Talk:DotNetNuke

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To-do list for DotNetNuke: edit · history · watch · refresh


Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Wikify: References need to be wikified

Contents

[edit] NPOV

This needs bigtime NPOV editing. -Werdna648 11:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it is so short it hardly says anything at all. Natcolley 19:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Natcolley. It seems pretty neutral to me as it is so brief and doesn't say whether DotNetNuke is good, bad or indifferent. Gabnash 27 October 2005

I don't see anything listed that isn't fact. I also don't see anything that praises or puts the item on a pedestal. 69.243.108.219 20:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Since nobody has provided any justification for the NPOV tag, I am removing it. --Blackeagle 00:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

dd 21 dec 2005 itas there again, without any explanation. whats up? --145.99.202.92 09:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Looks like it got put back when Ombudsman did the revert on Nov. 11. I'm removing it again because I don't see any reason for it and nobody's stepped forward to justifiy it here.--Blackeagle 06:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I put the NPOV tag back in.
"that require little more than HTML knowledge to create."
Unproven and hard to quantify how much knowledge you need to create. I have used the system and I would not make such a statement.
"the power of DotNetNuke lies not so much in its built in features but its easy extensibility."
Again, an unquantifiable statement. It is straight out of a marketing departments bag of statements.
"and should see it stay around for many years to come."
Unprovable. It is a loaded statement to get you to think this is a product you should use because it will be around, but will it?
"DotNetNuke also serves as an example of best practice coding techniques for ASP.NET"
Best practice coding techniques is subjective.
--kingmundi 12:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


maybe the word "ideal" in the first para ("ideal for creating and maintaining professional websites") is not neutral enough, imo. maybe 'used for' would be more neutral, 'suited for'. i'm gonna make the change, but this is my first wiki edit in a long time, so don't flame me too bad ;-)


I completely agree that it is more like publicity than a proper article. The tone is simply not neutral. You can argue till the cows come home over particular words or expressions but I don't feel it is unbiased.


This is obviously just marketing for DotNetNuke. --Rik Hemsley


The article is pretty POV in tone but it also seems pretty untidy and cursory. Perhaps it should be marked as a stub and/or in need of cleanup? Jammycakes 17:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've rewritten it to make it a bit more NPOV, tidy it up and add some structure to it. I wasn't 100% sure on including the bit that I added about standards compliance (I'm admittedly a bit of a fanatic for table-less CSS and standards) but I left it in anyway. Jammycakes 18:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Guess what? It's back to being an advert. Tagged again. --AbsolutDan (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted it to its pre-advert state - pretty much all the advertising-esque changes were made in one edit. Do you still think it needs more work in that respect? Jammycakes 21:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Nah - it's not perfect, but I've seen plenty worse. I considered reverting myself, but saw the editor did make some content changes. You're probably right - get rid of edit completely, the useful info can be added back in separately. Thanks for taking care of it. --AbsolutDan (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I've done a rather large edit, specifically on the Introduction section. These edits are meant to give the entry some historical perspective - where the project originated, how it was named, trademarking considerations, and its subsequent progression. I believe all items in the Intro are all neutral - facts, not opinions. The citations added were drawn from published books and magazines, press releases, and descriptive pages on the official site... Being a relative Wikipedia newbie, I would appreciate feedback on these changes, so I can go ahead and work on the other lacking areas of this entry without making missteps. Also, I must add that I believe this entry to be both notable and relevant, and worthy of a Wikipedia entry. This is especially true if similar projects such as postnuke and php-nuke have entries here.

[edit] Versions

Article needs to reflect newest versions of DotNetNuke. These are 3.3.2 and 4.3.2.

[edit] External links

As this article is attracting a great deal of external link spam, I am removing all but the official link and a directory site from the External links section. Please do not add any additional links to the article itself without first discussing them here and allowing editors to reach a consensus regarding their inclusion. Thanks --AbsolutDan (talk) 22:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Can the DotNetNuke Directory be included under external links - see below for more info - Rodney Joyce - 14:32, 20th June 2006

In addition to the last comment - I would like to propose this website for inclusion under external links - http://www.DNNDir.com - The Unofficial DotNetNuke Directory. It is a free directory of high-quality, human-edited sites (much like this Wikipedia) and is advert-free. It provides a clean interface for new and old users alike to find meaningful DotNetNuke information quickly and efficiently with the website search tools. This has now been extended with an FAQ for new users - http://www.dnndir.com/FAQ/tabid/1088/Default.aspx Thanks, Rodney Joyce, 16 June 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.211.113.2 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why the link to my site http://www.wwwcoder.com was removed. I am original DNN core team member, and the site recieves a large amount of traffic per day, more than the site mentioned in this discussion. WWWCoder has been around for years for the DNN community, it focuses on both ASP.NET and DNN development. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.50.3.3 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a collection of links. This article is in need of citations, not more links. --AbsolutDan (talk) 13:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the official DotNetNuke Marketplace (http://marketplace.dotnetnuke.com) should be added to the external links. If an unofficial directory can be linked, the official marketplace should be. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.71.146.84 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

We don't need to link to every related DotNetNuke resource. The marketplace should be reachable from the main site if it is official.
P.S. I've found the "official" directory - I will be replacing the unofficial directory shortly. --AbsolutDan (talk) 16:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

This article doesn't prove that it meets notability standards. It is in need cited content from reliable sources, otherwise it will be a candidate for deletion. --AbsolutDan (talk) 13:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It's probably the best known ASP.NET content management system/application framework available, if not the best known open source project for the .net framework. A Google search for "DotNetNuke" returns four million results for instance, so some suitable references shouldn't be too hard to find. Jammycakes 18:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't have time to research this myself, but DNN is in very widespread use for ASP.NET-based sites. Many large hosting companies, including GoDaddy, offer this software as a free option (they'll do the initial setup for the customer). I don't know the number of sites that use DNN, but I think it could easily be put into the thousands, maybe even tens of thousands. It's definitely enough to be notable by Wikipedia standards. I wish I had time to do the research on this myself. Realkyhick 00:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that http://www.snowcovered.com should be included as an external link as it is the largest online retailer for DotNetNuke skins and modules on the internet. All developers and designers that create modules and skins for DNN seem to sell them on this site, which seems to have been around since DNN 2.0 was released (??). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SuperRobot5000 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
We already have a directory link - why not have your link added to that directory instead? --AbsolutDan (talk) 16:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Future of DotNetNuke

User:Elkhiyarih added a paragraph to the criticisms section that seems to be both inaccurate and biased. Microsoft hasn't removed the DotNetNuke forums altogether -- there is still a link to them although they are now hosted on the DNN website. I presume the reason for this is that the DNN community is becoming so large that it allows much more in-depth and detailed coverage of the framework. The paragraph also seems to have a fairly strong anti-Microsoft bias. Oh, and it doesn't cite its sources. — jammycakes 23:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/o/t/Talk%7EDotNetNuke_4455.html"