Talk:Joomla

Letter to the community

Please, don't just copy and paste information: Put it down in your own words! - Maybe a link should be enough for that letter - Everyone can read it there! - Can't we ? --Sputnik(.de) 06:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• one person says, "don't paste, link;" another says "too many links." The content may soon disappear from the source. The paste should be preserved as part of this historical event.--Wrobertson 21:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Surely the content won't disappear from the web as long as people continue to think it interesting ("historical", even)? After I AFD'd the article, some of the most promotional phrases were removed , making it better, but then that long letter with the huge list of names got added, making it worse again. It just has nothing encyclopedic about it. I wouldn't say just link to the letter, myself, I'd say link and summarize and for pete's sakes leave out the names. If the community were to actually improve this article, instead of first improving and then f***ing it up again, and instead of shoouting that *I* ought to have improved it (a seriously weird idea, if you knew how unconversant I am with the subject), I might vote "Keep" myself. Bishonen | talk 22:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I was thinking in terms of the original source of the letter on the Mambo website. But, you have a fair point that Wikipedia will not be the only historical source of the letter and haved edited to link to it on Open Source Matters. I'm *trying* to follow suggestions by you and others; please don't get abusive. Before you note that the "Open Source Matters" merge is redundant -- I'm not done with it yet. Thank you! --Wrobertson 23:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

External Links

Can we please keep the external links to relavant/important sites only. I feel the following two links should not be in the article, and I've removed them. Please discuss the matter here before you place any of these links back in the article.

• The Warragul Directory Using Joomla!
• The Lone Mamber

The first one is just advertising/spam, so definitely keep that out; somebody debate the Lone Mamber with me if you want. Shoffman11 18:11, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

• The warraguldirectory.com.au is certainly inappropriate. The Lone Mamber blog is a significant part of the ongoing debate surrounding this event and an appropriate link - perhaps the most important link to the controversy part of this article. This is labelled a current event before I got to it and that has not been debated. Current events are worthy of links to news articles about the event, are they not? Please continue the debate before deleting resources that others might find helpful. --Wrobertson 21:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• I re-added a few of the external links that were there back in Nov. All but one of the them are from internet "news" sources and are relavent I think. As for the last, The Lone Mamber is more commentary on the situation itself that lead to the creation of Joomla... relavent in and of itself. Dixen 18:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Any reason why you are not allowing links to our other Official Sites? See ref: http://dmoz.org/Computers/Programming/Languages/PHP/Scripts/Content_Management/Joomla/Official_Joomla_Sites/
  • I feel we don't need the extra links because all of the other Offical Sites can be accessed by links on the top of the Joomla.org site. Really, all of the Official sites are classifed as one site, thus the need for only one link in the article. Note: I didn't remove the links, just adding my $0.02. Shoffman11 02:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Joomla Awards?

I've been seeing sites that claim that Joomla! won two awards:

• The Joomla! project won "Best Linux / Open Source Project" for 2005.
• The second award which Joomla! figures in was won by core member Brian Teeman. Brian won "UK Individual Contribution to Open / Source" for 2005.

Sources:

• http://www.joomla.org/content/view/295/74/
• http://www.mambers.com/showthread.php?p=153965
• http://www.prnewsnow.com/PR%20News%20Releases/Computer/Two%20LinuxWorld%20Awards%20for%20Joomla

Is there really that much difference between Open Source Project and Open Source Solution or are they really two different awards? There were even claims that Peter Lamont issued a statement addressing this win by Joomla (http://forum.mamboserver.com/showthread.php?p=291811#post291811). How exactly does this breakdown? Quadra23 05:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Per the Linux Awards Website: "Best Linux/Open Source Project Winner - Joomla! - Open Source Matters" and "UK Individual Contribution to Linux/Open Source Winner - Brian Teeman".

Source:

• http://www.linuxawards.co.uk/content/view/26/42/

As to the difference between "Project" and "Solution", IMO there is a huge difference. Firefox is a project... you use it "as is" and there are small addons avail for it in the form of Themes or extensions. Joomla is a solution... you can use it straight out of the box or customised the absolute hell out of it, mold it and shape it as you need for your individual purpose; be it for use on the internet, and intranet, or running off your home computer for some other purpose.

As to the claim made by Peter Lamont, I don't think it's going to go anywhere... *only* the individual who made the entry can edit it... bottom line here is that 80% of the community and developers have adandoned Mambo for the Joomla Project. I do believe it's moot for him to even try at this poinit in time.

Dixen 20:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Sponsors

I have removed the repeated addition of a "sponsors" section added to the article... If you are going to add something in there about the sponsors of Joomla please try to do so in a non-advertising like manner. Each time I have removed it from the article the editor has added it in in a manner consistant with what you'd expect to hear from a used car salesman.

Let's try to keep the article professional and free from these kinds of edits. Thanks. Dixen 17:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• I agree: a "Sponsors" section is not appropriate to this article.--WALTR 05:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)