Talk:TYPO3

This article was nominated for deletion on 28 July 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

TypoScript part needs some work

In my opinion, this part is a total mess. TypoScript is a simplified way to write a php configurtion array with some goodies (e.g. copy and delete operator). The php array is then used as rendering instruction to generate the output. Also the part about the TS is far too long. There is much more to tell about TYPO3 - have a look at german translation ... is something like that wanted for english WP? Pgampe (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'll have a look at it - the german article is pretty neat, so I will check if I can do an appropriate clean up here.~~ --Jesus Presley (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just revamped the section, using the de.WP version as a model. One question though: Is the "Basic syntax" part helpful at all or can it be deleted?--Jesus Presley (talk) 16:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spam in External Links?

Somehow I don't think that links to "consultancies" or non-english sites in the en.wikipedia.org domain ought to exist. I think that the article ought to exist in the other language venues at WP with the appropriate links moved there. As to the consultancies, it just smacks of commercial advertisement -- a place not to be found in WP. I propose that both types be removed. --Paul Laudanski 03:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok it seems User:Hirzel removed the links [1]. --Paul Laudanski 02:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Links to consultants using the software are definitely wp:spam and should be remove without discussion. -- Kl4m ^{T C} 18:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the External link called Comparing TYPO3 with phpWebSite lead to an outdated article which seems to me biased and contains also misleading information. Eg. on Page 2: "TYPO3 has a very strong content orientation. It's basically one monolithic piece of software...". Typo3 is definitely not monolithic - far from it; it's very nicely modularized. Not just the content and appearance are separated, but the Front-End, Back-End, Extensions, localizations, etc. And, if we are to compare CMS systems, the [OpenSourceCMS]http://www.opensourcecms.com/ website with user comments is way better source of information for undecided people looking for a suitable CMS. Hardzsi (talk) 13:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"web content management framework"

The first sentence says TYPO3 is a CMS, but TYPO3 describes itself as a "web content management framework", which I agree with. It's difficult for a non web-developer to build upon TYPO3. What do you think about it? -- Kl4m ^{T C} 18:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess Kasper designed that primarily as a flexible framework, but it was tightly integrated with the CMS elements/functions so at the end of the day Typo3 version 4.x IS a CMS which is based on a well thought-of framework. To my knowledge, this framework is only used and utilized by Typo3 at the moment. This tight framework-CMS integration can disapperar with the new Flow3 system, started from scratch. Flow3 is (will be) the next-gen framework, and Typo3 v5.x will be only one CMS 'application', that will be built/running on top of this framework - but other people can built other CMS or non-CMS systems on this new, independent framework logic called Flow3. Hardzsi (talk) 08:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"NPOV: 'one of the leading...'"

First sentence of this entry is derived from TYPO3's marketing materials (via Google search) and is clearly NOT from a NPOV (plus factually quite questionable). Very close to deletable as an advertisement with this lead??

CMS/CMF is industry jargon, with no clear distinction between the two; at the time of release, 'CMS'es were arguably very hard for a non-developer to build upon; and TYPO3 is listed as a CMS by CMSWatch, so I'm not sure there's any way to further clarify in this article.68.217.153.207 (talk)

FrankyBkk: I am new here and hope that I do not break any rule here. But I want to tell you that I think that the TYPO3 article was for me very informative. And that TYPO3 is one of the leading CMS is just the Truth. What you expect that they write instead? TYPO3 is a CMS and that was it? It have in my opinion nothing to do with marketing, specially because TYPO3 is under the GNU Licence and totaly for free. To say that TYPO3 is one of the leading CMS'es is just a information for the reader. If they would say that they are THE leading CMS then would it be in my opinion a break of rules. I think that it is much more important to give a lot of informations to the readers of the Best Online Encyclopdia on earth as to look into every word that it is conform with the rules. Oops, I think it is not allowed to say that Wikipedia is the best one?

I think it is just not fair to delete this sentence.

FrankyBkk (talk) 05:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To-Do: Update several sections

I just discovered how big the differences between this and the german version are. I already updated the TypoScript section, but I think that several other parts need maintenance. The de.WP version is very thorough, while the english one misses a lot of valuable facts. So...my suggestions:

Design: Rename to "Architecture" and merge updated information from the Funktion und Architektur part from de.WP
CLA for TYPO3 version 5: Why is the CLA mentioned with a whole paragraph, although TYPO3 5 (TYPO3 Phoenix) hasn't been mentioned before? Suggestion: Label the paragraph TYPO3 v6 / Phoenix, add information about v6, why it is special and mention CLA briefly.
Translate & insert the version history table.
[EDIT] Briefly explain the caching framework
Briefly mention the 1-2-3 installer
Insert section criticism (Too complex, need to learn TypoScript, cryptic, outdated documentation etc.)

Any ideas or objections? --Jesus Presley (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]