Talk:Joomla/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Significant changes on March 25 by Elamic for issues already resolved

Elamic - your changes from March 25 carry this explanation "(Removing uncited claims. Grammar edits regarding name issue. Spelling, punctuation. "core"/development team standardisation. compatibility/legacy mode fix. Timeline fix) "

The changes made were more significant and I ask that paragraph 5 be reverted to what it was given our resolution above. The text used to read:

By September 1, 2005 the new name, "Joomla", which is the English spelling of the Swahili (Arabic:جملة ,and Urdu: جملہ ) word [jumla] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) meaning "all together" or "as a whole" was announced. On August 18th, 2005, Andrew Eddie called for community input on names and indicated the core team would make the final decision. The name the core team chose was not in the list of suggested names and this caused some hard feelings.

After we resolved this issue for this exact text, you have now changed the text without any discussion under the misleading edit of minor changes to a non neutral POV. Your new text is as follows:

In August 18th, 2005, Andrew Eddie called for community input on potential names for the project and indicated the development team would make the final decision based on the community's input. The name chosen, however, was not part of the community input process started by Andrew Eddie; a surprising move considering the amount of community involvement and support the project had at that point.

Again, we addressed this very paragraph in your challenge to my submission, above. A group of interested parties listened in and voiced agreement with my changes. You agreed to the final copy. It appears now that you have merely waited a period of time to put back that negative slant into the document that you have been placing there over time.

It is disappointing that after you scolded me for making changes without first discussing such changes on this very Talk page (discussion above) you agreed to my changes, and then made your changes without any discussion.

Your new slant -- "a surprising move considering the amount of community involvement and support the project had at that point." Is negative, it is unsubstantiated and is certainly not a NPOV.

Furthermore, in the second to the last paragraph, you changed:

Since it has been around longer, there are more extensions available for Joomla 1.0 than for version 1.5, although new 1.5 extensions are becoming available.

To:

Since it has been around longer, there are more extensions available for Joomla 1.0 than for Joomla 1.5, however new 1.5 extensions are being released to market.

As a free software developer who does not offer commercial extensions for the Joomla! community, I resent the implication and ask this change also be reverted.

I will return to hear your explanation as to a) why you changed the text we agreed to, above b) why these new wordings c) why did you provide an edit summary that suggested your changes were grammatical and spelling related when in actuality your changes removed the NPOV we worked so hard to achieve and d) why did you indicate these were minor edits, and thus prevent notification for those of us who do not request notification for minor edits e) why you did not first discuss these changes when we had just resolved this issue on this very paragraph less than one month ago and f) I want to know whether or not you were able to obtain this "evidence" you claim Mambo Foundation has that can prove all of your theories?

AmyStephen (talk) 06:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The changes were in fact minor and I flagged them as such. The changes I made were regarding grammar and terminology in some way or another. I will explain..

Standardising between core and development team for the entire article is a minor edit. There were multiple ways of referencing multiple people in the existing copy such as "then core", "core team" and "development team", and the only way to consolidate them was to standardise the terms by which they were referred to. By recognising that there was only one development team that is responsible for the codebase, going from the time they held it under the Mambo brand, till now, is a way to make the readership understand that there is one set of people responsible for the codebase.

If the terms by which people describe the team have changed over time (i.e. development team to Core Team plus Working Groups), adding in a lexicon or glossary of terms to describe those people would be only beneficial to the Wiki if there were an entire section on the political and social structure of the Joomla project. I suggest as such above.

The copy that was present for the name did not read correctly, as it had Andrew Eddie's reference to the naming thread after September 1. From a timeline perspective, this did not convey a stable timeline. So I placed what happened on 18th Aug 2005 - references to Andrew Eddie's request to the community, prior to what happened on 1st Sep 2005.

The copy you had written, whilst a good start, just ended up sounding emotive - feelings being emotive and uncitable:

"called for community input on names and indicated the core team would make the final decision. The name the core team chose was not in the list of suggested names and this caused some hard feelings."

I removed the claims of feelings as and presented the facts in a positive light - namely that it was a surprising move in the end. If someone else had attempted to edit and clean up this piece of text as it did not read like a professional encyclopaedic statement, perhaps you would have approached them with the same vigour you have approached me ?

So now lets take apart what I actually edited. The previous paragraphs above Andrew Eddie's community pitch for names talk of significant community spirit and involvement, namely:

"A thousand people had joined the opensourcematters.org web site within a day, most posting words of encouragement and support for the actions of the development team. The web site received the slashdot effect and news articles regarding the event appeared at newsforge.com, eweek.com, and ZDnet.com. Miro CEO Peter Lamont gave a public response in an article entitled "The Mambo Open Source Controversy - 20 Questions With Miro".[4]

This event stirred deeply held feelings in the free software community regarding what shall constitute "open source". Forums at many other open source projects were active with postings for and against the actions of both sides."

In this way, I was referencing the significant community involvement across many forums regarding the fork, and since these statements remain factual and citable, how is it POV pushing when these paragraphs and the citable references within them were my reference material for "considering the amount of community involvement and support the project had at that point" ?

So.. thus far I've stabilised the timeline by placing events on 18 Aug 2005 before 2 Sep 2005 and changed an emotive statement to something that wasn't emotive and had some citable, reference material behind the statement. Does that mean these actions are POV pushing because they stabilised the timeline and referenced key statements elsewhere in the article to provide context ?

As for open source products being in a marketplace, why is it offensive that open source products are in a market ? Eric Raymond, one of the key proponents of the Open Source movement, talks about Open Source being in a bazaar. A bazaar is a term for a type of open marketplace in which goods are traded. What then qualifies open source products in a market as POV pushing, when CatB along with the rest of Eric Raymond's work does exactly that ?

As for the Mambo Foundation reference material, I still haven't received clearance in regards to providing links to records of MSC material to Wiki as there is nothing on Wiki in dealing with secured, yet citable, reference material (to the best of my knowledge). I find it offensive that you would continue to level 'theories' at me and seek to ascribe 'theories' to me. I find that such statements wander your actions repeatedly towards personal attacks; something that is not welcome on Wiki.

I do believe I have provided sufficient documentary evidence to qualify my edits as both minor, focussed on grammar and NPOV. Thank you and have a good morning El Mariachi (talk) 13:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Core - versus - development team:

I provided links (above) showing how groups are named in Joomla!. The objection raised to your change of "core team" to "developer team" is correct. Your opinion that "core team" and "developer team" are interchangeable is incorrect. I will revert your changes to reflect the facts.

Do you object to this? If so, why?

2. Slanted POV on the naming of Joomla! (that was returned after we had considerable discussion and consensus!):

I proposed the sentence you have now changed, above. It was reviewed by those gathered, yourself included. You did *not* object to the wording, previously. In fact, you agreed to the wording. So, why change it now? Why not suggest changes earlier when we all were discussing this? We reached consensus, above, with all interested parties on the sentence you have now took it upon yourself to change without any discussion and you continue to suggest this is minor.

I do not object to the word "surprising" - it's the innuendo introduced following the word "surprising" that troubles me. You are suggesting that the core team discounted (did not care about) what you are calling significant community involvement and support. That is not a neutral point of view. That is not a fact. Is this your opinion?

a. This is what it the sentence was when we all reviewed it earlier and it is how it was published, as per that discussion:

On August 18th, 2005, Andrew Eddie called for community input on names and indicated the core team would make the final decision. The name the core team chose was not in the list of suggested names and this caused some hard feelings.

b. This is what you turned it into (note how "surprising" is not the only change you have made; see how differently it now reads.):

In August 18th, 2005, Andrew Eddie called for community input on potential names for the project and indicated the development team would make the final decision based on the community's input. The name chosen, however, was not part of the community input process started by Andrew Eddie; a surprising move considering the amount of community involvement and support the project had at that point.

c. If you prefer the word "surprise" to the words "hard feelings", then, I recommend we change the sentence back to that which we agreed (above) but replace "hard feelings" with your preferred word "surprise", as follows:

On August 18th, 2005, Andrew Eddie called for community input on names and indicated the core team would make the final decision. The name the core team chose was not in the list of suggested names and this surprised some community members.

Do you object to this? If so, why?

3. Market

I love Eric Raymond's thinking and the Cathedral and the Bazaar absolutely rocks, but, Joomla! is free, as in liberty, and free, as in beer. If you wish to discuss open source business models and marketing, this article is not the place to do so. Joomla! is not a market. There is no place to pay for anything at Joomla.org.

Again, I propose we revert your change:

Since it has been around longer, there are more extensions available for Joomla 1.0 than for Joomla 1.5, however new 1.5 extensions are being released to market.

Back to original:

Since it has been around longer, there are more extensions available for Joomla 1.0 than for version 1.5, although new 1.5 extensions are becoming available.

Do you object to this? If so, why?

All viewpoints are welcome on these three reverts. Thanks.

AmyStephen (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I've already said my piece, given references to why citations matter in encyclopaedic material, and you want me to explain it to you again? Here's the short version:

1: Nobody outside the project knows the difference between the core and the development team and the working groups. By having 3 different terms describing 3 different sets of people, it ends up confusing the readership. An encyclopaedic article isn't meant to be confusing. A lexicon or section on political structure of Joomla is the possible solution if you want to talk about 3 different sets of people in the same article. Otherwise, standardise it to talk about the people who control the codebase - the development team.

Your point that reality and truth is confusing to people is without merit. I will revert your changes to what is true and I am confident the readership will be able to comprehend this very simple fact. AmyStephen (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

2: Fact: Andrew Eddie stated in the community input thread, along with Shayne Bartlett (in that thread or an associated one), that the name would be taken from community input. By providing more contextual information regarding the statements made (factual and citable) by Andrew Eddie, the overall article verifiability is increased. Talking about "feelings" and "core team" (was it even the core at that point?) and having lack of context in regards to what Andrew Eddie's actual statement was in the first place just loses credibility and verifiability for the overall article.

OK. Sounds like we have reached consensus then on changing the earlier agreed upon term: "hard feelings" to one of your preference: "surprise." The rest is not necessary and introduces a slanted POV. I will make that change, as indicated above, given your continued support of the word "surprise" over the phrase "feelings." AmyStephen (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

El - you are wrong to say that Andrew Eddie said "that the name would be taken from community input." What he said was "We are open to any suggestions but the Development Teams's will make the final decision on any name." That piece is linked to in the article. If you have facts (other than these Mambo Foundation pieces you cannot get anyone to share that you continue to mention), then link to the facts. You have a habit of saying what people said or did without substantiating their words. It is comments such as those that are not a NPOV and must not be allowed to distort the historical record. AmyStephen (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

3: CatB, as I said before, shows open source products in a market. You want other sources that reflect extensions for Joomla exist in a marketplace ? How about extensions.joomla.org ? They list commercial extensions, both purely commercial licenced and commercial extensions under various open source / libre licences that allow commercialisation (GPL, LGPL, BSD, Creative Commons) right ?

This is a page about Joomla!. Joomla! is licensed under the GPL. It is free of charge. If we can continue beyond the selection of the name, we could actually start talking about features and working groups and delve into third party software and extensions. Please refrain from making changes to material we have already agreed upon so that we can move forward. I will revert your change, as indicated above. AmyStephen (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I need not explain myself again. I've already said most of this twice already. Let consensus have it's way.

I've also noticed you are retroactively editing the Joomla talk page. Please follow the talk page guidelines in regards to editing your own comments on a talk page. Have a good morning El Mariachi (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

El - I clarified my statement with seven or eight words quickly after an initial response. The guidelines indicate "Altering a comment after it has been replied to robs the reply of its original context." I did not do that. You might want to lead by example in the future and use the talk page to discuss changes of this nature prior to changing the article. IMO, that will help us work together in a positive manner. I have done so at your request; please show the same consideration. AmyStephen (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I take it you then recognize inserting your own comments 'inline' on this very talk page above throughout my last reply is considered defacing a talk page? You have clearly violated the talk page guidelines for editing other people's comments in the manner you have edited above. You neither asked my permission, nor demonstrated that my replies veered away from the discussion at hand, in doing such edits. Please read the entire guidelines for the talk page again, especially in regards to respecting the comments of others. The other issues on the Joomla page can wait till I can see good faith edits done here in regards to the quality of your editorial work. El Mariachi (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

El - I marked my comments with the four tildas and indented the paragraphs to clearly designate my response. Many of us are not experts in Wikipedia. You have found that by pointing the rules out once to me, I comply. If there are corrections that can be made for my inline comments, please make those corrections. In the past, when you have asked I do something, I do. Case in point, you asked that I discuss all changes in the Talk page and I have followed your request. I ask the same of you. In the future, please bring your changes to the talk page before making those changes. Had you done that, we would not be having this discussion again. Since you have not objected to the substantive portion of the discussion, I will continue with the three changes, so outlined. Thank you. AmyStephen (talk) 12:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I have objected. The nature of your editing style leaves serious questions regarding the validity of the professionalism of your encyclopaedic work. Case in point: the fact you basically defaced my earlier reply by placing your comments 'inline' after I had pointed out the guidelines for the talk page. You seemed to have read the bit about editing your own comments and then proceeded to ignore the bits regarding other peoples comments. You may state that many people are not experts at Wikipedia, but the action of defacing someone else's comments after reading the guidelines on talk either means you never actually understood the talk guidelines, or you only read them piecemeal. They are your comments that have defaced this page, and as such, in order to demonstrate good faith editing on Wiki, it is up to you to clean up your mistake.

It is wrong to assume there is consensus for your edits on the Joomla article when you seem to ignore the rules and guidelines of Wiki when pointed out to you. Have a good morning El Mariachi (talk) 00:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Update

Three changes have been made as per this discussion. AmyStephen (talk) 13:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Selection of the Joomla! Name, Again

I removed this portion from the "how the name was selected" portion of the Joomla! page:

"It was instead chosen by consultation from [a professional brand consultancy | http://forum.joomla.org/viewtopic.php?f=124&t=272&&start=600#p20188] under the pay of Open Source Matters."

This is the linked quote

"Well, we are not going to decide on anything. The Core team will make the decision. They have hired a professional brand consultancy to help with choosing a name."

- There is nothing in that quote about Open Source Matters.

- The individual quoted is not a core team member and his expertise on core team issues has not been established.

- The relevance of the point is unclear.

- The facts and links already in the article quote a core team member calling for community input but making it clear that the core team members will choose the name. And, they did!

If more information is needed on the topic of the name, please read the section above where Elamic added these types of undocumented statements and I refuted such statements with verifiable facts.

Would it not make sense to focus efforts on documenting what Joomla! - the software - does than to continue these repeated unverifiable claims about the name? What is the point of this? AmyStephen (talk) 04:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Amy, the page is about the Joomla project, correct ? The development of the name, what it means, and where it came from, is part of the established history of the project. Claiming that this verifiable quote remains unclear on the point simply requires comprehension. The reason that quote was referred to is that it verifies what is common knowledge amongst the Joomla community. It was common knowledge during the fork's birth that the Development Team had hired a third party to help find the name. The referenced quote merely reflects that common knowledge.

Sure, I can no longer find Brian Teeman's quotes on the forums where he as part of the Development Team (at that time) also validates the referenced quote. Claiming that attributable history be removed because (a) OSM isn't mentioned, (b) the individual quoted isn't a Dev Team member, or (c) you don't understand the point it's mentioning 3 to 6 months after it was written into Wiki, doesn't add value or quality to the Joomla article. It does also beg the question why you waited this long to voice your concerns.

As such, I will be returning the historical record of the Joomla project to what can be verified and attributed. Have a good morning El Mariachi (talk) 06:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Open Source Matters, Inc was not formed until 15 September 2008 New York State Department of State so could not have paid for a brand consultant or anything else in August 2005.

69.121.70.15 (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Joomla! v 1.5 Features

Since Joomla! is a Content Management System, I would like to see this article focus on describing what Joomla! is. For those who want to participate in helping create that section of this page, allow me to offer the resource Joomla! Core Features, written by James Ramsay, one of the Google Highly Open Participation Contest students.

If someone can point to good examples of other wikipedia pages where features have been appropriately described, that would be very helpful, as well. The idea is to describe what the features of Joomla!, not to promote Joomla! or try to market Joomla!, so we must be careful to avoid sounding like a marketing group. Having said that, it is perfectly appropriate to describe technical features and what those features do.

Ideas welcome! Thanks!

AmyStephen (talk) 13:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi would it be possible to put this site as an external link ? WWW.joomlaxtreme.com the site is growing and is haveing many articles for joomla problems i think it would be a usful resource ?

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.81.230 (talk) 21:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It would make the Joomla page into a link farm, and wiki is not meant to be a link farm. Thanks. El Mariachi (talk) 22:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)