FAQ (http://trends.builtwith.com/faq.aspx), we find the following: "We've indexed about 90 million distinct websites". Putting these two figures together, we find that (279,440 / 90,000,000) x 100 = 0.31. That is, Drupal is used "for at least" 0.3% "of all websites" indexed by BuiltWith and 1.31% of the top one million.

The second reference [6] is: http://w3techs.com/technologies/overview/content_management/all

This one does use a figure of 1.5%, so perhaps that is where the article ultimately got its figure from. However, looking at their FAQ (http://w3techs.com/faq), they only look at the top one million sites "For the surveys, we count the top 1 million websites according to Alexa". Obviously the top million sites is in no way "all websites worldwide", so this statement just becomes really inaccurate.

I would suggest changing the statement to something similar to one of these options:

1. "It is used as a back-end system for more than 270,000 websites[5]"

2. "It is used as a back-end system for approximately 0.3% of websites worldwide[5]"

3. "It is used as a back-end system for approximately 1.5% of the one million most popular websites[6]"

My preference is for #1, as it is demonstrably accurate - that is, that number of websites has been tested and found to be using Drupal. As soon as you get into percentages (#2 and #3), you have to start considering how many websites have been indexed, how many websites exist in total and whether or not it is accurate to use a percentage of indexed websites as an assumed percentage for all websites.

That said, some people tend to find percentages more useful, in which case #2 would be significantly more accurate than the current statement.

I think that #3 is problematic as there is no good reason to believe that readers only care about popular websites. Additionally, the article immediately continues with "ranging from personal blogs to...", which implies that it is used for non-popular websites (most personal blogs aren't all that popular), so a statistic based on popular websites isn't really a particularly useful statistic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Belac (talk • contribs) 02:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am Sam Soltano, webmster at W3Techs. Obviously I am biased in my opinion which reference is most appropriate, so I cannot participate in any voting. I will try to contribute by providing some thoughts: Any attempts to include "all" websites in a usage statistic is problematic for several reasons. First, there are many millions of websites of little value: link farms, inactive sites, parked domains, etc. One of the reasons why the Netcraft server statistics sometimes fluctuate wildly is because somewhere, someone registers thousands of domains, all with identical nonsense content, which disappear a few months later. If these sites happen to use some CMS, that doesn't tell us much about the popularity of that system. Second, to know some number "of all websites indexed by BuiltWith" is of little value without knowing how a website qualifies to be indexed by BuiltWith. Third, it's even not clear what a "website" is. Are all the *.wordpress.com sites separate websites, or just subdomains of the same site? These are the main reasons why we, at W3Techs, use only percentages, and why we ue a clear and independent criterion how we select an appropriate sample of sites. You made a valid point by stating that the top million sites are not necessarily representative for all the web, but I would argue that this is more representative and certainly more useful than including millions of link farms and parked domins. SamSoltano (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the Security section, it says: "When compared to three other well-known open source CMS platforms covered by the MITRE CVE database, Drupal ranked second - after Plone but before WordPress and Joomla." What does this mean? Does this mean Drupal is the second most secure by this ranking, or the second least secure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.74.243 (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drupal 7

The section on Drupal 7 and 6 needs cleanup. It's generally mish-mashed, but it also bears asking: with D7 released, do we still need to put the release date history on here? --JonaLeon (talk) 08:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No response, going to take that as a thumbs up and condense the timeline. --JonaLeon (talk) 07:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination

I don't know enough about this sort of software to review the article. However I believe the lead section should give a description of what this software is for in terms that a person who has never installed, selected, or managed this kind of software would understand. It should not rely on links to other articles to describe the basic purpose of the software. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Drupal/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Waterfox ~talk~ 21:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Status:  Pass. — Waterfox ~talk~ 22:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be revewing the article in the next few days. — Waterfox ~talk~ 21:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
     Pass

Microsoft

The following statement in abstraction doesn't fit or provide any useful information.
Microsoft has written a database driver for SQL Server.[33]
So?? SQL server is a microsoft technology. SQL is a form of abstraction. So what if microsoft supports it. They have done so for 20 years or so. Perhaps some info on abstraction would be useful.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Drupal&oldid=448028286"