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

Didn't understand shit[edit]

I looked up WordPress to check what it was all about. Read the first paragraph and my mind went blank! Guys, guys: write for the common man, people like me. IT personnel don't need this enciclopedia entry. We do.

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Wordpress v5.0, Gutenberg and ClassicPress[edit]

Should there be a section on major version change and introduction of the Gutenberg editor (which had poor reviews when introduced as a plugin) that has resulted in a branch of WordPress being developed called "ClassicPress"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidyutblogger (talkcontribs) 01:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

WordPress Premium Plugins[edit]

Hi. The 75 SW plugin list of [ and the less detailed ones of [1] and [2] seem to be a reliable source for the WP article. No one of them details clearly waht is free, Premium or "freemium".

Moreover, Google XML Sitemaps, which is one of the most used, seems to be available only for Premium users. It can be freely downloaded, but only Premium users have a Plugins or Users Setting option in order to import and integrate the SW into their Wordpress account and domain. Probably this needs a reliable source to be cited in the article.Micheledisaveriosp (talk) 21:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing for premium plugin numbers[edit]

A couple of times since it was published yesterday, editors have attempted to use this post as a citation for the claim that WordPress has approximately 15,000 premium plugins. Problem is, none of the numbers in that post add up, even internally. It cannot be considered a reliable source. Some of the problems:

  • They admit that "The exact number of premium WordPress plugins is impossible to get", then proceed to make up a number
  • The sites they actually list, with counts, are claimed to have: 7,100, 81, 84, 300, 100, 50 plugins (some qualified vaguely with "over").
  • The previous counts only add up to 7,715, barely half the claimed 15,000
  • No effort is made to determine which of the counted plugins may be cross-listed on multiple sites, meaning they've been counted more than once and should be removed (further reducing the 7,715 number)
  • No effort is made to determine which of the supposed 7,100 plugins listed at CodeCanyon are duplicated, for example bundles of plugins which are also listed individually (reducing the site's 7,100 count, and thus the 7,715 total)
  • Their final conclusion is that 55,000 public plugins + 8,000 unlisted plugins + 7,715 (inflated) premium plugins = "over 80,000" plugins

There's no citation for the article's current "1,500+" claim either, and frankly I'm tempted to remove that from the article entirely. But if it's going to be replaced, it needs to be replaced with something more verifiable than an anonymous claim in some blog post, using numbers that don't even come close to checking out. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 09:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I vote for removing the number totally. Unverifiable claim and even if done so, it would be outdated pretty fast. robertsky (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
@Robertsky: I'm with you on that.
(Also, corrections: My link above is a 404, not sure if it changed or if I just screwed it up originally. But the article is reachable as And I originally characterized it as "anonymous", which is not true. The author's name (Stefan Pejcic) is listed in tiny text under the title, which is superimposed over a busy image. It's like it wants to be missed.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 00:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)