Talk:Laravel

Section on Laravel history

Hello, Helique! As I've noted in my edit summary, having a section describing Laravel history is really great, but we need references. In the meantime, it's better not to have unreferenced content at all, as the rest of the article is well-referenced so there's no need to degrade the article quality that way. Also, that section will need quite a bit of work on improving the writing style, but I'll take care of that once you provide references. Hope you agree. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 07:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, regarding your comment that "it may be redundant to keep repeating when certain features where added", that might be the case when the list of packages grows significantly, though even then such information would be rather useful. We should get back to that when the packages list actually grows, if you agree. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 08:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Dsimic! I actually did have sources for that section, it just slipped my mind to add them. I'll re-post the history section with the sources, and try to change the writing style to fit better. I also agree that we should put off package/version linking until there are more documented and featured packages. Thanks for all your help! Helique (talk) 04:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks, looking forward to the "History" section! — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Future Laracon date

I added the 2015 dates for Laracon and my edit was reverted by User:Dsimic with the justification of WP:NOTNEWS. I feel this guideline is not at all intended for this purpose. In fact, the section immediately before that, WP:BALL, explicitly says "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" which the 2015 Laracon falls under. Additionally, if you look at the articles for other conventions, the vast majority of them include information about upcoming events. Here are some extremely notable conventions that all list information about upcoming dates:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Diego_Comic-Con_International#Locations_and_dates
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LeakyCon#Upcoming_Conferences
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas_Comic_Con#Upcoming_events
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Entertainment_Expo
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_Developers_Conference#Dates

I do not know of any guidelines in Wikipedia policy against including future dates, and I don't believe WP:NOTNEWS applies here since listing this information is not at all comparable to journalism, news reports, who's-who, or diaries. 217IP (talk) 03:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello! As noted in my edit, we should add those Laracons once they're held. Please excuse me if I'm missing something obvious, but what's the whole point of listing not yet held events in an encyclopedia? IMHO, that's what newspapers and magazines should do. Even if we put aside all of the guidelines, let's ask ourselves is anyone going to look up for the next Laracon in our Wikipedia article? That would be highly improbable. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community universally accepts future dates of similar events on heavily trafficked articles without debate. In fact, I would imagine you would find it difficult to remove future dates from any of the articles I linked. If you disagree I can submit it to dispute resolution and let a third party decide. 217IP (talk) 04:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Do I count as part of the Wikipedia community? If you desire so, asking for a third opinion is always an option. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, notabilities of the Laracon and, for example, E3 or Comic-Con, are simply not comparable. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing that makes future Laracon events materially less notable than past ones. If notability of the events is a concern then the section should be removed entirely. 217IP (talk) 04:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

It's about the comparison and relative notability, not about the absolute notability. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, please have a look at the numbers of held and announced conferences; in the Laravel's case, having only about twice more held than announced conferences simply doesn't look right. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

My own third opinion is that, if the date and place of the 2015 conference has been published in a reliable source, it does qualify to be included in the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, Ok, let's have them included. The more the merrier, I guess. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 16:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Notability and other issues

Hello, Msnicki! Regarding your edits, please use a search engine to check the notability of Laravel. It's a widely used PHP framework, and we can't expect a Ph.D dissertation about it (or something similar) that could be used as a reference. That's what it is with highly active software projects. Of course, I'm more than open to discussing this further. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 16:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

We do not decide notability based on WP:GOOGLEHITS. WP:GNG requires multiple reliable independent secondary source addressing the topic in detail. If you have some, please add them to the article and I will happy to remove the tags myself. Msnicki (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Please see the Laravel § Further reading section – shouldn't three published books be enough to establish at least the basic level of notability? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 16:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'm now satisfied re: notability, not the other issues. You need to incorporate your "further reading" sources into the article as citations and dial back on the "feature rich" fawning. Msnicki (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, will incorporate the books as references. You're right about the need to tweak the wording a bit so it's more neutral; does this edit eliminate your concerns? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 16:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

It helps but does not eliminate the problem. The whole article still reads too much like an advertisement. Focus on reporting the facts, not how wonderful they are. Msnicki (talk) 17:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Could you, please, provide a couple of excerpts that, in your opinion, "glorify" Laravel in the article? Please don't get me wrong, I want the article to be as neutral as possible, but it's sometimes hard to see issues in something you've been looking at for a long time. :) I'm really thankful for your input, and I'll be more than happy to improve the wording. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 17:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

A few examples: According to a March 2015 developers survey on PHP frameworks popularity, Laravel was listed as the most popular PHP framework of 2015 based on an unreliable source + numerous overly breathless phrases, e.g., Major new features, a more advanced alternative to the CodeIgniter framework, a complete rewrite, Such a layout allowed much better extendibility, significant changes, Besides bringing various new features and improvements to already existing ones, numerous bundled features already available for easy addition to applications, etc, etc. (How many more do you need?) This is the kind of language I expect to read in a vendor's description of their product, not an encyclopedic article here on WP. Msnicki (talk) 17:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, but the fact is that Laravel truly is such a "feature-rich" PHP framework. I've used different PHP frameworks, and none of them comes close to what Laravel provides, so those "breathless phrases" are somewhat justified. I've toned down some of the phrases you've listed above, but the remaining ones, IMHO, aren't that much troublesome. For example, "significant changes" and "a complete rewrite" are pretty much to the point, and "numerous bundled features already available for easy addition to applications" describes that many components are bundled and can be easily used. Hm? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 18:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

A lot of the problem is the adjectives. For example, you can report changes or features without describing them as "significant" or "numerous". Any reader can decide on their own whether they're significant or numerous based on the facts presented. Msnicki (talk) 18:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

That's a very good point, thank you! How about these adjustments, looking better? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 19:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Msnicki: Any further suggestions or thoughts, please? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 16:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

You still have work to do. For example, one of its features is its "expressive syntax"? Doesn't every language have that? The whole thing is still too laudatory. Msnicki (talk) 16:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, but that's covered by one of the books used as references (please see page 7 in that book), which says that and provides a code example. It isn't up to the programming language, of course, but up to the way language is used. Laravel really does a good job by using various features of PHP in an expressive way. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 16:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, you've found an author trying to sell his book about Laravel who (surprise!) likes it. No, that's not a surprise and it does not belong here. Stick with the objective facts of what does it do and how and allow the reader to decide the significance. A WP article should not be a sales brochure. Msnicki (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, Ok, do you find this wording tweak to make it more neutral? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@Msnicki: Any further suggestions or thoughts, please? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

"Laravel is regarded as one of the most popular PHP frameworks"

What does this mean? Is it actually one of the most popular, or not? If not, who is doing the "regarding"? Equinox ◑ 15:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I have fixed the attribution and moved this detail into general history. Trivial popularity polls and similar thinly-veiled PR stunts do not belong in the lead - undue weight. GermanJoe (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Service containers and service providers

I came to this article with the hope of learning from where comes from the notions of service containers and service providers in Laravel. They seem to be fundamental notions in Laravel. They are mentioned in all the sections on Architecture Concepts of the Laravel web site: https://laravel.com/docs/5.8/lifecycle, https://laravel.com/docs/5.8/container, https://laravel.com/docs/5.8/providers, https://laravel.com/docs/5.8/facades and https://laraveel.com/docs/5.8/contracts. We even have sections dedicated to these concepts. Here is a quote from the first web page that I found about service provider in Laravel :

Overview. If you‘ve ever used Laravel framework in your project, you will hear about server container and service provider. They are the backbone of the Laravel framework and do all heavy jobs when your application runs.
— https://medium.com/grevo-techblog/service-provider-in-laravel-3b7267b0576e

Yet I believe these concepts existed before Laravel. So, I would have been happy to see something on this subject in the History section. Though, as I said, I came to this article to learn. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)