Talk:PhpBB
|
|
| Contents |
Olympus features
The features listed are the expected by the users or are been confirmed?
- I believe the majority of the listed features have already been implemented. Be sure to check out [1] (http://area51.phpbb.com/phpBB/) and [2] (http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/phpbb/phpBB2/). GPHemsley→◊ 02:52, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
List of other forum software
Is is appropriate to list other internet forum software in this article? The Internet forum article would seem to cover that already. -- Stevietheman 22:41, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
- I don't think it is necessary to list other forum software. This article is about phpBB, and the description of Internet forum links to the generic article about forum software. That is where the list is and should stay. GPHemsley 02:05, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
Quit it...
It's optimise, not optimize. Pit will have a fit if you change it again...
- Wikipedia uses both British and American English spelling. Policy is to use whichever is used first in the article (ie that of the article creator). --Rory ☺ 13:23, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)
- Alright, forget it.... I plan on rewriting the "Future" section anyway. After that, we'll be using American English spelling throughout the entire article. I'm sure Pit knows and will follow the rules. GPHemsley 13:58, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Pit will be perfectly happy to rewrite the entire damn article as an excuse to spell it right, thanks.
- And as mentioned policy is to use author's version of english for spelling; I am the author and my version of english is en_GB :) Pti
Should we mention the security holes?
Today (December 12, 2004) theres been a pretty big and widespread attack on those still running old 2.0 versions, mainly 2.06 and 2.08. Is it worth mentioning this, as it has taken huge amounts of sites offline. Kiand 08:43, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I haven't really seen many other articles announce things like that. It's like talking about a larger scale phishing attack in the Internet Explorer or Firefox articles. Then again, maybe it should be here. I'm mainly editing this to remove the double heading :P. -[Unknown] 09:57, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Perhaps just a link to an article on Santy would be more appropriate.
- I don't think that it should be listed as the way it was. You don't see the microsoft article full of links to secuirty holes, and I don't expect it to be on this article. I've edited it as that, and that is my explination.
- Restored. How can there be security holes in Microsoft? It's a software company. The Internet Explorer page discusses IE security holes; the Mozilla Firefox discusses problems with Firefox. The Santy article was fine - that's another issue. As long as the page on Santy is valid, so is a link from phpBB. Khlo 19:35, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The IE page actually doesn't list secuirty holes. The only section I see that comes close to that is the 'Other concerns and problems' section, which only indicates problematic items, much like saying phpBB can be vunerable to people spamming it with robots. It's a general observation. The Santy link is more of an attack on the article, I don't see how it can be a 'see also'. On the IE page (to use your example again), you don't see a list of all the spyware IE can get, you don't see a list of viruses that spread over IE, and you don't have a list of secuity holes that IE has, so why should the phpBB page have such items? If you want to have the santy link there, then it needs explaining, else as far as I see it, its a bogous link that shouldn't be on this page.
- While it is granted there are more spyware apps out there than pages for them, you only need to look towards Spyware: Known Spyware to see that many of them have a page here. Even if you still think its relevent, then my last line still stands, which is it needs explaining. A random link to a page under see also that doesn't seem to relate to the page shouldn't be there IMO.
Template system: "easy to use"?
It can be objectively verified that phpBB 2.0's templating system is easy to use. It requires no coding knowledge and seperates the logic from the formatting in a more complete way than other systems, as a templating system by definition should. It has an extremely simple syntax (There are two concepts: variables and looping blocks. Variables are {namedlikeso}, blocks have a < !-- BEGIN blockname -- > and an < !-- END blockname -- >, and their variables are {blockname.namedlikeso}). If you have objective evidence that suggests the phpBB templating system is not easy to use, I would like to see it. If you do not, please stop removing things that are only 'opinion' in your own opinion.
- Evidence: My grandma would go nuts if you told her that was "easy". POV. Come on, it's like me saying it's "great" or "easy" or "fun"... all POV words. -[Unknown] 04:44, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
- But, if you *MUST* you might say "simple to use". That's a lot less POVy :P. -[Unknown] 04:45, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
- The context is obvious ;) If we are talking about your grandma, we must also remove the rapid customisation (can't type too fast, I expect). And perhaps the statement about it being popular; sure, it is one of the top projects on sourceforge, but your grandma won't like it ;) Was the first release fully functional? No, it didn't have a feature for playing bridge! Is the support free? No, young man, don't you know there's no such thing as a free lunch?!
- Obviously you have no experience with the "grandma argument". Please read the article on NPOV. This is not about context, this is about opinion. you may consider it easy to use, but others may not. In comparison, YaBB's template system is much easier to use. But that's still an opinion. Here's a good example of an NPOV edit for you. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LiveJournal&diff=0&oldid=8796091) -[Unknown] 12:32, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
- The grandma argument is always about context; the context being "everyone in the whole world", when the grandma argument applies. The context applicable to this is "people proficient in the use of a computer". Thankyou for bringing the extremely POV YaBB article to my attention, however.
- Obviously you have no experience with the "grandma argument". Please read the article on NPOV. This is not about context, this is about opinion. you may consider it easy to use, but others may not. In comparison, YaBB's template system is much easier to use. But that's still an opinion. Here's a good example of an NPOV edit for you. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LiveJournal&diff=0&oldid=8796091) -[Unknown] 12:32, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
- It's a POV. To state as fact it is easy to use is clearly not NPOV. I've tried to make the article more NPOV. It reflects the views of some phpBB advocates but doesn't present it as fact. The easy to use and rapid customization is listed as what the template system is supposed to be. If you have any problems of that, continue the discussion here. Khlo 19:37, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- This compromise is acceptable to me. I dispute your other edits.
- I have removed the statement about it may be the most i18n bbs. How do you fine something as internationalized? IPB has at least 33 language packs, with many different versions and languages over many sites. Yet IPB has possibly 1 if you only consider the official site. There is no way to check these figures are correct, it is a presumption. Additionally, it does not sound very NPOV and sounds more like advertising than encyclopaedic material. The aim is not to sell phpBB but to inform the end user about phpBB. I use phpBB myself and like it; regardless, there is still no way to verify these statistics. As an aside, I personally do not think there should be a comma after "with modification" but I shall leave that as it is disputed. Khlo 15:42, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Translations available means what it sounds like; the number of locales available for the software, by any means. The figures can be checked on the sourceforge download page, where there are now 55 locales available. I have checked the number of language packs available for IPB, Phorum, vBulletin and SMF; none of these have 55 or more locales available. I am readding it, and when something is disputed I do not believe you should take action before it has been settled on the talk page. Pti
- I have removed the statement about it may be the most i18n bbs. How do you fine something as internationalized? IPB has at least 33 language packs, with many different versions and languages over many sites. Yet IPB has possibly 1 if you only consider the official site. There is no way to check these figures are correct, it is a presumption. Additionally, it does not sound very NPOV and sounds more like advertising than encyclopaedic material. The aim is not to sell phpBB but to inform the end user about phpBB. I use phpBB myself and like it; regardless, there is still no way to verify these statistics. As an aside, I personally do not think there should be a comma after "with modification" but I shall leave that as it is disputed. Khlo 15:42, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- This compromise is acceptable to me. I dispute your other edits.
Teams page 'incomplete'
It seems a bit odd that it has been marked as 'incomplete'. Its not supposed to be complete in the sense that it lists only those who were on the team up to a point. Also, one must consider that a few of the older team members who left just disappeared, and have had no further contact with the rest of the team. AFAICS, its POV to say its 'incomplete', thus I'm removing it for that reason. I would be intrested for further discussion over this by the person who edited it though, as their reason might hold. NeoThermic 19:51, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I have removed the "incomplete" text once again. As per NeoThermic, as it is now _is_ "complete." It's the way it's supposed to be. Some "previous" team members are not on the contributers list for a reason, once again, as it should be. If someone is going to add it back, please, please, add your comments here and we can discuss it rationally before deciding on a final solution. AdamR 20:09, 20 April 2005 (UTC)
Removal of 'phpBB book' link
Hello 217.207.125.60, I've removed the link to the 'phpBB Book (http://www.packtpub.com/book/phpbb)' because it is unoffical. If you feel the need to have this link there, please state your reasons here. Thanks, NeoThermic 04:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Reason for reverting page
The page was reverted from the last set of edits done by Talrias for the following reasons:
- 1) Wikipedia is international. The wikicities link, although in Dutch, is still a valid link.
- 2) phpBBhacks.com is not an offical site of phpBB and thus should not be linked from its article.
- 3) The links in the 'Links' section are chosen for information, not to link spam. Thus it is kindly appreciated if they were left alone.
If you have any comments on my reasons, please add them here before mindlessly editing out things you see as not fit for the article.
NeoThermic 22:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Answer to 1 - this is the ENGLISH wikipedia. Put the link to Wikicites on the nl: wikipedia; I'm taking it out. --Kiand 22:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Hiya NeoThermic, as mentioned above by Kiand, I removed the Dutch Wikicities link as this is the English Wikipedia, and the Wikicities site is in Dutch. I also did not add the phpBBhacks.com link, it was added by 69.24.171.136 (talk • contribs). Bear in mind that links to "non-official" websites are not prohibited (I have no opinion on whether it should be included or not, just your rationale for removing it is invalid). With regards to your third point, each of these links is clearly accessible and linked to from phpbb.com's front page, and if not it's a second click away. Since phpbb.com's website is clearly-designed, having excessive links is not really necessary. I left what I thought were the key ones (the main site, the support part, the test development site and the page on Sourceforge), and removed the others. While a map of the phpBB team's locations is interesting, it's not a useful follow-on link from an encyclopedia, for example.
- Take a look at the manual of style concerning external links, where it says "Wikipedia is not a link collection [...]". The external links section of phpBB was a significant percentage of the article, before my edits. I have restored my edits as I believe that the multitude of external links, all to the same website, where they are all 1 (in most cases) or 2 clicks away, is not that useful.
- Also, please do not claim other editors are "mindlessly editing". Please assume good faith. Cheers, Talrias (t | e | c) 00:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I never said that you added the phpBBhacks.com link, my wording was slightly unclear over that. However, this link has been removed before (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PhpBB&diff=6862281&oldid=6696857 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PhpBB&diff=4255713&oldid=4254423 as examples). You also link to the assume good faith, yet you were rather hasty on reverting my reverting without continuing the discussion, which I feel is of bad faith. Now, if someone is considering using phpBB, what happens if they want to just have a gander at what styles or modifications phpBB has? A link on the wiki page directly to the styles/mods database can be a usefull thing for those wanting to look.
- The dutch wikicities link I was wrong on apprently, and for that I am sorry. NeoThermic
- It's not a problem - I am sorry I reverted. With regards to the phpBBhacks.com link removal precedent, I do note that the people removing it are phpBB team members saying "no unofficial external links" so again I don't really feel that you have valid reasoning for removing it. I'm not going to put it back if you remove it, since I haven't visited the site to see what it's like, but I disagree with the logic that it should not be there because it is an 'unofficial' link. For the styles/mods, it is clearly and prominently linked to from www.phpbb.com. I just don't think it's necessary to add all these links in. phpBB.com has a nice site, the different website sections are prominent, and if links to every section are added the links section will be the same size as rest of the article. I would not like to see that happening. Talrias (t | e | c) 08:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)