Talk:phpBB

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


phpbb fan sites[edit]

jake b thinks about the forumimages.com fan site:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jake_b&oldid=45137180

Jake b also thinks that forumimages.com shuld stay. Therefore, jake b thinks that all fan sites are good for linking. Do you really want all fan sites to be link to? 72.36.251.234 17:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the initial discussion of "non-official" links, I expressed an opinion that forumimages.com was sub-standard, and should not be included. There was discussion where the majority of people disagreed with me, that it was at least as good as the rest and if we kept them we should keep forumimages.com. So it was decided to keep it. This is as it should be, and is not in conflict with my present position in the current discussion. Chris Cunningham removed all the "non-official" links without discussion, which I objected to.
Are there specific links that *you* feel should be removed? Specific links *you* feel should be kept? I think we should keep *ALL* the current links (including forumimages.com, since we already discussed that). Do *you* object to that? Which ones in spacific don't *you* want to keep? If all you would like to do is talk about *me*, I have a Talk page you can go to town on (though I must tell you, neither I nor anyone else reads it). Jake b 18:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
of the links that are currently there, I think the following should be deleted:
ForumTemplates.com - not enough unique content 2 merit inclusion
phpBB at OpenSourceCMS - if you want a demo, go to phpbb.com. If you want an admin demo, go to http://www.phpbb.com/demo.php. If you want a review, do not go to wikipedia. The firefox article does not have a review and it is featured article. If you think a review is good, go add a review to the firefox article. If it does not get reverted then reviews are good here. If it does get reverted then you wuold have to think you were better at writing a featured article than the firefox people. How many feature articles have you written?
phpBBStyles.com - their just subset of phpbb.com and phpbbhacks.com. look at featured styles. they are at phpbbhacks.com, 2. aphrodite, morpheus, etc. they offer no unique content.
ForumImages.com - no unique content. all FI* themes are at phpbbhacks.com.
the unofficial links I think should be kept are phpBB.org.in, phpBB at the Open Directory Project, and phpBBhacks.com. 72.36.251.234 19:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your list almost completely, with the exception of phpBB at OpenSourceCMS, seems to me there is value in having a bunch of apps all in one place to compare and contrast. But other than that, you hit the nail on the head with all of them. Is phpBB.org.in just a re-hash of documents availuble at the official site? I don't know. But the site itself looked "educational" (if Mr. Cunningham has concern). Jake b 20:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
wow - that was not a response i expected. i was bracing myself for many more days of debate. it would seem i misjudged you. sorry. 72.36.251.234 21:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Off the topic for a second...do you mind writing in normal English? I'm having a hard time to read and understand what you're trying to say, so it would be nice if you could keep us non-native speakers of English in mind ;) 84.56.41.224 21:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Please spell things out to make the discussion as comprehensible as possible. You've already been requested once to use proper English. Continuing your incomprehensible jargon is rather rude and certainly your arguments will be ignored by the rest of the editors here if you can't phrase them properly. I am seriously considering removing any comments by you if you continue to post like that. pschemp | talk 22:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Is phpBB.org.in just a re-hash of documents availuble at the official site? I don't know.' nope, nothing else exista that I know of (lest sf has something, but I doubt it). Anon 23:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't sure. Seems like a good resource. I guess I was making an assumption that it was a repackaging of existing documentation. Bad me. I wanted to add, I looked at the phpBB lising at the Open Directory Project, and I'm not really impressed with what's there. Jake b 05:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're considering removing arguments because you don't agree with their presentation? Is this a documented justification for removing talk page commentary, or another off-the-cuff decision like the full prot? Chris Cunningham 02:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, because its rude and disruptive to deliberately write in a manner that is difficult for editors to understand after being requested to not do it. This is the English Wikipedia after all, not the "I'm cool cause I use leet and stuff so other people will have a hard time understanding me" Wikipedia. pschemp | talk 06:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Omg" and "speak English please" should not be used in same sentence, as you did in your earlier request, since "Omg" is not English 72.36.251.234 20:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Use "proper English"??? Removing Talk comments??? Doesn't quite sit right, eh? I assume I can use the Brit spelling of words if I wanted, right? Let's stay on-topic... I wanted to add, I looked at the phpBB lising at the Open Directory Project, and I'm not really impressed with what's there. If it where up to me, I would keep:
* phpBB.org.in - Good documentation resource
* phpBBhacks.com - One of the most popular (in my opinion, THE most popular) hack / mod / template site.
* phpBB at OpenSourceCMS - A terrific resource for comparing similar applications side-by-side.
Yes? No? Maybe? Discussion? It may not make everyone happy, but it focuses the link quality a bit better? Maybe?
Jake b 05:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with this list. Let's make it so. Thanks for compromising. Chris Cunningham 11:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i like it 72.36.251.234 13:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To a degree I'm very much with Chris Cunningham about link spam, most of which are very sub-par sites anyway. I think with a suitable baseline, additions should be discussed / looked at closely to maintain some degree of quality /educational value / whatever. 90% ( 95%? ) of what's on the Internet is crap anyway... But obviously I feel strongly about the official / non-official inclusion issue. Good day! Jake b 15:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yay. We're done here. Here's to future cooperative editing. Chris Cunningham 14:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, I assume, to the phpbb.com, area51, sf & irc links, plus any other links that include reasonably unique content? 125.236.183.226 07:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've established that people would like discussion about links to be included... Jake b 08:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Version[edit]

Page needs updating to reflect that Beta 4 has been released 217.42.227.230 22:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure hoping Beta 4 results in a release! Been waiting on v3 before I migrate a board from something else to phpBB... Jake b 06:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Never does...it might result in RC1, but there will be (and have been already) changes. 84.56.46.124 09:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly I'm not concerned about not having a release for a while. It'd be nice not to have weekly security updates for a year on a supposedly stable release this time. Chris Cunningham 10:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Troublemaker on the page?[edit]

Regarding the edits from Tragic romance: I'm embarrassed even to have my sentences in the same section. Proposing to delete comments he doesn't like.

I realize this is a Talk page, not an article, so informality is fine. But that kind of attitude is starkly out of sync with the spirit of Wikipedia. Not only is it in extreme disregard and disdain for contributors, it is also deliberately hostile and confrontational. 72.36.251.234 17:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no edits in recent history by any user named 'Tragic romance', either on this talk page or in the article. -Amatulic 19:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's viral marketing to whip up the interest for when 'Tragic Romance' finally makes a show. Jake b 16:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Books[edit]

Building Online Communities With Drupal, phpBB, and WordPress by Robert T. Douglass, Mike Little, Jared W. Smith. Apress, 2005. ISBN 1590595629

Building Online Communities with phpBB 2 by by Stoyan Stefanov, Jeremy Rogers, Mike Lothar. Packt Publishing, 2005. ISBN 1904811132

phpBB: A User Guide by Stoyan Stefanov, Jeremy Rogers. Packt Publishing, 2006. ISBN 1904811914

I don't have any dogs in this fight, I just want to learn phpBB because it has been installed at work for a corporate idea forum. I saw article is cited for lacking criteria of "notable" software, one of which is linkage to third-party books. Perhaps winner of this edit war might find above books satisfy criteria and worth posting, in properly formatted fashion, on content page. I'm sure one or more may be of interest to other neutral parties simply interested in learning the software. Paulscrawl 20:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: search of Amazon.com for "phpbb" generated 61 hits, books citing phpBB, though above three titles are only ones at present with phpBB in title. Time to clear article's notability note, or not? Paulscrawl 21:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly likely to do it! I'll have a look for some of those on Google Print when I have a chance, and get some of the statements here properly referenced. Seraphimblade 23:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those three should take care of the notability question. I'll place them in a "Further reading" section until someone uses them as actual references. ✤ JonHarder talk 01:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I think {{primarysources}} still applies to the article because the three potential sources have not yet been used to expand and reference the article. As it stands, it only uses primary sources. ✤ JonHarder talk 03:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was fast! Thanks to both of you for posting the books to the article and clearing the article's notability tag. 63 hits on Google Print search of phpBB: http://books.google.com/books?q=phpBB&btnG=Search+Books&as_brr=0 Perhaps (1) extensive documentation is a feature worthy of mention and citation under Features section? That, and (2) wide deployment and (3) broad community of active developers, are features I look for when evaluating Open Source software for enterprise applications. Can these three features be mentioned, with verifiable citations to secondary sources? Paulscrawl 13:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technology Section[edit]

This entire section is unnecessary and should be removed. The first paragraph primarily describes the function of a database abstraction layer. This is neither unique to phpBB, nor is it noteworthy. The list of supported databases should be moved to a bullet point in the features section. The second paragraph describes a templating and localization system. Once again, it is not unique and should be removed. The third paragraph rambles about versions and dependencies. This information should be available on the phpBB website should someone be that interested. --Hamitr 03:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this section and moved all relevant information elsewhere in the article unless it was already mentioned. I moved the php version info to the history section rather than deleting it.--Hamitr 00:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Templated System a strength?[edit]

I don't know if it's been changed in version 3, but in version 2 the template system is far from a strength. The classes and id's have little relationship to their function making it tough to use CSS as you'd want to do a redesign. So I'd say that there are differing viewpoints on that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Macgruder (talk • contribs) 17:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It is a strength considering that one can change the HTML code without knowledge of the PHP backend. The problem you described is not a problem with the template system, but rather with the default template delivered with phpBB. Other templates are completely stylable using CSS. 88.64.72.189 15:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

phpBB Scalability[edit]

Does anybody know examples where overloaded phpBB forum was fixed by adding additional phpBB or database machines? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.98.173.72 (talk) 11:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The only example I can think of would be a large site such as GaiaOnline.com which runs a version of phpBB2. They've got many servers/database machines, however I've got no links off hand referencing this and their phpBB has been heavily modified that its off in its own direction. 125.238.220.37 (talk) 10:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Security[edit]

what does this even mean??? the first part of the sentence - the "because of this, the security of phpbb has been disputed" makes perfect sense. the second part... not so much.

maybe whomever added it was trying to say "because of this and because new versions addressing security issues are released in a relatively small timeframe from one another, the security of phpBB has been disputed". of course, they didn't do a very good job, if that was what they were trying to say.

and if that is what they were trying to say, it is highly POV and, arguably, factually incorrect. what constitutes a "relatively small timeframe"? i consider a week to be a small timeframe, but i don't consider a month to be one. some people might even consider a year to be a small timeframe, but, for software, in general, i think a year is an incredibly long timeframe.

of course, i also said this claim was, arguably, factually incorrect. i'll present evidence of that, now, using my own definition of a "relatively small timeframe".

phpBB 2.0.22 was released on Dec 23, 2006 [1]

phpBB 2.0.21 was released on Jun 09, 2006 [2]

phpBB 2.0.20 was released on Apr 07, 2006 [3]

phpBB 2.0.19 was released on Dec 30, 2005 [4]

phpBB 2.0.18 was released on Oct 30, 2005 [5]

phpBB 2.0.17 was released on Jul 19, 2005 [6]

phpBB 2.0.16 was released on Jun 27, 2005 [7]

phpBB 2.0.15 was released on May 07, 2005 [8]

phpBB 2.0.14 was released on Apr 15, 2005 [9]

phpBB 2.0.13 was released on Feb 27, 2005 [10]

phpBB 2.0.12 was released on Feb 21, 2005 [11]

phpBB 2.0.11 was released on Nov 18, 2004 [12]

phpBB 2.0.10 was released on Jul 17, 2004 [13]

phpBB 2.0.9 was released on Jul 12, 2004 [14]

phpBB 2.0.8 was released on May 25, 2004 [15]

phpBB 2.0.7 was released on May 13, 2004 [16]

phpBB 2.0.6 was released on Aug 03, 2003 [17]

phpBB 2.0.5 was released on Jun 16, 2003 [18]

phpBB 2.0.4 was released on Jan 15, 2003 [19]

phpBB 2.0.3 was released on Sep 30, 2002 [20]

phpBB 2.0.2 was released on Aug 12, 2002 [21]

phpBB 2.0.1 was released on May 20, 2002 [22]

And finally, phpBB 2.0.0 was released on Apr 04, 2002 [23].

of these, only two releases were released within a week of an earlier release. phpBB 2.0.13 and phpBB 2.0.10. both of these were over two years ago. "new versions addressing security issues are [not] released in a relatively small timeframe from one another" frequently enough to justify such a generalization. not when there are 19 other releases that don't do that, not when the last time it was done was well over two years ago, and not on something that's trying to be encyclopedic.

while i'm at it, i do think it's silly to judge the security of a product not based on whether or not there are any currently known vulnerabilities that are both severe and easy to exploit, but rather on the frequency of releases in the changelog. you can't, after all, use a changelog to deface a website. there's a reason changelog is not in the Category:Web_security_exploits category.

i can appreciate not wanting to figure out how to search vulnerability databases and instead relying on "meta" information to determine what's secure and what's not, but don't presume for one second to have any clue what you're talking about when that's the basis of your opinion Misterdiscreet 04:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something that I believe is worth nothing, the CAPTCHA system mentioned in Security DOES NOT belong there. Security does not have to do with spam, as registration and posting bots can do nothing more than a typical registered user can do. Spam/Anti Spam/CAPCHA systems need its own section, version 3.0.6 has back-ported CAPCHA plugins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.24.181 (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April Fools[edit]

After a year of development and extensive testing, phpBB 2.0.0, dubbed the "Super Furry" version, was released on April 4, 2002, three days later than intended. --Wikipedia

What a nice April Fools joke phpBB made! :) --Mayfare 02:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganization of this Article?[edit]

I would propose that this article be reorganized to provide a little more emphasis on the fact that phpBB2 and phpBB3 are now equally mature, and to provide a little more information about each. Here is how I would organize the article:

First, keep the section about History, but trim it down to a very schematic overview of phpBB's history, mentioning significant events (not necessarily interim releases). Then, create a section titled phpBB2, which would talk about when phpBB2 was started, its features and compatibility, current release, etc. Then, another section titled phpBB3, which would talk about when phpBB3 was started, its features and compatibility, current release, etc.

These new sections would replace the "Future development" and "Features" sections. (Once phpBB3 goes gold, the "Future development" section could be brought back to talk about phpBB 3.1.x once that project started.) The idea would be to help indicate that phpBB3 is no longer in development, but is practically a mature product. It would also help to emphasize that for the near future, phpBB2 and phpBB3 will both be stable platforms supported by the phpBB teams.

Webmacster87 03:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Go ahead and rework the thing ;) 129.187.98.166 15:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and made changes to the article. Instead of trimming down the History section, I've expanded it with more complete information about some significant events for phpBB, including some recent ones, and removed some redundancy. In addition, I've added the new phpBB2 and phpBB3 sections to indicate that both of these are products of the phpBB teams that will be supported for awhile and offer different featuresets. Of course, feel free to expand on these sections if you wish. Feel free to let me know if you have any feedback for the changes, and feel free to edit/correct/expand the sections that I've added. Webmacster87 05:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why no mention of the lack of search "topic only" fuction in phpbb forums ? Such a glaring obvious annoyance for such popular forums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.163.133.32 (talk) 12:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Webmacster, I have gone and fixed some of the language of yours in the article to make the article consistent. Please be mindful and keep it this way in the future. smithy_dll 06:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's perfectly fine. I'm used to American English, and although I did try to follow British English, I did miss a couple of things there. Thanks for fixing them. Webmacster87 17:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation[edit]

I don't understand the premise for moving the article to PHPBB and replacing all of the instances of phpBB in the article with PHPBB. The newspaper copy editor's site referred to does make it clear that PHPBB would be correct -- however, that page is not a Wikipedia guideline. MOS:TRADE says that eBay and iPod are preferable to EBay and IPod. Those two appear more like phpBB than REALTOR. DonutLover 19:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PHPBB is wrong. The only correct capitalization of the program is phpBB. The only reason that the title of the article says PhpBB is due to an issue with Wikipedia's program that insists that the first letter be capitalized, however it should NOT say PHPBB, because that is wrong. Webmacster87 13:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External Links cleanup - Feb. 17, 2008[edit]

I removed the 4 additional external links which all point to phpbb.com. 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.

I'm aware that there has been significant discussion regarding EL in the past, and I believe that my edits reflect the compromise struck near the end of Talk:PhpBB#phpbb_fan_sites.--Hamitr (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I would also add that for this article, I think that links to hosting services should not be permitted. Even if they're free hosting services, phpBB.com already has a designated place on their website where hosts can promote themselves if they so choose; Wikipedia should not be used as a source of free advertising. Links should purely be added to supplement and expand the information found in this article. Webmacster87 (talk) 17:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advertisement?[edit]

This entire article reads like an advertisement. This is aside from its rambling prose which jumps all over the place...

This is because it is for the most part written and WP:OWNed by the phpBB folks. Just try adding anything to the "Criticism" section. OH! There isn't one! That's because phpBB is perfect! Proxy User (talk) 03:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you have any valid criticism, go ahead and add it. Just make sure that there's some significance to it. Just writing "phpBB sucks" or "I like vB better" doesn't cut it. However, relatively few people keep this page current; if you want to add or fix something, you are more than welcome. No one is stopping you. Webmacster87 (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
some might say the "Security" section is the "Criticism" section. certainly security issues will be easier to provide WP:RS citations for than usability issues. what other criticisms do you propose be discussed? Misterdiscreet (talk) 01:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Repetition[edit]

This article seems to continously repeat itself, sometimes on non-notable issues! -- Fluteflute Talk Contributions 08:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best Way to Improve the Lead Section?[edit]

I wholeheartedly agree with whoever added the note that this article suffers from a poor lead section which quite frankly dates back many years. However, what would be the best way to improve it? It's hard to come up with a good way of expanding it without making it seem too much like an advertisement, and quite frankly vBulletin, Invision Power Board, WordPress, and other articles describing free software of this nature don't really have much more of a lead section than this article does... Webmacster87 (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History, development, adoption... there's loads to work with. Yes, a great many articles suffer from this, but that just means we've got a lot of work ahead of us. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Order of versions[edit]

Just wondering if anybody would object to me moving pbpBB2 after history and before phpBB3. After all the order was 1, 2, 3, correct? TheWeakWilled 10:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PhpBB Portal tracking[edit]

There is no official portal. There are TONS of available portal options There is no list of them - anywhere- no consolidated information available.

The only place I can see suitable for storing this information would be on the Phpbb official site - but they want nothing to do with portal discussion and refuse to name any 'official' portal.

So this Wikipedia site is the only other place I can think of tracking this information.

PhpBB portals should not have their own separate listing because they require and are a part of the phpbb; and will not function without one.

I have spent many hours searching for these options on numerous different sites; I have posted them as best as I can; I have no clue how to 'properly' format things here and I really have no desire to waste many more hours learning how it is 'supposed' to be done. I have used wikipedia for a few years now = and this is the first time I've found it LACKING the information I was looking for. I have contributed what I can - I hope that the next person to contribute will not DELETE all the information I posted - perhaps they can clean it up the way that its 'supposed' to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blombardo (talk • contribs) 06:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use the WP:Sandbox for your experiments with formatting, not the final article. Ginsengbomb (talk) 06:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


-That information is my final version; I dont know how you people want it edited - and as I stated before I'm not messing around with this - I collected the info - I posted the info - If you dont like the way it looks why dont you change it? Whats better - Having information available - that may not 'look the way you want' -- or not having the information available at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blombardo (talk • contribs) 06:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not that your information is wrong, the issue here is that it is in conflict with some of Wikipedia policies. Please read WP:NOT to understand why your edits were reverted. Thank you. - RUL3R*trolling*vandalism 06:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aww come one! Wth is that? You say such a marginal statement - then give me a link to a thousand things... Why not tell me WHICH ONE of those 100,000 different things that 'wikepedia is NOT' I am in violation of? I don't think you people get it... I AM NEW HERE - I'm TYRING to contribute for the FIRST time - and I'm hitting a brick wall of people who are not only - NOT helping me - but who are stopping me from making a contribution. Whats the deal?

Why do I want to read a ton of 'What it is NOT -- why dont you show me What I'm doing wrong - and how to fix it?

Or better yet - SINCE YOU KNOW THE DEAL -- why dont YOU fix it???? Then I can see how you did it and I'll know for NEXT time - If this pile of Non-helpfulness continues I'm never going to be able to become a contributing member around here.

This whole system of posting/replying/discussing/etc is extremely foreign and weird -I know how to use a phpbb- ipb - or other like systems... this is a Frankenstein looking thing to work with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blombardo (talk • contribs) 06:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I respect that you are new here, I respect that you are trying to contribute. As part of trying, you should try and read the links we are supplying and learn how to contribute without violating the rules. If you want to contribute, you must follow the rules. Otherwise, you will not be able to contribute. It is not my job to re-edit and re-do your content. We are attempting to be helpful by directing you to the same articles that most of us read when we first came on here. If you do not want to read them and learn how to contribute, that is your prerogative. I hope you do read them. Ginsengbomb (talk) 06:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Wikipedia "is not" a directory or repository. That's the section at issue here, in addition to my formatting concerns. Took me 10 seconds to find that in the article RUL3R linked to you. Please read it. Ginsengbomb (talk) 06:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


So you're telling me that I can say 'there are portals for phpbb' -- but I cant LIST the names of all the portals? That's not how I read it.

I did read the entire 'not' section. But what I am missing - is the 'What it IS' section -- what I'm also missing is a 'how to properly add a section to the list' -- because apparently even if I KNEW how to add it - you would again delete it because you consider it to be a 'directory'?? I tell you what... I'll hope you reply and show me some fancy link that gives a tutorial on article creation... I'm going to edit the thing one more time- with only one little tiny post about portals with one link - and leave out all the rest of the info. After that I'm done here... I'll read the article you suggest and if its helpful enough I'll return another day to work on this. In all the messages people sent me - telling me to click the 'talk' button -- well on my screen its called 'discussion' - NOT talk. So that threw me for a loop. The fact that I have to 'edit' this area rather than'reply' to it also is odd to me... there must be some massive area of tutorials that tell a person everything they ever wanted to know about this site; but if there is- I dont see it on my links to the left of my screen -- I cant even figure out how to send a message or reply to a message... I'm pasting my entire collection of info here (so others may be able to find it and edit it )

phpBB Portal Options

There are many different Portal options designed to work within the Administrator Control panel of phpBB 3.+

The official position of the phpBB group can be found here: http://www.phpbb.com/community/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1812245&p=10953435#p10953435

The following is a list of: 1: All known Portals 2: Their latest version and what version of phpBB it is designed for 3: Their support website. 4: Information about Custom Styles that may or may not be available 5: Things that may set them apart from one another (custom mods for example) (this is an incomplete list because there is no single source of finding them all)

ONE: 1: DAMysterious Portal Portal XL5 2: XL5 - phpBB 3.0.2 3: http://damysterious.xs4all.nl/portalxl/portal.html 4: 128 STYLES 5: Built in gallery, Built in Style changer; available with a 'fullymodded phpbb' package through another site

TWO: 1: Stargate portal (formally known as KISS/phpBB3portal) 2: Unknown - phpBB3.0.5 3: http://www.stargate-portal.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=10 4: Many styles; uncounted but close in number to XL5 5: THREE: 1: Board 3 Portal 2: Unknown - Unknown 3: http://www.board3.de/ 4: Only THREE styles! - tons of requests but none seem answered. 5: Teamspeak plug in,

FOUR: 1: phpBB3 Portal Alexis Canver 2: Unknown - Unknown 3: http://www.phpbb3portal.com 4: unknown styles 5: Modules available include; WoW Recruitment Form w/ ACP, Highslide mod for phpbb3portal, Raid Progress Block + ACP Support, WoW Recruitment Block W/ ACP Control - v2.2, PHPRAIDER portal block FIVE 1: Nut Portal 2: Unknown - Unknown 3: http://www.blizzhackers.com/ (site seems to be offline) 4: Unknown 5: Unknown

SIX 1: PhPbb Frontpage 2: Unknown - Unknown 3: http://www.phpbbresources.com/ -main site is down. 4: Unknown 5: Unknown

SEVEN 1: phpGrr! JwB 2: Unknown - Unknown 3: http://zoofware.com/ 4: Unknown 5: Facebook integration

EIGHT 1: MK portal Large cms-- more than just a portal 2: Unknown - Unknown 3: http://www.mkportal.it/ and http://www.mk-portal.org/ 4: Unknown 5: Unknown

NINE: 1: EzPortal (made for SMF but can be used on other systems) 2: Unknown - Unknown 3: http://www.ezportal.com/ 4: Unknown 5: Unknown

TEN 1: Hacked Portal SpiderZ 2: Unknown - Unknown 3: http://www.phpbbhacks.com/download/6295 4: Unknown 5: Unknown

ELEVEN 1: Portal Extension 2: Unknown - Unknown 3: http://www.phpbbhacks.com/download/281 4: Unknown 5: Unknown

TWELVE 1: PhPbb CMS 2: Unknown - Unknown 3: http://www.phpbbhacks.com/download/1262 4: Unknown 5: Unknown

THIRTEEN 1: IM Portal masterdavid (5 years with no update) 2: Unknown - Unknown 3: http://www.phpbbhacks.com/download/2779 4: Unknown 5: Unknown

FOURTEEN 1: MX portal aka Solstice(Incredible huge CMS with payroll and more...) 2: Unknown - Unknown 3: http://www.mx-system.com/ 4: Unknown 5: Unknown

FIFTEEN 1: KTVM portal 2: Unknown - Unknown 3: http://www.phpbb.com/community/viewtopic.php?f=70&t=847955 4: Unknown 5: Unknown

SIXTEEN 1: Phpbb Primetime 2: Unknown - Unknown 3: http://www.mylatterdays.com/ 4: Unknown 5: Unknown

SEVENTEEN 1: Alpha portal 2: Unknown - Unknown 3: http://alphaportal.net/ 4: Unknown 5: Unknown


Blombardo (talk) 06:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC) (lets see if that signature code works... - what a dumb code to have to use...)[reply]


-OMG that looks horrible! When I typed it in I have spaces and nice formatting... but when its posted it looks like C R A P... what an awful text editing system.

Blombardo (talk) 06:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll grant you this -- Wiki is an often frustrating bit of technology to work with, and Wikipedia is often frustrating in its mountain of confusing rules. Seriously, I'm with you on this. I've been editing Wikipedia for over three years and I still don't know all the rules. To wit, I was reverting your edits for one reason, and then RUL3R came in and had a -far- better reason for reverting them that I hadn't even thought of. That said, his reason was something I was implicitly taking into consideration, but I didn't know of the specific rule for it. Basically, as far as rules go, the best advice I can offer is that you read the articles, note the kind of content included in them, note how they're formatted, and try and match that. If someone comes in and posts a warning on your talk page that you are confused by (as happened here), ask why (as you did). If they post you relevant WP articles covering the warning, read them exhaustively (that's the hard part). As for this issue, you can't dump a list of names and addresses into the article the way you have. Almost everything under "Wikipedia is not a directory" directly applies to your content. Again, I'm learning this myself for the first time, after having been an on-again off-again editor for 3+ years. I was reverting you based on formatting (which is sorta the same thing, in a way). As for your intended final edit, your source will have to be reputable/verifiable for acceptance. This is, again, simply the way things are, and for good reason in that case. Your intended final edit may very well be completely, 100% undeniable truth, and I think it probably is. But Wikipedia does not exist to be a directory of actionable list information about a topic such as this. It exists to -describe- the topic. Take this as an example: an encyclopedia article on "modems" would describe what a modem is, but it wouldn't exhaustively list every modem type ever manufactured, wouldn't link every manufacturer, etc. That's an important and applicable distinction.
Again, I sincerely hope this initial experience doesn't dissuade you from learning more about the contributing process and contributing. You seem to have good intentions and, believe me, a lot of people who are trying to "contribute" absolutely do not. Ginsengbomb (talk) 07:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The text editing system is difficult to work with but it does work. Note that your entries, when you input them, are in monospace, unformatted type. Any formatting that exists in your original document won't transfer. Think of a contribution to Wikipedia as coding basic HTML. It's actually somewhat similar. Ginsengbomb (talk) 07:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasure to have met you both; When I have used this in the past to look things up - every last item WAS listed... (see PSP - every generation of it is listed - see even this very phpbb topic - it is listing all the versions - ) I come here to learn what a thing is, and to learn all its variations. I was hoping to learn all the available portals for phpbb here and was suprised to see them missing. If I can not link them directly (which is understandable) perhaps I should create an entire new wiki - a totally seperate phpbb Portal one that is specifically designed to describe them all. I believed they should be listed under the board itself because the board is required... but I suppose the 'portal' article could be expanded to discuss other's - there are over 20 popular BB systems - each one has over 20 different portals available... would be a rather massive article then... WHAT WOULD YOU SUGGEST? -I want to have a list of portals posted someplace; describing in detail what they are - what they do - how they are different etc... I had no idea this would be such a big production; thought it would take me about 20 minutes to post... So save me some time- tell me where to put it - how to do it -- or tell me - that it will never - in no way - happen - under any circumstances... I tried simply posting a link to the discussion on the official phpbb forum; but even that was removed... Blombardo (talk) 07:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, likewise, really. It basically almost never happens that someone who is initially identified as a "vandal" or whatever turns out to be someone who's actually trying to add something useful to Wikipedia. And I seriously appreciate your declaration of intent. Honestly, I wouldn't be talking to you if I didn't think you were trying to add something here, hehe. Maybe my modem example was inappropriate. You're clearly right that the PSP article (and other similar articles) list all existing versions of the relevant product. It's the -directory- portion of WP:NOT that I believe applies. A better example: BitTorrent_(protocol). An article that, if it were intended to be actionable, screams for a list of evil (nyuk nyuk) BT sites. But it does not, because that would make the article something of a -directory-. What does this mean for you? To be honest, I have no idea. Again, I'm nowhere nearly familiar enough with the topic at hand to make such a judgment. The nifty thing about the Wikipedia rules is that I don't have to know the first thing about php boards to know that your content was revertable, as it was posted. The less-nifty thing is that I don't necessarily know how to help you. You need to have a reputable source for your information. You appear to be the source, in this case. You are not a "reputable source" (no offense, obviously, hehe). What stinks: you have real, actionable information that is not citable. What's the point: Wikipedia ain't your venue for this information. I am confident, given the topic, that you know of other ways to disseminate this info. Ginsengbomb (talk) 08:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to your salient points: no, unless you find a reputable source to publish this information, this information is essentially considered invalid here. It'll be considered bias or factually incorrect. If you find a reputable source to publish it, the appropriate way to deliver this information via Wikipedia is to -reference- it, rather than list it. I'm sure there are articles on Wikipedia that violate the two things I just said. If you find 'em, let me know ;). Ginsengbomb (talk) 08:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't think phpBB portals have much to do with phpBB itself. There are plenty of MODs - Quick Reply MODs, spam MODs, etc. phpBB is not a CMS, so why are portals even mentioned? Just my opinion of course. 202.76.136.194 (talk) 03:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a bump on this, any opinion? I personally just don't think it is relevant at all, despite the author's hard-work compiling the list. Maybe this applies: Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. 202.76.136.194 (talk) 06:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A phpBB reference[edit]

I removed this reference from List of social software and thought it might be worth using here. (I think it was citing phpBB's notability.)

Bojars, Uldis (March 3-4, 2008). "Porting Social Media Contributions with SIOC". Recent Trends and Developments in Social Software: International Conferences on Social Software, BlogTalk 2008. Cork, Ireland: Springer. p. 118. ISBN 364216580X. {{cite conference}}: Check date values in: |year= / |date= mismatch (help); Unknown parameter |booktitle= ignored (|book-title= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)

--Pnm (talk) 03:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a freshen[edit]

PhpBB 3.0.6 is referred to as the next release. 3.0.8 is the current and 3.0.9 is due out soon. I'll put it on my long todo list unless anyone else wants to take it on.

I also think that the history section has far to much weight given the profile of this package. (Cf. phpMyAdmin or even Apache server) WP's job is to be an encyclopaedia, not the official history of phpBB. -- TerryE (talk) 12:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - the history section is way too long, and most users will only care about the current state of the software, and its features. I've expanded a bit on the lead section with a selection of the features. -- Dandv(talk|contribs) 06:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism removed[edit]

I added some criticism in the Development section which was removed (revision 485820423). Although the pages cited weren't necessarily from a neutral point of view, I don't think it could possibly be argued that the development of phpBB 3.1 has been criticised.

Anyway, I'm not prepared to start an edit war. I would like to discuss this here instead. Andrewr04 (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the same time it can't be argued that there is always someone critisizing something. Fact is that someone's opinion shouldn't be inside a Wikipedia article. The opinion in this case is that phpBB's development of phpBB 3.1 is slow. If you want to leave the opinion out then you will have to write that phpBB has been critisized and after that you can add that to every (forum) software on Wikipedia.
Regardings this special case you might want to look for similar topics in the support forums of other forum softwares. Marc1706 (talk) 11:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, those topics don't represent the view of a lot of people. There were only about 15 people replying about phpBB in a negative fashion. 15 out of the millions of people using phpBB is not a lot, I bet more than 15 people criticise most software's development. 94.7.39.10 (talk) 11:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Security Vulnerabilities[edit]

I've just backed out an edit by Palmbeachguy. My reasoning is that this editor quotes an web article by www.siteground.com which is basically, IMO, a motherhood and apple-pie sort of "keep you application up to date or you'll be hacked" caveat from a hosting provider. This type of caveat could just about be applied to any complex PHP application. I feel that if we are going to include specific criticisms of this package then we should reference a primary security firm and current vulnerabilities that the latest version does not yet address, or at least a history of tardiness at addressing open vulnerabilities. -- TerryE (talk) 18:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Installed phpBB[edit]

When I try to install phpBB. I did installed it using FileZilla to transfer files and introducing the phpBB as of my active user on the forums and I well done with that. --Lt. Allen (talk) 04:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3.0.x branch should be mentioned[edit]

Even though phpBB 3.1 is the current version, the 3.0.x (3.0.12) branch is still being maintained and is still available for download. This should be mentioned in the article. Also, the information box at the upper right should also mention this branch version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.116.240 (talk) 07:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on PhpBB. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anything new?[edit]

Did nothing happen in the last 2 years since "June 27, 2016"? Could someone update this article? Sadly I dont know anything about this. The people behind the project should be interested to keeping it up to date... right?--Eheran (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know how you got this. 3.2.2 was released on 7 January 2018 and 3.2.3-RC2 was just released a few days ago.-- 🐱💬 05:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because "phpbb is dying" has been trending in the last few years. May be due to discourse and others, or just users moving on e. g. twitter, facebook etc.... It kind of changes how people communicate. Also Discord. I liked phpbb though, always convenient to use IMO. 2A02:8388:1600:A200:7F68:61BB:BDB:FB57 (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Popularity?[edit]

How popular is phpbb these days? Discourse seems to have gained a lot of former phpBB users. I am just curious - would it be useful to add a paragraph or information about popularity? Should have external datapoints to be able to verify that. 2A02:8388:1600:A200:7F68:61BB:BDB:FB57 (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What Does It Mean To Be Feminine?[edit]

I would like to hear yall's opinion 64.184.66.33 (talk) 07:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:PhpBB&oldid=1209748374"