Talk:PhpBB

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] and [2]. 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.

phpBB is led by British teams, which makes a case for en_GB. [ alerante | “” 23:30, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC) ]

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.

The difference is that most of the mal- and spyware don't have their own articles. Santy does, and therefore it deserves a mention here. [ alerante | “” 01:01, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC) ]

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.

Stream of conciousness..Arguments for adding a Santy reference:

* It's a worm that is often referred to in relation to phpBB, so obviously many consider it to be relevant knowledge. Wikipedia's goal is to aggegrate knowledge, and since Santy is so obviously related to phpBB and is a definite and non-trivial part of its history it deserves a mention.

* Removing the Santy link from this entry effectively makes Santy an orphan. If it's not linked here, maybe at least make a category with phpBB related entries or something of the sort?

* Just like it deserves a mention in the Internet Explorer entry that many users perceive IE as unsafe because of spyware, Santy deserves a mention here. You have to present the _entire_ picture.

* By removing the Santy link the Santy article is effectively orphaned

* If you have so many paragraphs talking about the phpBB features, is including one paragraph about past problems with phpBB not fair?

Disclaimer: I've got a long history of being critical of phpBB and some people may remember that. Frank Quist

Mentioning Santy shouldn't be a problem, but alluding to all the "security holes" would be unfair unless it was also qualified with several facts, such as the fact that over the time phpBB 2.0.x has been released, it has averaged less security updates than either IPB or vBull, and that any security problems are magnified due to the fact that phpBB is used on a much higher scale, often by much less qualified administrators, because of its price and ease of use. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 16:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Seems quite fair. Only thing I'd say is that less security updates does not necessarrily imply less security holes. I am not saying that this is the cause of the lack of security updates for phpBB, it might very well be more secure (I cannot say). It just isn't neccessarily a causal relation. It's probably hard to qualify these things in the article. Frank Quist 17:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

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. -[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.

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

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' 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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=PhpBB&diff=6862281&oldid=6696857 and http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/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)

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"

Actually excluding when I removed the link, no phpBB team member has done so. GPHemsley has never been a phpBB team member, and 80.4.224.4 isn't an IP of a phpBB team member. NeoThermic 10:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Regardless, removing the link because it is unofficial is not a valid reason. Talrias (t | e | c) 10:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I note plenty of pages (Ford, Microsoft) link to "non-official" sites related to them, so I've added phpbbhacks.com back in. It is also widely considered the largest non-official phpBB related mod community and I see no reason why articles should be limited to "official" links. Wikipedia is NOT an advertising medium for only "officially sanctioned" material. 203.173.59.111 09:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

First, please always sign your commens using four tides (~~~~). Secondly, you must remember NPOV. Saying that phpbbhacks.com is considerd the largest non-offical phpBB related mod community is pure POV. Thirdly, Wikipedia is NOT for advertising something with an invested commercial interest, which phpbbhacks.com has. NeoThermic 08:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

If you refute that phpbbhacks isn't the largest non-official phpBB modding community, please point out a larger one. Given that's not your reason for removing the link completely though, I'd like to know what phpbbhacks.com invested commercial interest is and why that's a problem. So far, this is the first time I've seen it mentioned as a reason for the link's lack of inclusion.

I believe you're referring to point 1 in "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files" re: WP:NOT (in your edit comment). Given phpBB is open source and (to my knowledge) encourages mods and editing, why would the mention of a very well-known site related to that, not be acceptable in the external links section? 203.173.59.111 09:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to point out a larger non-official phpBB modding community; that is not the way NPOV works. Just because something can't be disproved, doesn't mean its true, and definatly donesn't mean that its of a NPOV.

Of course phpBB encourages modding and editing, which is why all modifications on phpBB.com are validated, something that isn't done on phpbbhacks, and the last thing anyone wants in an article is a link to a site which can contain insecure modifications. On top of that, many people from the MOD Team at phpBB.com have submitted modifications to phpbbhacks.com only to have them edited without reason or warning before being published. Finally phpbbhacks.com isn't properly updated as one would hope. It took them a week from the release of 2.0.18 to notice and announce 2.0.18 on their site. Such a delay isn't acceptable in general standerds, why should such a site be linked from the wikipeida article?

You can also go one stage further. Fan sites of any measure normally link back to the site of which they support. Visit the phpbbhacks.com homepage. Your challenge is to find a link that points back to phpBB.com (I'll give you a hint, there's none). This is a site that is designed to take away all attention from phpBB.com, right down to re-posting any important announcements that phpBB makes into its own forum. If you didn't know phpBB.com was the offical site, it would be impossible to find that out from phpbbhacks.com

The invested commericial intrest at phpbbhacks is from its advertisments; it is also receiving direct pay from the pakt book about phpBB, of which phpBB.com wasn't involved in. Finally it hosts sites, of which it does for money. If that isn't a clear commerical intrest, then I don't know what is...

There are better sites to link to if we must insist on a third party link. While they may not be as large as you seem to think phpbbhacks.com is, they are frequently updated, actually bother about the content of which they have on their site and actually show that they support phpBB (by links back to it in various formats)

I can provide various proofs of the above claims if you so wish, but the point remains that phpbbhacks.com isn't a site that anyone would like to see linked on phpBB's wiki page. NeoThermic 10:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I just checked the phpbbhacks.com website. Their latest announcement which is linked to from their main page, apologises for the delay in posting AND links back to phpbb.com. In fact, each news post taken from phpbb.com includes an acknowledgement of phpbb.com via a link back. There doesn't appear to be any malicious intent to harm phpbb in that regard or take away from phpBB itself.

I'd also think you'd have to be fairly daft not to realise that phpbbhacks aren't the creators of phpbb. They make no such claim. Sure, they certainly don't go out of there way to link back to phpbb but what's the need to? One would expect that in order to find phpbb "hacks" one would know about phpBB in the first instance. Phpbbhacks are focussed on hacks for phpbb - not for supporting the core phpbb product. In fact the disclaimer at the bototm of their page states "We are in no way affiliated with the phpBB Group. phpBB is copyright to the phpBB Group". If phpBB want more links to them from the site, that is an issue between phpBB and phpbbhacks - not WikiPedia and whether or not the site should be mentioned in an article on phpBB.

Regarding the security of hacks, are you guaranteeing that all mods validated by phpBB are completely secure and contain absolutely no code vulnerabilities? If you are, I'd question your ability to provide such a guarantee and would even go so far as to call it misleading and possibly deceptive.

I'll accept that calling them the largest is a point of view (despite them being a large site and having more phpBB hacks than I can find anywhere else). However, that does not take away that the site does offer a large number of hacks and is well-known by people who use phpBB as a great source for hacks - and support for those hacks.

True, they're obviously making money out of it but that doesn't take away the fact that they are still a good resource for phpBB hacks and that all those hacks are downloadable for free. I don't see the harm in that. Not every web-site is offered (or can arrange) free hosting like (as I understand it) phpBB itself is. One would expect an awful lot of downloads to suck some pretty bad bandwidth - something which has to be paid for. Unless of course, you have access to their financial records and are willing to prove that someone is "lining their pockets" with millions of dollars and that phpbbhacks is nothing more than a sham. Even so, are all commercial enterprises to be disallowed links in WikiPedia then?

As for the book, I see it as no different then those "for dummies" books making money off of other people's products. After all, if phpBB wanted to write a book, they could've done so. I don't understand why phpBB are against something which promotes their product. Is it only because they're not getting money out of it themselves? If that's the case, they shouldn't be making software licensed under the GNU which clearly allows for that.

Regardless of whether they're making money out of it to support their bandwidth costs, or whether they don't link to phpBB enough, the fact still remains that they offer a large active community that supports hacked phpBB boards. More to the point, they offer mods and support for those mods that often, phpBB does not provide support for itself. Again, they are a well known link and while the developers of phpBB may not like it, users of phpBB who need the hacks provided are thankful for them and the support, and would like to see that reflected in the article here. 203.173.59.111 11:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

phpBB's hosting isn't free, it gets paied for like any other site normally has to do.

As for phpbbhack's delay, there is no excuse for putting users at risk. If you support a product by means of a fan page, it is part of your duty to keep it updated when your product you support is updated. A day late, sure, thats a mistake, but a week is 7 mistakes too many.

As for what validation will gaurentee: First, it gives approval that the code for the modification will work in the version of phpBB of which its validated against (normally this will always be the latest avalable at the time of validation). It also means that the secuirty of the mod is checked. While not everyone is perfect, validation on phpBB.com is done by two people, and things can and will get spotted. Hell, the phpBB group have gone out of their way to help mod authors secure their code in terms of alerting them to secuirty issues in code that isn't even submitted to the database yet. The phpBB group will also pull any mods that have secuirty holes found. I do not see any evidence of validation taking place on phpbbhacks.com

As for the reasons why the phpBB group are in some ways against the book is because they were not consulted over the book. Hell, rather than ask the phpBB founder to forward the book, they asked the founder of phpbbhacks.com to do so. For a book that wants to be a resource for phpBB, thats a rather large slap in the face.

phpBB.com has support for modifications. To say otherwise is severly deluded. The team members of phpBB.com may not give support for mods that are not their own, but that should strike you as obvious in the sense that they can't support code that they don't know enough about. Thus mod support is done by the mod author(s) and others who like to give support for modifications they use.

There are other reasons why, such as blatent abuse of copyright 1 (in this example, offering files which are under a no-redistribution license (the PSD files are not GPL)). Also, their mod template 2 states: This hack is released under the GPL License. but on the next line states: This hack can be freely used, but not distributed, without permission. As you're well aware, any work released under the GPL doesn't have limits on distribution. This is illegal. There is no excuse for it.

A article on, say, bittorrent technology isn't going to be allowed to link to a site that offers illegal downloads, so why should this page be any diffrent? NeoThermic 12:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Your statement regarding BitTorrent linking to warez sites is funny. I just ran a search for Civilization IV on several of the site's linked from the BitTorrent article. Surprisingly, I got results: "Civilization.IV-CLONECD", "Civilization IV [PC - DVD]". One site The Pirate Bay which I found links to seemingly illegal software on, also has a wiki article. :P

While I don't support warez, to make the claim that phpbbhacks.com is full of illegal files I think is going too far. Regarding your example of a "blatant abuse" of copyright in the one file you linked, those files are apparently "Re-creations of the original image files" (IE: not the original image files themselves). The license.txt file that comes with the package states "You may not re-distribute this package in any way, shape or form without prior agreement from phpBB Group (this includes linking directly to the package on this site)." - Are you saying they didn't get permission to re-distribute these files? Why though, is that an issue for WikiPedia? It is an issue between the phpBB Group and phpbbhacks.com and again, doesn't take away from the reality that phpbbhacks.com is a well-known and popular site for phpBB modifications.

The concerns regarding security are flawed. To suggest a site doesn't deserve a link because for some reason, the site was "too slow" in announcing a security update, is absurd. One could equally argue that we should remove all links to phpbb.com itself because they at times have been accused of failing to provide sufficiently fast updates on security holes discovered in phpBB. Are you really, quite seriously advocating that links provided to well-regarded resources in WikiPedia should be removed if they don't provide updates fast enough? Perhaps those links to Microsoft.com and Microsoft Update in the Microsoft article should be questioned...

If the phpBB Group feel the book is a slap in the face, that too is an issue between phpBB and phpbbhacks.com (though it raises the question of why authors of a book don't want to talk to the "creators" of the product). Just because you feel that way is no excuse to remove a link to a valuable resource. I feel you're letting your own ego get in the way. In fact, all the issues you've raised so far amount to nothing more than what appears to be a petty squabble between the phpBB Group and phpbbhacks.com - In fact, I tried searching to find out why someone might be so against phpbbhacks.com and came up with this. In there is mention that removing links to phpbbhacks.com is official phpBB Group policy (or at least, was at some stage) and it hints that there's much more at play - given you're on the phpBB Group, I begin to wonder about your motives. I'm sure there's a wiki article in that somewhere. 203.173.59.111 20:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC) (I guess I should create an account here one day).

I really don't think you understand law here. The Pirate Bay's servers are located in Sweden, which has very reduced copyright laws (to the point where most don't apply). While it is morally wrong for The Pirate Bay to offer "illegal" downloads, due to the location of the servers (and those who run it), it isn't illegal under its local laws. However, phpbbhacks.com's servers are located in the USA, of whic copyright very much applies. A quick check doesn't turn up any requests from Daz to redistrbute the subSilver SDK, and even if there was, that still doesn't discount the fact that phpbbhacks's illegal mod template.

You can also check the history of the PhpBB page; admins have reverted the addition of links, of which phpbbhacks.com was one of the added links. As that shows, even if you seem to have this wonderfull fascination with phpbbhacks, everyone else doesn't.

I've provided solid arguments here agains the inclusion of the link, and all you have done to each of my arguments is shrugged them off with comments such as I begin to wonder about your motives. Well, I question yours. Face up to the facts (i.e. the things that I've proved) that this isn't a good link to include, or counter with Fact. Until then the link does not get added to the pages reguardless of how you think it should. NeoThermic 08:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's all be nice everyone! Maybe it would be a good idea to get some third-party opinions on this issue. Talrias (t | e | c) 11:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I have checked the history of the phBB page. That's why there's so much talk in here about this darned link. Going back through the history of the page I see several occasions where people have added the link in - all of which is then undone later with a revert and the erroneous reason of "removing unofficial links" (though Pti makes one revert with the comment "wiki is not a link repository"). This is the first time you've come up with any reasons beyond that.

Regarding facts, a google search on "phpbb" brings up phpbbhacks.com as the second link. A search for "phpBB mods" also brings it up second (NOTE: I would've added the www.phpbbstyles.com link a while ago too, given that also is a popular phpBB site - if it weren't for this discussion). I know wikipedia is not a link repository. However, these sites are popular going by their forum users online, google's page rank, how many other sites link them and most importantly, how often they're linked to or referred to when someone is after help for phpBB. Popularity is the reason SlashDot gets an article, while my hokey web-sites don't.

To be honest, since when did the phpBB Group get to decide what should and shouldn't be linked in a Wikipedia article? As I said previously, your "solid arguments" don't hold much water. 1. Unofficial (more to the point, not approved by the phpBB Group); 2. Not updated quickly enough (in your opinion); 3. Potentially vulnerable code (again, in your opinion); 4. The fact they may be profiting from it (which you haven't provided any evidence of and even if they are, is that not allowed now?); Those are not "solid" arguments. Your only remaining argument is 5. Content which you claim is illegal.

An interesting point to make regarding illegal content is that not even the talk on the BitTorrent page has been able to come to a conclusion on that one. If they are violating your copyright, then as I stated, that is an issue which the phpBB Group need to resolve with phpbbhacks.com - not with Wikipedia. After all, are you really saying you'd quite happliy allow the phpbbhacks.com link back in if their servers were in Sweden? So the "fact" remains that phpbbhacks.com is a well-known site and that most people in the phpBB community are aware of it.

One would think an article about phpBB might have something more than a barren wasteland of external links, given how popular the software is and the number of people looking for hacks, styles and other resources beyond those provided by phpBB.com. I mean hell, the article on BitTorrent has more External Links then you can poke a stick at, yet this article doesn't even get one lousy link in support of the phpBB community beyond phpBB.com itself. Even the article on vBulletin has links to support beyond the official vBulletin web-site, many of those (if the footer text is to be believed) not affiliated with JelSoft - IE: Unofficial.

Edit: Talrius snuck in before I posted. I guess that's what you get for leaving your PC. Yes, another opinion would be good. 203.173.59.111 12:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The link should not describe the site as the largest unofficial modding site, because that is POV, but reverting the link because it's either "unofficial" or has "an invested commercial interest" isn't WP policy at all. (Which, by the way, is suspect in my mind - phpbbhacks.com may be owned by a commercial entity, but just because it has advertising doesn't make its purpose solely commercial - phpBB.com has numerous advertisements, but it's not "an invested commercial interest".) The link should stay because it's a good resource. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 09:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, all advertisments on phpBB.com go back into phpBB.com; it pays for the hosting, bandwidth, new server equiptment. None of it lines anyones' pockets in the slightest, not even by a penny. While phpbbhacks is 'a' resource, I wouldn't go as far to say its a good resource because that is POV again. I've outlined a general reason for not having the link above in responce to 203.173.59.111 NeoThermic 10:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Passive voice

Currently, the phpBB article is written almost entirely in passive voice. I know avoiding passive voice can be difficult, but check out the definition and compare it to the article text. I think you'll agree that reading text written in active voice is much easier and more enjoyable. :] — Ringbang 21:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

phpbb2mods.com removed

I've removed the link to phpbb2mods.com. The reasons for this are as follows:

1) Near as I can tell, the only modifications that have been released there are ones by AbelaJohnB and there are far too many modification authors to link to every authors personal webpage. AbelaJohnB may have higher aspirations for his site, but so, too, do lots of other modification authors.

2) If this wikipedia article is going to link to a "non-official phpbb modifications" site, phpbbhacks.com would be a much better site to link to. It - unlike phpbb2mods.com - has hundreds if not thousands of phpBB modifications submitted by a myriad of people.

Maybe when phpbb2mods.com becomes more popular, it can be linked to, again, but right now, I think linking to it is little more than an attempt at vanity. TerraFrost 04:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I've also removed the link to www.packtpub.com/phpBB/book. Reasons are described below:

1. It's blatant advertising. In fact, everything added by 61.11.8.140 constitutes blatant advertising, imho:

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=61.11.8.140

2. The Microsoft Windows article doesn't provide links to books about Windows, nor does [MySQL]], etc. Neither should this article, by precident. TerraFrost 21:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Headline text

Is the topic Nazi, NeoThermic, associated with phpBB Group? I think there is a conflick of interest!

External links again

I'd love it if we could keep the links down to official phpBB sites only. The same has been done at vBulletin: only officially-recognized vBulletin sites are listed now because deciding what unofficial sites to link to causes too many arguments. æle ✆ 22:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You might love it, but it's silly and devalues the Wiki entry. I think it's time to dispute this issue officially, and I plan to do some reading on the "official" process for doing so. The phpBB Group Junta does not own this wiki entry.

Yes, external links again

Maybe if you want to make this an extension of the Official PhpBB Group, you should delete EVERYTHING except for a link to phpBB? The "no unofficial links" thing is silly, and there is no general precedence at Wikipedia for it. This IS NOT phpBB Group's personal little wiki page. Is the "no unofficial links" thing a Wikipedia policy? No it is not. There is no rational reason not to have useful well known popular "unofficial" links, except perhaps selfishness.

Though it is not an official policy, so much argument over external links detracts from actually writing the article. I will not revert your changes again, because I feel that it is pointless when discussion is completely ignored. (See above.) As for your argument as to deleting links, we have — the only links that existed before you inserted phpbbhacks.com were to official phpBB sites. æle ✆ 00:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Your argument is that the only links before the unofficial one was inserted where official ones - that doesn't really mean anything at all. Before this whole article was here there was nothing at all, shall we revert to that? It makes as much sense! Sure, it would be good to keep the noise level of fan site links low, but there seem to be one or two that stand out. Phphacks is one that stands out. It's a valid link.

As to discussion being completely ignored, considering that there have been many who wanted and added the links only to have you and a few ohters remove them, perhaps it is you who need to listen?

Regardless of whether or not 80.4.224.4 [3], GPHemsley [4], NeoThermic [5], and I are in the right, the article should be left in its original state without these contested links. They can be added back if consensus shows that the links should be kept.

As to the link itself, I think that allowing unofficial sites like phpbbhacks.com would open a huge can of worms, especially in the precedent it sets. Users might see fit to simply add links to their own sites without discussion, and we would have a hard time keeping certain unofficial sites in the list without angering those who wish to link to other sites. æle ✆ 02:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems there are as many who think it should be included. Maybe it should stay until there is consensus shows that the links should not be kept? Your position is completely at odds with much of the content here at wiki. You are excluding content based on your particular personal POV. Most other articles err on the side of inclusion rather than exclusion.

And aren’t we talking about specific well established sites with community? We're not talking about this or that random site. Not "Joe's Little phpBB Hack-o-rama", we're talking about a well established widely used and widely contributed to mod site. Could be any side with their kind of following, but phpbbhacks stands out, and you know it.

I have never personally visited phpbbhacks.com. In fact, I'm not even a phpBB user — I haven't run a forum on it for months now. However, this conflict is very similar to the one that was recently resolved at vBulletin, and I'm using the example set there by discussion between other users. This is not "completely at odds with much of the content here at wiki". æle ✆ 23:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that you don't like that particular site, and are hiding behind what is an argument that is irrelevant to this specific case. Sorry, I'm not saying that to make a personal attack, it's just an observation that I think you are being very “proprietary” in a way that suggest that you think the phpBB Group should have exclusive “ownership” of this Wikipedia entry. That is wrong thinking on your part.

Again, I have no connections to the phpBB Group at all. If I did, I'd probably run my Web site's forums on phpBB. æle ✆ 23:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Providing high quality external resources is completely appropriate. Your insistence in listing only "official" sites smacks of some type of bias, some specific non-objectivity, misuse of Wikipedia to achieve some personal goal, and has the appearance of impropriety that leads to speculation on some undisclosed relationship (true or not) with phpBB Group. It's just inappropriate for you to suggest that there are no "unofficial" sites worthy of inclusion here.

I am not trying to make any value judgment on phpbbhacks.com or any other unofficial phpBB Web site. I simply believe that allowing even one unofficial external link would be a bad precedent, because determining whether a Web site is worthy of inclusion in the external links section is very subjective and will eventually lead to never-ending arguments over the value of a certain site. æle ✆ 23:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Your insistence on this issue suggests to me that perhaps a formal complaint of dispute is in order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.85.2 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

sign your posts please -Ste|vertigo 19:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

So, why is the vBulletin article allowed to not have external links, and yet we are not? Edward nz 21:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

I'm mediating this case per request of the chief. Please dig through the recent history and list all of the external links which have been in the EL section below. I'll expect these wont be removed from the talk page. -Ste|vertigo 19:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Let it be noted that I'm the only one who has edited out links in the external links section who has any connection with the phpBB group. Everyone else who has removed links isn't connected. NeoThermic 20:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• [http://www.phpbbhacks.com Popular PhpBB mod site] (Quite a few repititions of this one.)
• [http://forum.neptunepinkfloyd.co.uk Excellent example of phpBB in action]
• [http://www.forumtemplates.com/phpbb/ ForumTemplates.com: phpBB] - Offers a collection of free phpBB styles.
• [http://www.place2share.be An example of a phpBB-powered forum]
• [http://www.oldapps.com/phpbb.htm Old Version of phpBB]
• [http://phpbb3.de/ phpBB3 Demo Site]
• [http://www.phpbb2mods.com/ Unofficial phpBB MODifications]
• [http://www.packtpub.com/phpBB/book phpBB Book]
• [http://www.phpbb.com/support/ phpBB Support Resources]
• [http://sourceforge.net/projects/phpbb/ phpBB SourceForge Project Page]
• [http://mcintosh.cjb.net/wiki/index.php/Spell_Checker phpBB Spellchecker] - Spell checker for phpBB.

These are all the links back to the end of July. I would personally agree with the removal of some of them, but some seem like they wouldn't hurt the article any. - Pureblade | ^Θ 20:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• phpBBHacks - Been dscussed, and as NeoThermic has said, breaks the TOS of phpBB by redistributing the psd files
• forum.neptunepinkfloyd - SPAM
• forumtemplates - Does that mean that the likes of phpbbstyles.com, forumimages.com etc should be allowed? Or what about the million-and-one other temlate sites out there? I haven't even heard of these guys before so Remove
• place2share.be - SPAM
• oldapps.com/phpbb.htm - You can get it off the sf.net page, so SPAM
• phpbb3.de/ - There is an officl phpbb one at area51.phpbb.com, so I'll count this as SPAM
• phpbb2mods.com - SPAM as discussed
• packtpub.com/phpBB/book - I think you'll find that the wikipedia disallowes theese types of links
• phpbb.com/support/ - Coul stay if needed, but dosen't nee to seen as there's already a link to phpbb.com
• sourceforge.net/projects/phpbb/ - Stay
• mcintosh.cjb.net/wiki/index.php/Spell_Checker - That's lovely and all, but I think you'll find that it's still spam as there's the spelling cow mod already liste at area51.phpbb.com IIRC Edward nz 21:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

External links take five billion

Hmmm, the last time I discussed this was just prior to be becoming an admin yonks and yonks ago! Well, I'm still of pretty much the same opinion. We should only add external links which are useful to the article. There's some useful guideline pages on this:

• Wikipedia:External links
• Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming

The objection seems to be over phpbbhacks.com, so let's look at that. Firstly, when I open this site I am hit in the face with LOADS of nasty adverts. I'd estimate that at least 10% of my screen is taken up by adverts when opening that page. The external links guideline page says you should not add links to "sites with objectionable amounts of advertising". I'm not sure if it's quite up to objectionable levels, but it's definitely a major factor. Someone has mentioned above that phpbbhacks.com is redistrubting a file to which it does not have the copyright, if this is the case it is breaking copyright law (and not only should it not be linked to, but the copyright owner should request its removal). However, based on content, phpbbhacks.com seems to have plenty of useful stuff, organised and categorised in a sensible fashion. I haven't looked at any of the actual code but it seems to have plenty of scripts offered.

I must be blind. I must admit, phpbbhacks has a busy page, but all I see is GoogleAds (several, actually, but they are all text ads... Common on many sites these days. Indeed phpBB Group has ads...) I also see organized lists of dozens, perhaps hundreds of mods and templates. But who cares about phpbbhacks, see my comments below that address ATTITUDE. --Jake

I see one full flash banner advert when I first visit the page, the top half of another full flash banner advert, and the very top of another full flash banner advert, in addition to the GoogleAds you mentioned. Maybe you have flash adverts turned off in your browser. Talrias (t | e | c) 12:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

However, my general conclusion is that phpbbhacks.com should not be added. In the past it has been added by anonymous contributors with few other edits, which leads me to assume that their only interest is having links from Wikipedia to their website. Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. The website also has a rather large amount of advertising. Finally, it is breaking copyright law. I don't think Wikipedia should link to websites which break the law unless there are exceptional circumstances.

What do other people think? Talrias (t | e | c) 00:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I am in full agreement of this Edward nz 01:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Well said, Talrias. æle ✆ 02:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this needs some exploring. phpbb.com, according to Alexa, has a rank of 1,607. The site phpbbhacks.com has a rank of 9,902. Those are both pretty respectable numbers, so it seems doubtful that by adding the link the only intent is promotion. Further, WP:EL, under "What to link to | What should be linked to", says (amongst other things) "[s]ites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article". Obviously a bunch of hacks/mods would be inappropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article.

I am further disturbed by the notice in the article (that may or may not still be there, but it was an HTML comment) stating that only "official" links may be added. Wikipedia is not an extension of the phpBB Group, and for purposes of neutral point of view we should not "endorse" a certain class or brand of links.

Finally, I remain unconvinced that the site is breaking copyright law (at least breaking it in such a manner and in such an amount that Wikipedia should be concerned with it). As was said above, in the article for The Pirate Bay, there is, of course, a link to that site. I'd hardly call potential GPL violations (which, at least with the link that was provided further above, is patent nonsense; I will explain if asked) and an issue with the subSilver PSD's being redistributed huge legal hurdles. Wikipedia is not a court of law.

From what I've read of this so far, this seems like a veiled attempt at article ownership (again, especially disturbing is the "rule" that only "official" phpBB Group links may be used). I'd strongly urge people to look over WP:EL and WP:NPOV (which applies to the whole article, including external links) and reconsider whether or not they're being fair here. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

And to be absolutely clear here: I am not condoning an endless external links section, or link spam. I just think in this one case that there are issues that need to be resolved. The other links listed above may in fact be nothing more than spam, but this particular link doesn't seem to fit that criteria (their Alexa ranking is certainly doing fine without being listed here). —Locke Cole • t • c 07:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I added that comment because several people were adding their own example forums and non-notable add-on sites. I changed the notice to indicate that this is most likely temporary and will be changed once this discussion is resolved. æle ✆ 10:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not a legitimate reason to claim article ownership (in fact, there is no legitimate reason to claim article ownership). A better and more reasoned notice would have pointed contributors to WP:EL which does a good job at describing what should and should not be included as an external link. Saying "only official phpBB links" is simply false and inappropriate. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

You still haven't answered the question. Why aren't there any complaints over the vB article, seen as they don't have external links? I'm sure there are plenty of phpbbhacks like sites for that software, so by that logic there should be a couple of unoffical links in their inks section Anon 20:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Apparently the subSilver PSDs are not licensed under the GPL and may only be distributed along with phpBB. Hosting them individually is indeed copyright infringement. As I said in my original statement, we should only have a link to a copyright infringing site in exceptional circumstances. An article *about* such a site obviously fits that criteria. But this article isn't about phpbbhacks.com, it's about phpBB. I agree that phpbbhacks.com has merit but I think the combination of the large amount of adverts and the copyright infringement lead me to conclude it's not a good link to include. If phpbbhacks.com were to remove some of the adverts and the copyright infringing download then I would probably be in favour of having an external link to their site. Talrias (t | e | c) 12:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it may be copyright infringement (I haven't looked at what's included in the PSD's, but from the description it seems to be a customized version which lacks the phpBB logos). And again, Wikipedia is not a court of law, we do not omit links to external sources simply because they may be performing illegal acts. I wouldn't know about the adverts because I have AdBlock installed in Firefox, but from the sounds of it there's just an abundance of Google ads. If I feel brave, I'll turn off adblocking and take a look. :P —Locke Cole • t • c 23:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to do that! Because I'm nice, I took a series of screenshots, and numbered the ads for everyone's viewing pleasure. I personally believe that 14 ads is too many (And that's not counding the links down the menu bar), so what's everyone else's thoughts? Anon 20:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on, don't avoid the issue

The issue is not some specific site, it is the clear policy of certain people here to reject any content that is “UNOFFICIAL”. It appears over and over again in the discussion here, no “UNOFFICIAL” links, books or resources, ALL links books or resources, regardless of content, if it does not come from the “official” phpBB Group site, is rejected.

Now that the issue has been brought up for mediation, you try to change your tune a little by saying that some of the links and resources that have been added and removed simply don’t meet standards. But would you have us believe that in the entire world of the Internet, that vast on-line resource, that there are NO links, books, resources at all except those at the "official" phpBB Group web site that pass muster? None out of the millions and millions of websites? There are NO substantial links of any kind out there? I think that idea is silly.

And what of the WELL KNOWN criticisms of certain security issues and code issues associated with phpBB? Even the Internet Explorer entry has a small "criticism" section. You may say that no such valid criticism exists, but there are in fact a measurable body of people that disagree.

And besides you two or three who form the phpBB Group junta here, have made it clear that it doesn’t matter what the resource, unless it’s "officially" from the phpBB Group, it will be removed. That’s just wrong. You might as well just remove all the content here except for a link to the phpBB Group web site. The fact of the matter is that this Wikipedia entry is being maintained as a de facto extension of the phpBB Group. This type of management of a Wikipedia resource is clearly inappropriate.

I like phpBB. I have several popular boards that use it. But this type of thing at Wikipedia is just embarrassing.

-- Jake

As above, why no critisim at the vBulletin talk page, after all, they have no 'unoffical' links Edward nz 07:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not the link should be added is now only part of the issue; if you had stopped reverting the disputed change back in, discussion would have been well underway now, and we might have come to a consensus. Revert warring is not the way to solve problems. As to the lack of a criticisms section, be bold and add it! This part of the article simply has not been worked on.

And I would advise you to stop assuming bad faith with your comments that everyone who does not support the inclusion of the phpbbhacks.com link is part of a "phpBB Group junta". æle ✆ 11:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Forget phpBBhacks.com. As I said above, the issue to me is your policy of reverting ANYTHING that is not "official". This is well documented in both action and comments. Your junta would like everyone to believe that in the entire Internet, there are NO sites or other resources that are worthy of adding to the Wikipedia entry other than the phpBB Group approved content.

Prohibiting external links without discussion on the talk page stopped link spam at vBulletin, and several people agreed that it would be the best course of action. I'm simply trying to apply what I've learned there to the current situation. The problem is that you are blocking any rational discussion with your allegations that I — and the others who have reverted the inclusion of unofficial links — have affiliations with the phpBB Group, a violation of both Assume good faith and No personal attacks:

Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views - regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme. ^[1]

Lame, just lame. You know very well the question of conflict of interest is relevant. It is exactly the same issue of someone editing their own bio. The issue of phpBB Group "insiders" controlling the content of this article is very relevant to NPOV.131.30.121.23 21:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Alleging that one has affiliations when there is no evidence for these insinuations is even worse. æle ✆ 21:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

In addition, you wish to present a one-sided (phpBB Group Party Line) view that there is no need for a "criticism" section, because there are no valid issues that have bubbled to the surface over security or code issues related to phpBB, when factually this simply isn't so. It shows your bias. It prevents usfull and important information that a person contemplating the use of phpBB should be aware of. WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF?

I said "As to the lack of a criticisms section, be bold and add it!" Does this sound like "there is no need for a criticism section" to you? æle ✆ 21:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

You seem to think focusing on phpBBhacks.com will allow you to prevail in your POV that it is acceptable for the phpBB Group to have de facto control over the content of the Wikipedia entry for phpBB, but your refusal to include phpBBhacks is only the symptom of the problem that you feel phpBB Group should be able to exert editorial control over the wiki entry. This is inappropriate.

The issue is not that the link is "unofficial". I am suggesting that unofficial links should not be added without discussion on the talk page because we would have too many revert wars just like this one! And again, I am not connected with the phpBB Group. Quit your unfounded allegations. æle ✆ 21:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Edward nz asks why no "criticism" section at the vBulletin talk page. That's a good question, but is irrelevant in the discussion here, we are not talking about vBulletin, we are talking about phpBB.

I think this issue would go away if outside (outside of the "official" phpBB Group) resources where "allowed", as well as discussion of well known and widely discussed security / code base issues where briefly touched on in a short and concise "criticism" section. Hmmmm.... Just like in many many other Wikipedia entries!

To reiterate: 1) the issue is not whether or not external links are allowed, it is your refusal to assume good faith and discuss the value of having such links without making attacks on other contributors; 2) I never said that there doesn't need to be a criticism section, so quit misquoting me. æle ✆ 21:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I am suggesting that the having members of the phpBB Group exert more or less exclusive editorial control over this article is inappropriate. I know you’re trying to spin my comments into something personal, but since I don’t even know you, that’s a bit silly, eh? Let’s keep it "on topic".

The fact is, having members of the phpBB Group exerting exclusive editorial control over this article is no different than someone editing their own Wikipedia bio, and in this case the de facto policy to exclude all “unofficial” content shows clear bias and lack of NPOV.

It also short changes Wikipedia visitors who would benefit from being aware of certain issues that the phpBB Group would like people to believe do not exist (or at least minimize them), as well as providing links to well established sites with valuable resources and community. 131.30.121.23 21:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

--Jake

Edward nz didn't ask why there was no criticism section over at the vBulletin talk page. Please read what was asked, as it’s very relevant to the issue at hand.

Edward made a point that over at the vBulliten wikipedia article, the links section has been limited to official links only. There is no problem with that, as you can see on vBulliten's talk page. So why is restricting the links on the phpBB article an issue?

This discussion is not about the vBulliten article, it is about the phpBB article.131.30.121.23 19:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

So? That says nothing. The point here is that the vBulletin article is perfectly allowed to have only offical links, and yet we are not. Pray tell, how dows that work? Edward nz 22:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on, that's childish... "If everyone else jumped off a cliff, would you follow them?"131.30.121.23 21:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

As for the criticism section, sure you're more than welcome to add one, but do note, anything you say needs to be cited. You can't just say that phpBB is insecure without trying to cite your reasons. (Where as I could cite a few links which say that phpBB is secure, YMMV).

And indeed a counter-point to security criticism would be entirely appropriate. What is not appropriate is excluding discussion entirely. While you say NOW that I can simply add a criticism section, this has been discussed here and rejected for political reasons. You know very well any discussion of security issues would be edited into oblivion.

This was not rejected, see above. æle ✆ 21:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I predict that there will be no wording that will be acceptable to the "official" content only folks. I will write this short paragraph with as much NPOV as I can, and I will submit it. But I warn you, if there is subterfuge in an attempt to prevent known issues from being touched on, I'll request moderation again.

And, I still feel that some attempt should be made to include references to resources other than "official" phpBB Group content. I just don't understand how you can say that none exists that passes muster.

I think its pretty clear this article is maintained with a heavy heavy hand, and I think the bias is pretty clear that the phpBB Group influences the content here.67.42.85.2 06:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Much (but maybe not all) of the security issues have to do with exploits that are not directly related to phpBB itself (except in that poor design leaves open large doors). But they are relevant none-the-less as the exploits specifically targeted phpBB. But there are other issues as well, and people should have an expectation that such major issues that have well established connections to the phpBB code base would at least be briefly touched on.

What we have, instead, is a sanitized Wikipedia entry that exists exclusively by the approval of the phpBB Group junta and so by proxy the phpBB Group.131.30.121.23 19:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Finally, I would note that you'll need to sign your posts properly, using the four tides (~~~~) at the end of your posts. That is basic wikipeidia etiquette, and would make this discussion a bit easier to read. NeoThermic 17:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I've only basically read the issue. Since wikipedia is a compendium of knowledge, that is the guideline of whether a link can be added or not. Does the link extend the knowledge or not is the question. Can you find the link under an external directory. Perhaps, the correct action is to remove most of the links and just point to the external directory. If a summary can be written to why the link contains knowledge, or relavent citations, and the summary can be incorporated into the article, then it is acceptable. Otherwise, wikipedia is not a link farm, and that applies to official and non-official links. — Dzonatas 16:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is my assessment of the argument; JUNTA JUNTA JUNTA VBULLETIN JUNTA JUNTA JUNTA JUNTA. Productive, clearly. Pti 18:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

"Does the link extend the knowledge or not is the question." Links to valuable related resources should also be included. As one of the major advantages of using phpBB is the large community of users who build and provide to the rest of the community usfull mods, templates, and other add-ons, it seems natural that a link to well established repositories of these types of things would be included without much controversy.

But what we see here is such a site that the phpBB Group junta that controls this article sees as a competitor for phpBB community, and they want it to appear as if such “unofficial” content is suspect and should be avoided. In truth, they fear competition in much the same way as proprietary software makers often do. 131.30.121.23 22:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Please take some time away from endlessly whining about the phpBB junta to read Wikipedia:External_links. What should not be linked to:

1. External sites can possibly violate copyright. Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. Whether such a link is contributory infringement is currently being debated in the courts, but in any case, linking to a site that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on us (see Wikipedia:Copyrights and in particular Contributors' rights and obligations).

phpBBHacks violates copyrights, e.g. on the subSilver SDK.

1. Sites with objectionable amounts of advertising

Demonstrated admirably above.

It is possible there are sites relevant to this article which should be linked. phpBBHacks is unquestionably not one of these, and the lack of a link to it from the phpBB article is most certainly no great loss to readers.

Pti 22:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Quit the drama about the phpBB "junta". This is no basis for constructive criticism. Anyone who knows their early phpBB < 2 history well knows that I've had my criticisms of the community and their evangelism for phpBB. I have not seen that occurring in any extensive way here. Useless talk about a junta helps the entry's quality in no constructive way. If it seems that criticism keeps getting removed, as you predict, we'll check that when it happens, and wikipedia has procedures to help protect against that. The removal of one link is no evidence of such behaviour though. Can you at least wait until there's something systematically wrong before yelling 'FIRE!!!'?

Two sidenotes: 'Official links only' is (as demonstrated by Pti in his counterargument against the phpBBhacks link) not official wikipedia policy AFAIK. The reasons for the removal of the link sound like they have merit with wikipedia policy. The 'official links only' rule on the contrary would not directly be following wikipedia guidelines. Sidenote two: if you are afraid of edit wars when putting criticism in the article, why not make a draft on the talk page? Have a couple of people edit it, ask some people to provide counterarguments, and cite. Frank Quist 23:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)