Talk:MyBulletinBoard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On 2 Apr 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Mybulletinboard

Contents

[edit] MSN Live!

I'm sure that forum isn't running a older version of Mybb. Take a look at the karma system.

Actually it is indeed running MyBB RC2 Tikitiki

[edit] Comparison to Other Forum Software

I have changed the line "It is comparable to other forum software such as phpBB, Invision Power Board and vBulletin." to "and is comparable to other forum software". I am going to outline some reasons for that change:

  1. The previous line which listed many forums is open to abuse. Already the vBulletin article has a similar statement with a list of 5 "comparable" products.
  2. We have the Comparison of Internet forum software article so let's use that fairly comprehensive list rather than starting to list everything in all of the individual product's articles.
  3. My personal opinion is that the line is not required at all (after all, all "internet forum software" must surely have some similar features) but as someone felt the line was required in the first place and we have the comparative article as per point 2, I've decided to adjust it instead. Yay unto the Chicken 09:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

My opinion, as I stated in the vBulletin talk page, is that this sollution is even less informative than the original, since it offers no information at all except the obvious fact that one can compare forum software to other forum software, and also think it should be removed. Ill try removing it completely, and we can allways restore it if there indeed is such a person that you anticipate, that would object to this, and if so, that he/she can offer reasons for the inclusion of this. Perhaps it was just ackward phrasing or some accidental error or similar, lets first try being a little more [WP:BB|Bold] before seeking compromises... --83.131.153.198 21:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

People, when you're editing this page, don't add external links at the bottom that aren't official. There are already enough of them. CreateMyBB can stay IMO, because it may be a useful place to go IF a user wants to use MyBB for testing, or if they have no server/hosting. "MyBB News" is not link worthy. BlackxxJapan 13:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added back a few other official sites since they were recently removed. —DennisTT(talk) 16:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no reason to include all (or any) of the links included in the mybboard.net main navigation menu. Anyone looking for such information will find it easily through the homepage link. --Hamitr 03:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the reason of this page was to provide useful information. With your reasoning you might as well remove the whole darn page because all of this information is included in mybboard.net Ryan Gordon 23:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I do think you are wrong. You are wrong in thinking that the article needs to include links to every page of the mybb site. And save the sarcastic arguments for somewhere else. If you don't understand or agree with this, then let's get the opinion of someone who is less involved with mybb--perhaps someone who is not a mybb developer. --Hamitr 13:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmm? The article includes links to every page of the MyBB site? Nope. It includes important pages, So stop the stupid argument. Unless you have a sensible reason for actually removing them, they will stay there. As for easily finding the information. Of course they can easily find an information. They can google it. They can google and find ALL of the information easily. You might as well redirect this page to the MyBB site if you wanted that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Gordon (talk • contribs) 02:36, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Modifications section

I think it would be good if a modifications area was added (such as here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_Machines_Forum#Modifications ), and some screen shots of the ACP. Coolest-tech 01:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I'm not sure what should exactly be cleaned up on the article? The embedded lists aren't just a bunch of links and explain decently what each feature is. Ryan Gordon 23:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Mybb default.png

Image:Mybb default.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] EL Cleanup

Once again, I removed the 5 additional external links which all point to mybboard.net. Before adding such links, please note Wikipedia:El#Points_to_remember which states:

  1. Links should be restricted to the most relevant and helpful. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not by itself a reason to add external links.
  2. External links should typically not be in the body of an article. Include them in an "External links" section at the end or in the appropriate location within an infobox.
  3. Avoid linking to multiple pages from the same website unless there is good reason to do so.

Please feel free to plead your case here if you think there is a good reason to add 5 additional external links which all point to the same site and which are all available from the mybboard navigation menu. --Hamitr (talk) 05:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You have ignored my previous response because you have no good one, so I'll just copy it again from above (slightly edited for clarity). The reason of this page was to provide useful information. With your reasoning you might as well remove the whole darn page because all of this information is included in mybboard.net. It includes important pages, So stop the stupid argument. Unless you have a sensible reason for actually removing them, they will stay there. As for easily finding the information. Of course they can easily find an information. They can google it. They can google and find ALL of the information easily. You might as well redirect this page to the MyBB site if you wanted that! You seem to be making the biggest problem out of the littlest things. Ryan Gordon (talk) 06:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I did not ignore your previous response, but, rather, I don't think your previous (or current) response makes a good case for ignoring Wikipedia:El#Points_to_remember. You claim that the links are useful, and, thus, they must be included. I claim that the single link to mybboard.net is sufficient since all of the additional links are prominently displayed on the homepage, and also because the additional links violate WP:EL and clutter the article.
As I've said before, I think that, as a mybb developer, you might be a little too closely involved to look at this objectively. What do you say about getting a third opinion before adding the links back?
--Hamitr (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll get you your third party opinions. 75.22.183.49 (talk) 06:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've requested a 3rd Opinion. --Hamitr (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

In response to your request for a third opinion, I am in inclined to agree with Hamitr. Considering that all five of the latter links are easily accessible from the first, I would say that the list of links should be limited to the MyBB Homepage. --Trekkie4christ (talk) 16:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

If we cannot have those links per Wikipedia's guidelines then at least come to a compromise. I feel that it should be made clear that we have other helpful resources such as our own extensive Wiki as well as a Community forum for support. Ryan Gordon (talk) 06:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The desire for more input is commendable, If you want my opinion, the more scrutiny this gets from editors, the less it is going to look like what you want. Wikipedia is not a place for home pages or press releases. The standard to strive for is that of an 'encyclopedia article, which means informing the reader about the product in a clear and neutral manner. I have edited down some of the more extraneous details and removed unsubstantiated claims such as "Intuitive and comprehensive Administration Control Panel". I have also moved the external links down to the appropriate section and tagged the article as lacking references (my quick check shows no media coverage of this software... except for some SQL injection security bulletins) and reading like and advertisement. Please see UseModWiki (one of the more popular wiki engines and the original engine for Wikipedia) for a not necessarily perfect example of what an entry on software may look like. Adobe PageMaker is useful to see, or Napster for an example of software that definitely had media coverage. --Marcinjeske (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I look forward to seeing the progress you've made on these problems. Thank You! 67.116.241.78 (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Free Internet Forum Software

I would like to argue that MyBB is free internet forum software. It says on the Free Internet Forum Software page, and I quote:

This is a category of articles relating to Internet forum software which can be freely used, copied, studied, modified, and redistributed by everyone that obtains a copy: "free software" or "open source software". Typically, this means software which is distributed with a free software license, and whose source code is available to anyone who receives a copy of the software.

You can freely use, copy, study, modify, and redistribute MyBB by everyone that obtains a copy. Note how it also says Typically. Just because the license says that you cannot steal MyBB's code and make a profit off of it, doesn't make it free? I believe that it is a free internet forum software. Because of the Typically clause found in that quote, I am here to say that it allows enough leniency that MyBB can be considered Free Internet Forum Software. Ryan Gordon (talk) 06:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The "Typically" refers to the "...distributed with a free software license..." part of the description—not the "...software which can be freely used, copied, studied, modified, and redistributed by everyone that obtains a copy..." part. The "Separation of Components" section of the MyBB license certainly prohibits "freely modifying and redistributing".
This issue has been discussed at length here and here in the past.
If you are wanting the article in a more specific category which reflects MyBB's zero cost, Category:Freeware Internet forum software would be more appropriate. The last time I looked through Comparison of Internet forum software (PHP), Comparison of Internet forum software (ASP), and Comparison of internet forum software (other), I think I found about 7 articles that would fall into that category.
--Hamitr (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Now you have to define freely to win your argument which is going to be a lot tougher. You CAN redistribute and modify MyBB as long as it falls under certain conditions. Not everything is free as in beer, but it still can be 'free'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.183.49 (talk) 06:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another Argument

If you delete the MyBB site links again, please remember this: MyBB is actually TECHNICALLY GPL/LGPL, because of it's PHP-coded nature, any or all files may be freely modified/redistributed, but within reason. I mean, MyBB could easily be classed as open source, and, therefore, has the right to be listed here WITHOUT the need for removal/reversion. --StingReay (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to Category:Free Internet forum software rather than the External Links section of the article. I don't follow what you mean by technically gpl/lgpl. Software is either licensed under the gpl, or it is not. If it is not, then its license may be gpl-compatible, or not. Even if the license is not gpl-compatible, it still may meet the requirements to be called free software (or the similar term open source software). The fact that the source (the php code) is available or viewable has nothing to do with the license requirements.
--Hamitr (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)