Talk:Drupal/Archives/2007/December

Organic Groups

The article should explain what organic groups is and what it does, as many (most?) people do not know what it is. Agreed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.65.7 (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Criteria for listing Drupal sites

'''This page regularly gets links added to it of sites where it is obvious the author just wants to drive more traffic to his/her site.

Some useful criterions to evaluate links: - Has the site existed for long? Check the number in the URL of the latest post for example. - Is the site noteworthy in

---

'''its target audience and content? Or is it just another news portal / blog?

- Does the site look professional, or is it just a standard template with a logo slapped on?

The amount of ads on a site is also a good indicator of the owner's intentions.

Noticing this little bit here, I'll atone for my sins. I added a link to Bluffton Today because it's considered a very experimental community publication which just happens to be on the Drupal platform. It's been covered in USA Today [1] and elsewhere as a model of future newspaper growth, and the site is the brainchild of well-known Internet/new media analyst Steve Yelvington [2]. I'm concerned about your criteria, though; just because a site runs ads doesn't necessarily mean it's throwing up a link for free hits. I'd reconsider this stance. Stick Fig 19:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• What's wrong with adding Free Software Magazine to the list of notable drupal sites? They have been around for three years, were consistently ranked in the top 3 drupal sites on topdrupalsites.com until it closed down. It also has featured articles about drupal and the editor and chief Tony Mobily contributes to the drupal project. It is also the only magazine that covers free software as a whole; an example of free software being...Drupal! It does have ads but that's how magazine's and most websites make money. What I'd like to know is what makes all the other sites listed so different.

Furthermore, if Free Software Magazine can't "advertise" (as you put it) in the "Notable sites using Drupal" section, then why can US Online put their links there? They have far more ads (and offensive ones too) than Free Software Magazine does? - anon

The list of sites using Drupal is WAY too long. Using it as a link farm devalues the article. We've seen this on a number of pages relating to software that's in widespread use. The best remedy seems to be to limit such lists to wikilinks, thereby (theoretically) assuring their notability. So the rule becomes ... if you want the Drupal page to refer to your web site, create a WP article that describes your site, and link to the WP article from the Drupal page. If there's support for this method and little objection I'd be happy to make the necessary edits.  ◉ ghoti 06:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

There are some guidelines as to what should and should not be linked from a Wikipedia article: see WP:EL, WP:SPAM and WP:NOT#LINK. Certainly, the fact that a site is using Drupal is not grounds for inclusion unless it is both particularly notable and of direct relevance to the article, in which case the place for it is in a reference from the main article, not the external links section. Personally, I think that links to the main Drupal site and possibly api.drupal.org will suffice. Links to third party theme galleries in particular are definitely a no-no and should be reverted on sight: they are invariably spam. — jammycakes ^(t)_(c) 10:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

TOC

This note to cleanup from several previous comments. TOC (Table of Contents) are automatically created by the wiki when more that three headers are listed. The article has at least as many now.

--meatclerk 08:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Restored Material

I've restored the material that was just deleted by Amgine. We've just been through a long discussion of standards for inclusion, and the links currently included fit those standards and do not make this article a linkfarm. I've also removed the links recently added by Alanh. They point to a couple of podcasts about Drupal which are not, in my opinion, sufficiently useful to merit inclusion here. (One of them is 50+ minutes long and discusses the installer feature that comes with the latest version of Drupal. Most people won't want to listen to two guys joke and chitchat for an hour about a feature that they can learn about with 5 minutes of reading.) --Sheldon Rampton 02:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a question. Does Drupal have any type of developer hub-website? --meatclerk 04:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore: Wikipedia:External links. These links clearly violate this guideline. Removing again. - Amgine 04:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I just reviewed other examples. I think delete the entire. 'Notable section. --meatclerk 04:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, Wikipedia:External links does not say a page cannot have any external links. It says, "no page should be dominated by or consist solely of a collection of external links. ... However, adding a small number of relevant external links can be a valuable service to our readers." Currently the number of external in this article is small, and consists of links that are a valuable service to readers. For example, the CivicSpace link that Amgine deleted is valuable because it points to a major Drupal distribution with an easy installer and features not available directly from the main Drupal website. (Yes, Jesse, a Drupal hub website exists, and it is listed in the article's "external links" section.)

Secondly, most of what Amgine deleted were internal links to other Wikipedia articles, not external links at all. Wikipedia does not have a policy saying that articles cannot link to other Wikipedia articles. Accordingly, I have reverted Amgine's changes. By doing so, I have added back a total only three external links, all of which point to significant Drupal resources. However, I also removed a couple of external links to podcasts that were not particularly useful and that Amgine inexplicably restored. Thus, the net difference between my version and Amgine's version is that my version only has one more external link than Amgine's. --Sheldon Rampton 07:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, no. All the links you keep adding are far too irrelavent. I agree with Amgine and they should be removed.

Your choices are remove them and maintain the line with other similar articles. Or have the article locked through arbitration. You'd be well advised to look at the examples you listed for me. NONE carry advertisement. I have no stake in this puppy other than maintaining the wiki norm. --meatclerk 08:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine, let's take it to arbitration. I don't know why you keep using the word "advertisement." None of the links that User:Eloquence added and that I have been defending are advertisements. They're links to Wikipedia articles. Perhaps you think "links to example sites" are "advertisements," but that's a bizarre definition of advertisement. It's true that none of the three content management systems I happened to mention above include example sites, but there are Wikipedia articles about other CMSs that do include examples. Look, for example, at the LiveJournal article, or the MySpace article, which has examples of people with MySpace pages, or the TypePad article.

My friend you have a fine sense of not getting the point, or intentionally obfuscating the the subject. If you like, I'll remove the links. But my guess is you'll just put them back again. --meatclerk 17:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

<<<Removed Diatribe>>

As I stated previously, I'm perfectly happy to take this to arbitration, and I'm pretty confident that the outcome will be to my satisfaction. If that's what you want to do, go ahead. I'd prefer going that route than further dialogue with you. You've pretty much exhausted my patience. --Sheldon Rampton 22:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Break Discussion; Continue topic

I'll make it plain for you.

• With extremely rare exception, no one, not even the examples you gave me, has a list of Notable (..) websites. More than one editor has deleted this section on Drupal. I'm inclined to do the same.
• You state you don't know why I keep using the word "advertisement." You continue with None of the links (...) I have been defending are advertisements. The links in Notable Drupal websites are just that.
• You mention three new example sites. I reviewed all three.
  • LiveJournal has some narrowly acceptable listings.
  • MySpace seems to have none.
  • TypePad is worst that Drupal.

Let's start with that point and continue. I'm willing to work with you, but don't ramble. Make your point short and to the point.

Lastly, Just becuase I say I'm not interested in Drupal, does not mean I am against it. I am simply stating I have not stake in it one way or another. I am saying I plan to be neurtal. Period.

Best Regards--meatclerk 04:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll make it plain for you too. You say you're willing to work with me, but really you're not. I've given detailed reasons, both in my responses to you and in my discussions with User:Eloquence, for my position. All you do, on the other hand, is repeat without explanation your insistence that the list of "notable websites" section is a collection of advertisements. Eloquence is the person who created that list, so clearly he thinks it belongs here. I agree with him, and I don't agree with you. The only person who agreed with you on this point is Amgine, so that makes two people on each side.

I'm not interested in discussing this with you any further. I've explained my position already, in much more detail than you have explained yours. If you want to take this to arbitration, fine. Otherwise, stop pretending you're the lord of this article. --Sheldon Rampton 06:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick response, more in a few days. We should not confuse the two issues that have been discussed above. It should be perfectly acceptable to have a list of links to Wikipedia articles about notable Drupal websites. Wikipedia:External links, as the name suggests, is about external links, not internal ones. Such a list could also be managed as a Category:Drupal website, but a manually maintained list has the advantage of allowing us to add a brief summary to each example. A list of links to Wikipedia articles is generally acceptable if it provides useful information to the reader, which I think is the case here. It does appear true, however, that such lists cannot be found in articles about other CMS, so the question of whether one should be included here does merit discussion.

The long discussion with Sheldon above is about whether, in addition to this list, notable uses of Drupal should be discussed in the article. I do think that, too, is acceptable if such a discussion is embedded into the prose of the article, and the external links are referenced as footnotes. In that case, the external sites become references to statements in the articles (primary sources which, per Wikipedia:No original research, are allowable).--Eloquence* 07:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. The confusion between external links and links to Wikipedia articles is not coming from me. And of course, there are countless examples of Wikipedia articles that include "a list of links to Wikipedia articles." For example, look at List of zines or Personal computer game or Roguelike or Turn-based strategy or List of computer and video games by genre. Is there a policy somewhere that says articles about content management systems must be subjected to different rules than articles about zines or computer games? Sheldon Rampton 08:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Eloquence, that's it. You stated better than I could. I'll admit (per Sheldon's attributes) my comments might have been vague. But unfortunately, I find his rambling.

Correct solution. I'll keep quiet for 10 days. Hence, you won't here from me until July 29 or later. I think you guys have the point. --meatclerk 09:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Noncompliant

Simply sticking a noncompliant tag on this article without specifying any reasons why you regard it as noncompliant is inappropriate. --Sheldon Rampton 12:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

More than 10 days ago I said I would re-review this article. It still has issues. At this point, your just being stubborn. I can see from the history log you are defending this article, but it still links to commercial websites.

Per Wikipedia:External_links#What should be linked to guidelines

1. Sites that have been used as references There are some links that don't follow this.

Please give examples. Otherwise I don't have any idea why you think there is a problem here.

1. (...) should link to the official site if there is one That is acceptable and it is done and okay.
2. On articles with multiple points of view, This article has only one point of view.

Please explain what you mean. I have no idea what you mean by this.

1. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Some websites contribute nothing to the article

Examples?

1. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as professional athlete statistics, screen credits, interviews, or online textbooks. There are no links like this in the article.

Here you seem to be complaining that the article lacks external links of a certain type, but the guidelines don't say all articles have to have links of this type. In any case, you're wrong. The "Drupal website" and "documentation for Drupal developers" both include online textbooks for people who want to learn about Drupal, and the directory of Drupal websites and theme garden are both "meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article."

Next per Wikipedia:External_links#Links normally to be avoided

4. Links that are added to promote a site There are many links like this

Actually, there are none. Can you give an example of a link that you think was added to promote a site?

On this last item, I've noted you are particularly difficult to deal with. Perhaps it is not clear what this means. I must assume so. So this is where we will start.

Instead of commenting on how difficult you think I am to deal with, it would help if you can try to focus on specifics about this article. I find it unpleasant and irritating when you insult me like this.

Lastly, the guidelines I just quote are to help US agree on what will go in the article.

To get us started let's discuss the section entitled Notable Drupal websites

Why should this section be here?

I say this is not appropriate. Please state why you think it is and please show example of an article you believe it is appropriate. I assume this is the case because you are defending this section so much.

meatclerk 07:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I had a long discussion already with User:Eloquence about this section, which you can read above if you care to. As he and I have already explained to you, the section on "Notable Drupal websites" does not contain any external links. Rather, it is a list of links to Wikipedia articles. Eloquence chose to do it that way because, as he put it, "I think the guideline that any site listed should have its own Wikipedia article (i.e. meet WP:WEB) is reasonable." In other words, every website listed in this section has met the test of being sufficiently notable that it already has its own separate Wikipedia article. Using this litmus test as a standard for inclusion should prevent this section from becoming a spam magnet.

At a more fundamental level, the reason why this section belongs in the article is that people who actually want to learn about Drupal will find it useful. You have made it clear that you are not interested in Drupal, and you certainly have every right not to be interested in it, just as I have the right not to be interested in method acting. However, people who are interested in a topic certainly want to be able to find notable examples of it, just as people who are interested in method acting want to know some examples of notable method actors (and indeed, the method acting article provides such a list). --Sheldon Rampton 11:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I sincerly appoligize for not being more careful on this. I shall endeavour to be more careful in the future. My mistake, my error. I will be more careful.

As for this section, I will back off and, as I just said 'be more careful'. --meatclerk 04:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

In addition, for that I will take 30 days away. Some external links exist and some redlinks as well. --meatclerk 04:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia policy against having redlinks. A redlink simply means that someone thinks the marked-up phrase is notable enough to deserve an article. If you think otherwise, just take out the square brackets, but some of the redlinked phrases are notable enough to retain, in particular Christian Crumlish, CiviCRM, Ann Arbor Public Library and Greenpeace UK. As for external links, there really aren't very many, and the ones that exist have good reason to be there. User:Eloquence and I have discussed this at some length and reached an understanding that I think you should try to understand before assuming that anything needs to be done about the external links which remain. --Sheldon Rampton 05:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said, 30 days. --meatclerk 05:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Notable Drupal websites -> Notable Drupal users

Sheldon, I changed the header on the aforementioned. This may help deal with websites getting listed instead of internal links. In addition, I've repeated your comment every four lines or so. This should help clear up that section as a "link magnet".

Moving on to other subject. As you are aware, my objections are to text or links being created that make this article an advertisement for Drupal. In essence, the article should talk about the merits of the system, but not pronounce it is better (or worse) than others. Your comments.

meatclerk 18:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't care whether the header says "websites" or "users," so I've accepted your change. I've also accepted your resizing of the Drupal logo, and deleting the Samuel Merritt college link is fine too. As for the comment telling people to only link to Drupal sites that have existing Wikipedia articles, that doesn't need to be repeated every four lines. People aren't idiots, and there hasn't been a problem of "link magnetry" recently in this article.

As for the external links that you commented out, they clearly belong in the article. They are not "advertisements." Wikipedia's External links policy expressly states, "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if there is one." Note that it doesn't simply say "may link," it says "should link." Drupal.org is the official website of Drupal, so this article should link to it. The directory of websites using Drupal is also expressly permitted in the external policy, which states that articles may link to "A web directory category when deemed appropriate by those contributing to an article, with preference to open directories."

The other two external links also both point to officlal Drupal websites: themes.drupal.org, a listing of downloadable Drupal themes, and api.drupal.org, a web developer's reference guide to Drupal's application programming interface. Neither of these sites can be remotely construed as "advertisements." An API reference is a technical document that contains no more puffery than any other reference manual. The themes list and the API reference are the first resources that anyone who is interested in learning how to use Drupal would use as references. This type of link is expressly recommended for inclusion under Wikipedia's external links policy, which states that articles should include external links to "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article," in cases where "the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article."

--Sheldon Rampton 02:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Sheldon, thanks for your response.

1) On Notable Drupal users, you might be right, but it seems that as people add information they tend to tweak the meanings. As such, the 'header', or meaning, should help alleviate any misunderstanding. It is at best a hope, and I think that is all we can ask for.

2) On the external links, I purposely commented the out such that we could discuss them, rather than get into a war of reverts.

• On that, yes of course http://www.drupal.org/ is the offical website, so that should be linked. There is no discussion on that.
• The remainder of the links are marginally, at best. But here is the issue. Let us assume there are many websites like drupalsites.net. That each of these websites do a reasonably fair job and treat everyone equally well. The question now is: Which website do you list? If you leave one off, then have they reason to complain that they are not listed. If you follow that then, under the heading Links normally to be avoided it states:

1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes a Wikipedia:Featured article.

So then, the question might be Wikipedia:What_is_a_featured_article?

If you follow that link, then you may note 1. d) "Neutral" and 1. e) "Stable". If someone, besides me objects to this, then (in the worst possible case) the article would be locked and the external links I commented out would be removed (possible without recourse).

So as you might see, favoring one website over another is in essence Advertising for it. The issue will come to a head when someone (possible with a financial interest in Drupal) confronts your decision to include another website over theirs. And as I've stated before, I don't use Drupal, I don't know how it works, nor do I care to find out. By this measure, I may be your best friend in a fight. Best Regards meatclerk 05:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You wrote: "Let us assume there are many websites like drupalsites.net." Why should we assume that? I don't think there's a business model that would support even a single person making a profit from a website devoted solely to listing Drupal websites, and it's really far-fetched to imagine that a website this specialized would have multiple commercial competitors. No one else has ever tried to add any other websites of this type to the Drupal article. You're trying to solve a problem that exists only in your own imagination.

Of the four links that you blanked out, three are to official Drupal resources. The fourth, drupalsites.net, is not advertising and has no competitors trying to favor their site over it. Moreover, including DrupalSites.net actually helps minimize the problem of linkspam, because it is a site where anyone who has a Drupal-powered website, however small, can add their link to the list. Thus, we can encourage people who want to add their link somewhere to go do it on DrupalSites.net rather than trying to do so here. In short, DrupalSites.net is precisely the sort of open directory that Wikipedia's external links policy expressly allows and prefers over closed directories. If you understood Drupal and its community of users (which you admit that you do not), I don't think I would need to spend time explaining to you why a listing of this type is useful and appropriate for inclusion in this article.

Since by your own admission you don't know about Drupal and aren't interested in it, I think it would be a better use of your own time if you devoted your attention to other articles on Wikipedia where you do possess enough knowledge to contribute constructively.--Sheldon Rampton 21:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I am an active user of Drupal - I completely agree with and second Sheldon Rampton's suggestion: Leave well enough alone a topic you know nothing about. 'Let us assume there are many websites like drupalsites.net', indeed! Talk about trying to solve a problem inside your own head... I would suggest that there must be an editor of equal or greater status than 'meatclerk' who IS familiar with Drupal and its community, and can possibly take charge of issues with this page instead.

I feel we need to add a section and external links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drupal about the available local user groups... Where would we add such content? (ie: http://drupal.org/node/160239) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.122.33.26 (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Distortion of facts

You wonder why I don't listen to you.

I make a point, you distort it to distort the issue, but at this rate you'll corner your self with inconsistencies in no time. Also, using a Wikipedia:sockpuppet will get you banded. Consider that carefully. Also, personal attacks will get you banded. Consider all this.

In any case, I still suggest we discuss this. I'm willing to are you? (This page not on my watch list.) meatclerk 18:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by suggesting that I have distorted something. What have I distorted? You say you still have something you want to discuss, but you haven't bothered to say what it is. Instead, all you've done is insult me again and add the additional insulting and false claim that I'm using a sockpuppet. I haven't used a sockpuppet, and I resent that you would suggest such a thing. The anon IP number that was used to post a comment which happens to agree with me resolves to BellSouth in Florida. I live in Wisconsin. I am reluctant to have any further discussion with someone who throws out this sort of insulting accusation without a shred of evidence. If you wish to discuss this further, therefore, I suggest we do so through a mediator. --Sheldon Rampton 20:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Alternative to Notable Drupal websites section

Wow, there are some heated debates here. I don't want to get in to them; I'm not much for politics, but here's an idea that I think might be an improvement over the current section. What if, instead of including links at all, we just make a category? Something like Category:Entities using Drupal or somesuch? Rather than maintaining a list within the Drupal article, we'd then build the list dynamically by editing the rest of the 'poedia. The Drupal article could then simply refer to the category listing within its text. Obviously, if there's an article about something, it's likely notable, or the deletionists will already have pounced on it. What think you all?  ◉ ghoti 03:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think creating a category would be an improvement. At present, the Drupal article only lists 14 notable Drupal websites. (For comparison's sake, no one is objecting to the inclusion of a list of 24 notable method actors in the the method acting article.) Moreover, all 14 items in the list of notable Drupal websites point to existing Wikipedia articles, so their notability is not in question. If we ever got to the point where the list included an excessive number of notable Drupal websites, I might support the creation of a category like the one you suggest, but 14 is not excessive. Creating such a category now would simply break the content of this article into two locations, which would detract from readability. Moreover, a category along the lines you suggest would be problematic according to Wikipedia's existing policy for when to use categories:

If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why the article was put in the category? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?

To take just one example from the list of notable Drupal websites, the fact that The Onion is powered by Drupal is not "prominently discussed" or in fact even mentioned in the Onion article itself. Someone who goes to that article from a category like the one you suggest would therefore not find it obvious why the article was put in the category. --Sheldon Rampton 09:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this has to lead us in one of the following directions.

1. Drupal should be mentioned on various other wikipedia pages. And you're right, if it doesn't bear mentioning, then a category is out.
2. The section should be turned into a proper list. A list wouldn't pollute the original article with links that could be interpreted as advertisements. Of course, it's greater effort to maintain.
3. The section is irrelevant and can be dropped from the article.
4. We have to call this something other than "notable" (which is already defined in the Wikipedia lexicon).

As is, the list is neither objective nor complete. There are solutions. We should pick one.

On the matter of the 14 sites ... there are far more entities mentioned on Wikipedia who are using Drupal than these 14. The 14 are included because they are considered most notable by whoever added them to the article, or because somebody wanted a quick way to fill out another section. That gets us back to the "neither objective nor complete" thing. Is Planet Boinng any more notable than Annabelle Chvostek, who also uses Drupal? Alexa doesn't think so. Neither is a particularly spectacular example of Drupal. The problem is that the criteria for inclusion are subjective.

I suggest that we start with option 2, and again linking only to wikipedia articles, and consider whether option 1 can be achieved in the future. That section weakens the article, as does the fact that it sort-of duplicates the Examples section.

Oh, and for reference, I don't think the method acting page is a good example to follow.  ◉ ghoti 15:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Rather than immerse ourselves in the minutiae of Wikipedia policies, et's take a step back here and ask ourselves the basic question, "What makes for a good encyclopedia article?" A good encyclopedia article about Drupal should provide information that will be helpful to someone who wants to know what Drupal is and how they can use it if they wish to do so. Drupal is a software package that is used by web developers to power websites. Accordingly, it should contain information that will be useful to web developers, including

1. What are its features?
2. What can be done with it?
3. What are its strengths and limitations?
4. Where can they go to get further information?

I think it's obvious that anyone who wants to know these things about Drupal would like to be able to find a list of Drupal-powered websites. DrupalSites.net provides one such list, which is why User:Eloquence added a link to it in this article. However, DrupalSites.net is a very long and indiscriminate list, and someone who is interested in knowing what can be done with Drupal would naturally also be interested in having a shorter, more selective list that highlights some of Drupal's specific features.

In the past, there was a perceived problem with the Drupal-powered websites section of this article, because people were adding links directly to their own websites, some of which were of questionable quality. Eloquence and I therefore had some discussion about how to deal with this, and we arrived at a set of criteria for determining when a site should be included:

1. For inclusion in the list of notable websites, a site should have its own, already-existing article in Wikipedia as a test of notability. Moreover, the Drupal article should link to the Wikipedia article about that site rather than to the site itself.
2. Other websites may be included in the article if they are either (1) high-traffic, (2) demonstrably innovative or noteworthy, or (3) typical of a common class of Drupal websites. However, only one or two examples should be chosen to exemplify sites that belong to a common class. For example, there are dozens if not hundreds of Drupal-powered election campaign websites. We wouldn't want to list them all here, but it is helpful to be able to find at least one example in this class.

You seem to be suggesting that moving the examples of Drupal sites into a separate list article would be an improvement. I don't see how that would make the article more readable or useful, and I don't see how it would eliminate the temptation for people to add linkspam (a problem that in any case has already been largely eliminated by the solution that Eloquence and I arrived at). --Sheldon Rampton 17:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Sheldon, you know my opinion on this issue. Rather than labor a point. I might agree with the suggestion in this. As a list, it is not subject to as much review and critizim as the main article. As such, I believe it would give the entire article more liberty to list website, then maintain a "representative" list as your comments suggest. As such, I will leave this. This article is NOT on my watch list. The freedom you ascribe is your own. Respectfully. --meatclerk 20:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Excessive "Citation Needed" tags

Get a clue, please. Citations are needed for the assertion of facts, statistics or quotes. It looks ridiculous to litter a page with 'citation needed' tags in every possible location. For example, the phrase:

Drupal has been considered by some[citation needed] to be more difficult to install and to configure than CMS such as Mambo

Let me be very clear. This phrase does not require a citation! If you don't think that phrase belongs in the article, that's one thing. Remove the phrase if you want, just don't add 'citation needed' just because you don't agree with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.53.22 (talk • contribs)

I'll give this some time and if there are no disputes I'll go ahead and remove the improper citation needed tags.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.89.125.72 (talk • contribs)

I think I'd prefer either to get citations, or remove the opinions. Phrases like "considered by some" and "some have also criticized" seem like obvious candidates for citation. Who are these "some"? When opinions are expressed in an article, WP maintains neutrality by citing sources. If these are the original thoughts of an author of the article, they don't belong here. My 2¢, anyway.  ◉ ghoti 00:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Sheldon, that's great! Thanks for finding those references.  ◉ ghoti 13:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Citations should be requires on certain phrases. Please read Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words for details on that. --meatclerk 20:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Drupal content

I had heard about Drupal and decided to check the web page to see what it was about.

it's a 'content management system', several well known sites use it.

A magazine rack is a content management system, so is a refrigerator. I could have written most of the Wiki entry myself from that page and still be no wiser.

this needs a rewrite, it should explain what it really is.

cheers harry 203.49.192.42 05:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should click on the 'content management system' link on the first line of the article and read it. At wikipedia, we link to articles rather include the entire contents of wikipedia in every article.ConditionalZenith 00:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Greenpeace UK reference

The article states

CiviCRM, a constituent relationship management system that integrates with Drupal, has made Drupal an attractive platform for nonprofit organizations such as Greenpeace UK.

This seems to imply that Greenpeace UK is using CiviCRM. I was a Greenpeace employee until recently (working with fundraising/CRMs, but not for Greenpeace UK), and as far as I know, GP UK is not currently using CiviCRM.

Google found this link: http://importantprojects.co.uk/archives/000091.php which seems to indicate that GP UK has investigated CiviCRM, but nothing more.

I have deleted the "such as Greenpeace UK" - if someone have evidence that they are using CiviCRM, feel free to re-add with a source - or use a different example. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NisJorgensen (talk • contribs) 16:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Disputable claims: not such great code.

This section: "modular design and well-documented, clean codebase" [a] reads like an advert, [b] may not be true (check the wiki section on tight coupling (as opposed to loose coupling, code smells etc) and [c] utterly ignores a reasonable body of evidence to the contrary. I know the drupal site tends to remove critical forum posts but there are plenty of other sources. example. I'd go so far as to evoke words like Feature Creep, Spaghetti Code and the like. in fact I did (disclosure: my own website).

Frankly if we are going to claim: Good Modular Design, Clean Code and Brilliant Documentation (something I dispute) we should have some evidence for this. I hate putting citation needed on pages (have yet to do it because it disrupts the reading flow for me) but that's where this is going I fear.

--Lord Matt 22:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You put dubious, not citation needed, which is in itself dubious, as the one link you provide is pro-Drupal, and refutes the arguments made, and your own website's post is surely just a a troll to gain traffic? It's so full of spelling mistakes, and repeats 'Drupal is dead' I don't know how many times - great for generating traffic and a flame-war, but it certainly isn't worthy of encyclopedic consideration.  :) Greenman 13:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be reworded to just "modular design" because it is hard to verify a clean codebase. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.37.199.16 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 20 June 2007.

I'm pretty enthusiastic about Drupal myself and have contributed to the project, but I believe "clean" is not an encyclopedic word to apply to code. It is relative and depends on the preferred design pattern of the developer (even if some design patterns are better than others). If at all, it has to be placed in quotes and expressed as a sourced opinion: "Such-source recommends Drupal for its clean and modular code-base." --- Arancaytar - avá artanhé (reply) 09:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Article is written like an ad in some parts

Ok, I admit, I am biased on Drupal, as I prefer Joomla!, but this article has a decent amount of biased (toward Drupal) and advertisement-like content. Things like "It enables one to build and maintain websites, from simple to sophisticated.", "It is particularly popular for building online communities.", "...also a core feature..." alone may not be advertisment, but with those and other parts, it turns into a sort-of hidden ad. It's like saying, "Drupal is a CMS. It needs zero experence with coding and has 5000 features. It also needs zero experence with coding and is uses on basicly every popualr site out there." In my opionion, the article should have a more compact section on it's features, and a lot less "this site uses drupal". It needs (in my biased opionion) to look more like this. (I'm going to look for a better less biased example after i post this.) —Andrew Hampe ^Talk 01:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow. The article has changed a lot in one day. I barely even recognize it. While a section turned into a list, and the notable sites using Drupal section is gone. A lot of articles in wikipedia could use attention like this, but one article at a time I guess. I removed the {{advert}} template. —Andrew Hampe ^Talk 22:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Shouldn't the IPA transcription of "Drupal" be [dɹuːpʰəl]? I've never actually heard anyone say it with a trilled r, but since it comes from a Dutch word I'd prefer someone to verify the pronunciation before I change it... Consty 87 02:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm a native English speaker. I highly, highly doubt that any native English speaker would ever pronounce "Drupal" with a trilled r. Kwertii 09:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

External links / showcasing suggestion: drupalsites.net

Links / showcasing suggestion: drupalsites.net (for external links). The site is quite solid with about 2000 Drupal Powered websites listed. It exist for about 2 years and gives much less restrictive set of sites the wikipedia page should give. So it's a good resource to browse for a curious mind. Soupp 15:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section is pro-Drupal biased and needs expansion

Pretty self-explanatory, but I think the Criticism needs to be written by someone who doesn't like Drupal, or at least is neutral and has experience. The problems identified are immediately resolved through inference by the writer and the section skirts important issues, like the difficulty of manipulating themes and custom-building layouts. Wolfraem 20:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not do it, then? — ceejayoz ^talk 13:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Attempted to clean up the language of the criticism section. A lot of stuff that goes into a section like that, pro or con, boils down to matters of taste between developers. 'Objective' criticism for any platform is tricky. 67.167.216.222 (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section is pro-Drupal biased and needs expansion

Pretty self-explanatory, but I think the Criticism needs to be written by someone who doesn't like Drupal, or at least is neutral and has experience. The problems identified are immediately resolved through inference by the writer and the section skirts important issues, like the difficulty of manipulating themes and custom-building layouts. Wolfraem 20:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not do it, then? — ceejayoz ^talk 13:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Attempted to clean up the language of the criticism section. A lot of stuff that goes into a section like that, pro or con, boils down to matters of taste between developers. 'Objective' criticism for any platform is tricky. 67.167.216.222 (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)