Talk:Mantis Bug Tracker

Lists

This article just seems to be a big list. It sorely needs some actual content. --Sydius (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone cleared out the crap (the big copy+paste list of features, etc) and I've started writing some actual content to describe the software and its main features. Help is appreciated! Michigangold (talk) 05:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Miscategorized

Perhaps this page is miscategorized as a programming bug? Mantis Bugtracker is software for tracking bugs, not a bug itself

Miscategorized II

You're right. However is funny to play with the idea that a mantis is an insect so it could be considered (somehow) a bug. And since it is a software product, it could be considered a "programming" bug :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.67.138.42 (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Advertisement

This whole article looks like part of an ad campaign. I've removed some of the advertising cruft, but there is still much pruning to be done. Someone more knowledgeable about the software will need to do this. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

external link

I did not see adding the external link as a promotion, but as an info. I figured that people who are using MantisBT (or do some research on the product) might be interested to know that such an extension exists. It is related to the product, which this page describes. I'm also not quite sure what promoting means in this context. Isn't a page about a product a promotion itself? If so, why are there pages about products on wikipedia at all? What's the difference? Tessus (talk) 03:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Did you read WP:EL? I'll save you time and ask you to focus on WP:ELYES.

1. Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. See official links below.
2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a legally distributed copy of the work, so long as none of the restrictions on linking and links normally to be avoided criteria apply.
3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.

In other words, 3 states only encyclopedic links about the subject, not products. The text is read better in context and contains internal links and a reference.

EL:NO 14, Lists of links to manufacturers, suppliers or customers, would also apply as a deterrent.

This article is to be an encyclopedic discussion about the product, not a promotional pitch for it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I read WP:EL and I could not find anything that would explain why my external link was not ok. I also went through WP:ELNO and couldn't find anything wrong with my addition either. It is information directly related to the product which is described on the page. But ok, you are the editor. Tessus (talk) 04:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

As an example: on the page for GNU_Privacy_Guard, there are several external links dedicated to plugins or extensions. Tessus (talk) 04:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Not any longer. Any other articles you want to report?

Just because other stuff exists on Wikipedia does not mean that other articles should follow. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

IMO this policy is just wrong. It does not even make sense, if you think about it. I have been using Wikipedia quite a lot for research and the external links sections helped me a lot finding related stuff. With this policy at hand you basically have articles which summarize the homepage of the product. Well, I do not need Wikipedia for that. I can read that on the homepage. Wikipedia should be a framework for data and meta data. This policy makes Wikipedia less usable in terms of connecting the dots. Shouldn't a wiki follow exactly this mantra - connecting the dots? Tessus (talk) 05:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not a policy it's a guideline.

It's not a lot of things and a linkfarm (see WP:LINKFARM on that linked page) is not one of them. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

project history

MantisBT was originally offered by Ken... it then became a team project as indicated by https://github.com/mantisbt/mantisbt/blob/master/docbook/Admin_Guide/en-US/About.xml#L115 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.233.164 (talk) 07:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: I'm discussing this information with the editor who is attempting to add authorship information. Please see the information above. I encouraged him to discuss the situation with you here. --Pine^✉ 07:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The source doesn't really support "team project", it does support three additional authors though. A team is not the original author though and should not be listed as an original author in the infobox. If the team is to be added, a source for "MantisBT Team" must be supplied otherwise it's WP:OR. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

copyright header of every source file indicates e.g. https://github.com/mantisbt/mantisbt/blob/master/account_delete.php - although in any case - not original author.

Signifies what exactly? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

known to be problematic?

"Support for other databases ( MySQL, PostgreSQL, Microsoft SQL, Oracle ) is known to be problematic"

This was added in 2014, that means like 8 years ago. Is it still valid? If yes, this raises the question by whom it is known to be problematic? Who is backing this claim today? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.231.140 (talk) 10:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

The reference is not particularly clear about it. We should probably remove it, or at the very least, reword it to indicate that DB work was problematic, but removal seems best. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)