Talk:Movable Type

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Am I the only one who thinks that there should be a redirect at MovableType/Movabletype to point to this article? Took me about four tries to figure out how to get to this Wikipedia article, and it seems as though people use ``MovableType and ``Movable Type almost interchangeably. Applegoddess 01:44, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Inclusion of ChicagoNow Assertion of the Benefits of WordPress[edit]

It's hard to believe that the only review of Movable Type referenced is a post on the staff blog where they tout the benefits of WordPress for their application after they replaced Movable Type. Aren't these the opinions of the editors of the ChicagoNow website, not a review of the Movable Type Content Management System? DaveAiello (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)Dave Aiello

Feel free to do the redirects yourself in the future if you notice they need to be done. Be bold.  :-) I put the redirects in for you and other people. --ABQCat 02:55, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I changed some of the redirects to make it better to find. T2X 05:10, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Clearly someone has added this text as nothing more than an advert to divert people interested in Moveable Type to WordPress — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Cosmicnet (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Link to MT Wiki[edit]

I feel somewhat dumb for proposing this, but should the MT Wiki link be kept in? It's unsearchable and locked to editing, quite castrated if you ask me. If even states in red lettering, "THANKS TO EVIL PEOPLE, SEARCH HAS BEEN DISABLED AND PAGES ARE NO LONGER EDITABLE - NOT MUCH FUN HUH?" It just feels wrong to see it linked, in a sort of ethical way. Having Wikipedia link to a locked and unsearchable "wiki" seems like an altar boy giving directions to a kitten-stomper's house... T2X 05:10, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

The links to the Wiki now redirect to a larger, better maintained wiki on Github. DaveAiello (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)Dave Aiello

Changes made to change the article from what was a piece of corporate propoganda to a more balanced, reflective view. Wikipedia should not be used for corporate propoganda.

Edit summary[edit]

Just a summary of my edits, since I made enough that it was hard to include them all in the "Edit summary" text input:

  • corrected the capitalization of TrackBack;
  • added the info about TrackBack originating with MT;
  • clarified sentence about licensing;
  • removed line about methods by which development is supported, as Six Apart likely has internal methods of directing funds to support MT (or TypePad or LiveJournal) to which none of us plebes outside the company are privy;
  • cleaned up TypePad/LiveJournal para (while TypePad was certainly derived from the same codebase as Movable Type, I'm unclear whether it still runs on the same software).

That's it. Jason 02:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

History Section[edit]

Somehow I don't think that Movable_Type#History ought to contain the chronology for all the versions MT has put out. Certainly other products in WP do not contain this information and I make a motion to remove that information. --Paul Laudanski 02:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Why remove it? It could be very useful to someone looking for "What version of MT did this? When did it start? When did they stop offering unlimited weblogs? When did they start again?" Keep. Danlovejoy 02:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
What other products are like that here at WP? That information should be found at and not here IMHO. --Paul Laudanski 03:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't make it a habit to look at other Wikipedia pages about software, but it seems like a very brief version history is a perfectly reasonable thing to include, and probably should be included for most software. I doubt 6A's web site contains an NPOV and concise version history like this one. The info is perfectly cromulent, IMO. Seems to me, if we're going to start deleting content, there are about a zillion better (worse?) candidates. Danlovejoy 04:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
This section is a changelog and nothing more. That can be read in the MT distribution file. --Paul Laudanski 04:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Matter of fact, if you really want something like that in there, remove the entire history section and link to SixApart's changelog directly which has more details than what is in the article here: [1]. So yes, SixApart has that data to the T. Again WP is not a changelog repository. --Paul Laudanski 05:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
What do you have against MT? For the record, I haven't used MT in years and don't give a fig about it. Take a look at my blog and you'll see we're running ExpressionEngine. The only connections I have with 6A are that I occasionally comment on Joi Ito's blog, and I have a consistent disdain for LiveJournal.
The version history in this article is extremely concise and helpful. The MT Changelog is exhaustive - WAY too much just to glance at. For example:

Added DBUmask, HTMLUmask, DirUmask, and UploadUmask settings for the mt.cfg file. These are to be used to adjust permissions set on files and directories created by MT. Removed manual chmod calls. (Aaron Straup Cope)

It's FILLED with pages and pages of that technical crap - completely different from what's in the Wikipedia. So, no, I'm not going to agree to delete this information - if you continue to disagree, you should wait until some more people comment. Danlovejoy 15:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
You are mistaken... WP is not something that caters to what we like or dislike, it is an encyclopedia and not a link farm, nor a changelog. I love MT and have been using it for about a year. I just upgraded to 3.2 and think its "da bomb". As for waiting for others, I'll put in a request for comment. That information is still a changelog and IMHO should not be in the page (regardless of the fact that I enjoy MT and use it daily). Simple matter of the fact is 6A has the changelog on there site which contains everything in its entirety. The changelog that exists here is not impartial as it picks whatever it likes to show the reader. A true NPOV is at the 6A link I have in my replies above. --Paul Laudanski 17:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
I have entered an RfC here so we can obtain a consensus. --Paul Laudanski 17:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe I implied that WP should cater to our likes and dislikes. I'm just making clear that I have no vested interest either way and wanted to find out if you were simply a disinterested observer. Danlovejoy 18:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Not at all Danlovejoy... I'm not about to link to my MT blogs, but a simple google query and you'll find them. My beliefs stand as they do above. In fact, I recommend MT to my friends and colleagues. --Paul Laudanski 19:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
So does that mean we have a consensus and the data can be removed and replaced with a link to the changelog at 6A? --Paul Laudanski 04:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Wow, Paul -- it's been all of 10 1/2 hours since the RFC was posted, and you want to declare a consensus? Jason t c 13:52, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
I called the RfC because there was a draw between two folks. With the latest reply by one of them, it seemed that between the two there was no longer a draw. Ergo my last reply. However, this is WP and like life things are always in constant flux. So I'm glad you're here to discuss this.--Paul Laudanski 23:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Not to be difficult, Paul, but allow me to be difficult for a moment. Just because I hadn't replied in 10 hours, you were ready to declare a consensus with no other input? A consensus of whom? Yourself? That's not very hard to attain, I shouldn't think. Danlovejoy 04:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Judge jury and executioner? That job is best left to Dredd. --Paul Laudanski 15:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of keeping the section, but paring it down to major releases and addition of functionality. (For example, there's absolutely no reason why 12/13/01 or 1/11/02 should exist, and the minor minor releases like 2.65 and 3.17 seem to be a bit of a stretch for inclusion, as well.) Jason t c 13:56, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

As of 15:29, September 7, 2005 (UTC), the only entry which is obviously extraneous is that for version 2.65 (Various small bugfixes). All the others seem to record a reasonably significant change in either functionality or licensing. I've been bold: try that now, it should be a little clearer. —Phil | Talk 15:29, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
I can agree that at the very least the minor parts can be removed while leaving behind the notable release versions. Question is, what is to be concerned notable? I'll check your proposal on the article's page. --Paul Laudanski 23:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
I think removing removing 2.65 is sufficient. Danlovejoy 04:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Saw the request for comment. After reviewing the content, I would argue that the section on release history should be removed from this article. It's detail appropriate for a user-manual but not really for a general purpose encyclopedia article. However, I think it would fit well at Wikibooks and recommend transwiking it there. That would provide a workable compromise allowing users to write to the level of detail they want and synopsize the official changelog. There is no problem with providing a link from this article to the Wikibook. By the way, the argument (made in passing above) that we have other articles in poor shape and with equally inappropriate content is never a reason to extend the mistake. Rossami (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Free hosting[edit]

Hi- I'm using blogspot right now, but I really wish I had categories. Does anyone know of a free MT hoster, or another free blog hosting service that allows for categories? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:21, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Ummmm -- this might be better asked over at the Movable Type forums, dontcha think? Wikipedia isn't really a chat forum about MT... Jason t c 19:12, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
True, I'll try there. I originally thought I'd check out the article because I figured if one existed it would be linked from the article in some way. Thanks, --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:00, September 12, 2005 (UTC)


I removed the content below. It is not encyclopedic. It's just a changelog. Quarl (talk) 2006-01-12 21:01Z

  • Quarl, did you notice the discussion above about this very thing? Why not participate in the discussion, rather than singlehandedly deleting the content? Jason t c 05:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I apologize for editing before getting consensus. The only reasons I see above for keeping are 1) "the changelog is useful because the full changelog is too long" and 2) "what do you have against MovableType". We cannot keep all information because it is useful to some people; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The abbreviated changelog belongs on FreshMeat or similar. I myself certainly did not find it useful to be here. (2) is not relevant. I think it is pretty standard that more than a sentence about version history is too much unless there is something specific that made it notable (think about what the Linux article would look like otherwise). Does anyone think this changelog is encyclopedic? Quarl (talk) 2006-01-15 08:56Z
  • It is source text, and also trivia. Doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Radiant_>|< 10:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


"Movable Type is free of charge for person blogs with unlimited authors and blogs; paid support and commercial licenses, which allow more authors and weblogs on a single installation of the software, are also available."

In English this sentence means...what...? Cool! An article about a communication tool that is poorly communicated. Wikiquality strikes again!

I was going to post the same thing. 15:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

In the future how about fix the statement instead of wasting time on the talk page. --Jerm (Talk/ Contrib) 17:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Open Source[edit]

It's open source software now: [2] I added to intro, feel free to do some formatting on my half-assed citation style. (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

PC World reference[edit]

There's a ref to a PC World article by Mike Heck tied to the mention of version 3.0's release. It's not clear to me what this ref is supposed to be supporting; the sentence it's tied to talks about version 3.0 and new license restrictions, but neither topic appears in the linked article. Does this belong elsewhere? Is it a leftover from a previous revision? Should it be deleted? // Macwhiz (talk) 01:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I found several references that were more relevant and added them. Removed PC World reference and updated the MT reference to an archived version of the URL. Removed the citation needed template. Lostraven (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Copy edit[edit]

Performed the requested copy edit. I didn't find much in the way of spelling and grammar issues. Mostly, I updated reference links to bring them up to snuff with the MOS. // Macwhiz (talk) 01:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Movable Type. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Movable Type. 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:

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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) 05:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)