Jump to content

Talk:Comparison of Internet forum software/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Who deleted the amazing table? Shouldn't it be restored?

YES! Bring the comparison table back now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.214.169.254 (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

wtf why was it deleted. I went to this topic just to see a comparison table and then went to discussion because i thought this whole topic totally bites for quality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.203.178.146 (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Precedent for articles like this?

I think this is interesting information, but do comparisons of this nature fit into an encyclopedia? Is there a precedent for articles like this? Just wondering. --Stevietheman 21:43, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes there is - see Comparison of web browsers, Comparison of instant messengers, Comparison of operating systems, Comparison of media players and Comparison of file systems (to name a few software-related comparisons). Talrias 23:09, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
OK, thanks! --Stevietheman 23:19, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

James Atkinson

The link to James Atkinson, creator of phpBB, links to a page about an other person named James Atkinson (created the combustion engine in the 19th century). --PC_Freak 15:14, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is a wiki, be bold in updating pages! I've made a disambiguation page. Talrias 16:31, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Lots of Blank Ones

I moved quite a few ones over from List of Forum Software. All the ones without any information came with a link to the supposed home page. To keep the page from being overgrown with `?'s I only did the first section. If no one knows anything about the software feel free to delete it after a while, most of them don't even have wiki articles. :\. So I hvae no problem with deletion of most of them, though with the links someone should be able to find the information, I just don't have much more time to put into this today. I tried not to repeat, but I may have. I I knew more information about them I put them in the lower sections as well(none went into the middle, but about 3 went into the lowest block). On the lower values they may support more databases, but I only had information I took from List of forum software. --Capi crimm 21:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Can I suggest that if a forum software still has all ?'s by the 4th October 2005 (one month after your comment) that they be pruned from the table? NeoThermic 22:46, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Please keep them as it is (even if it has all ?s). Since if someone passes by and know the information about that particular forum, it will update it. If we remove it completely, it reduces a chance for somone to fill in these blanks. Also if you remove them, it will remove their home pages too. Thanks for your appreciation! Someone 17:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree with NeoThermic on the date. I'm going to delete any forum software from this page that has full ?'s across the board. I actually am for deleting software without a wiki-page as well, since the software doesn't even have a big enough community to make one I don't think it's big enough to be common forum software. On the side, I provided the links so people with knowledge don't have to randomly stumble upon this page, but rather you can actively get the information. I strongly suggest you do that if you want to list to stay as large as it is now.--Capi crimm 22:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I cleared out the ones with full question marks. There are still a few that only have a couple of question marks. Some of them could probably be deleted outright; I think it would be better to ask their community to fill in the information by said time or delete them. Thats too much work for me, though.
I am working on filling in the blanks and generally cleaning up the page, as some have suggested be done. I've already filled in 2 forums' missing entries, and I intend to fill in more. Wrldwzrd89 16:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Clean up tag

I found that this page looks a bit messy - some boards are there in the first table but not the second, etc, and the first table is not very informative, so I put up a clean up tag.

I agree with all your points, except that the first table is not informative. I think it has the potential to be so if every row had a link to the software's homepage and a few of the useless columns (like current stable version and first public release date) were removed. Does anybody have a problem with me doing this? I have now made it so that each table has all the same rows. - Rob.daemon 19:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
First public release date might be fair game, but I would say that current stable is informative. I also think that rather than '?' for unknown items, it should literly have the word 'Unknown' there.
If nobody contests to removing "first public release date" in the next few days, I'll go ahead and remove it. As for the "current stable," see my message below regarding the last updated status. I think that the goal would be to have no ?s in the table at all; and as such, I'm currently going through and reading the websites (downloading the software if necessary) to find out some of the answers. Rob.daemon 21:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
As a side note, in the 'Data Storages' section, are we reffering to what storages the software can use, even with modification, or are we reffering to data storages the software can use out of the box, without adding anything? NeoThermic 12:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I would say no if it requires modifications, to follow suit with the feature list. However would this exclude IPB? Rob.daemon 21:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
That would be why I asked. If you have to pay extra to obtain the data storage, isn't that nearly the same as requiring a modification to use a diffrent DBMS? NeoThermic 15:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Any forum could potentially support any data storage, which would make the entire table pointless if we decided that it could be yes with modification. The difference with IPB is that (I presume) it is officially supported by the company. Talrias (t | e | c) 15:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Then there should be three values, I'd say: "Yes," "No," and "Yes, with external module and minimal configuration." This would allow things like phpBB and IPB to still retain the "Yes" value but because some are not included by default, it would indicate that. Rob.daemon 04:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
What's the S.I. unit for "minimal"? :) Talrias (t | e | c) 08:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Not overly sure what minimal means for IBP, but if you want to enable Oracle support in phpBB (or any other DBAL layer that isn't included by default), you only have to drop in a new instal.php, schema file, and dbal layer, then do a normal install. NeoThermic 19:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I think we should add a section for "last updated on" as some projects here are outdated and the development is either slow or non-existing. what do you think?
Either that or a "project status" column; where there could be Stable, Beta, No Future Development, and In Development (with like "Updated in the Past X Months"); that way we could also remove the latest stable version (as it's kind of a pain to update for some of these every time a new release comes out) Rob.daemon 21:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm not too sure. The 'latest stable version' column is handy enough for general information. If it would be a better compromise, how about the project status having the stable, beta, feature locked, and in development, with a latest (stable) version? NeoThermic 15:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
That sounds good, but what would "feature locked" entail? Rob.daemon 04:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Feature locked is what phpBB 2.0.x is actualy in, where no new features are added unless they relate to secuirty features. NeoThermic 19:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
In my progress, I've noticed that there appears to be no way to download CMFBoard, NetHawk, or TuvaiBoard; can I go ahead and remove these from the table? I've tried to find them on Google, but it's just forums running the software (which I can't find any place to download). Rob.daemon 21:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I've now found Tuvai, but I can't find NetHawk. I've also found CMFBoard on SF.net: http://sourceforge.net/projects/collective/ ... it's a sub-project of that. Rob.daemon 05:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
TuvaiBB has stopped distribution starting 12-30-05, although I'm not sure if 1.5 (the last released version) is still being distributed? 68.104.71.158 09:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Flat Forum

Excuse me, but what is a flat forum? Or; maybe add a small definition of the different compared features? --145.99.202.92 16:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Flat file means that it does not use a database, but instead stores all the data in files on the file system. Usually, this is a proprietary format that is only used by the software, as opposed to common database engines. As for the explanation of features, the title "Flat File" is a wiki link to the explanation... Rob.daemon 17:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Or do you mean flat as opposed to threaded? In a flat forum, each post appears one after the other, in order of time. In a threaded forum, a post is made in reply to an existing one, which means the posts aren't necessarily ordered in time, but in a logical flowing structure. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Where is this page going?

This page is a great start, but it's getting rather unwieldy. It baffles me that there isn't a site like WikiMatrix or Open Source CMS to help people compare the relative merits, system specs/performance etc of the oldest and most established form of social software on the Net --Case (04 March 06)

There is a site like that; ForumMatrix. Still in the startup phase I think, but looks promising. Anyway, this article really needs a cleanup. It isn't very informative, and few features are listed for comparison. --PaiTrakt 06:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Needs to compare basics; security in sign-up, protection against spammers, use of nofollow. Current emphasis on appearance only really does not make this a useful page. Removing obsolete and entirely unsupported systems would be a step forward - they should be listed, but do not jutify detailed examination 9which implies some level of recommendation).

AfD discussion

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Comparison_of_Internet_forum_software  (aeropagitica)  15:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


DBAL/API notification

I removed the note about the Phorum API when reffering to database storage. I think we need a general concensus. phpBB, for exmaple, has a DBAL, so anyone can write one for any database type PHP can use. (and already have, Oracle and mysqli exsist). I would like to hear other's reasoning about adding notes as to which forums have extendable database API's/DBAL's. NeoThermic 15:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we should keep the forum features, including database support, as to what it would support if you downloaded it and installed it, i.e. a straight-out-of-the-box version. Obviously it could have any feature you wanted if you added it in - so changing it to "yes (with modification)" is unhelpful. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
The actual edit I reverted had a star next to Phorum, and the following text after the table: Phorum has a completely abstraced storage API. Any storage system can be used that the user wants to write.
I agree though, out-of-the-box should be noted, nothing more, nothing less, although that does leave the question as to where IPB stands since you have to pay on top of the licence to get MSSQL or Oracle support, and thus it isn't out-of-the-box.. NeoThermic 01:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Another forum to add to the list

SEO-board is the name, you can find it here: www.seo-board.com - check the features there too.

This topic should be useful to add more software to the list.

200.127.76.32 17:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC) Stahn

Another suggested borad, which I was surprised to not find on there: ezBoard. I was under the impression that ezBoard was one of the larger forum types, and expected to find it here. --BBM 21:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Ezboard has not released their software to my knowledge. They strictly offer hosting. SubSeven 18:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Latest release date

I've added a column, latest release date, which I think is probably the most useful column to have. One important way to compare is to see which applications have made recent releases. Quite a few of these may have ceased development, and there's no way to tell otherwise. Greenman 23:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Important column for comparison

I've recently learned Vanilla doesn't allow users to delete posts. Admins can hide them but not delete except directly in the db. I'm not sure if other forums have this limitation but it is an important "must have" feature for many so could quickly eliminate forum software options for people using this table for decision making.

Does it allow editing? If so, one can delete that way - leaves a blank post, but aside from being a little messy that shouldn't be a problem. Maybe we could have a post-posting manipulation column that indicates if editing/deleting/etc can happen. --BP 08:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


MyBB and "Full" unread tracking

Someone (anonymous) marked MyBB as supporting "full" unread message tracking. I did a quick test on the official forum (http://community.mybboard.net/index.php). It doesn't seem to be the case. What I did was:

  • Register.
  • Login.
  • Wait until some unread messages appeared (forums marked as having unread messages).
  • Logout.
  • Login.

At this point no unread messages were indicated anywhere (I didn't actually read any of them).

This looks like "Session" unread tracking. Unless someone can elaborate, I will be marking MyBB as "Session" instead of "Full". Solf 13:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I've modified MyBB information to specify "Session" unread tracking since no comments were made. Solf 07:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I regularly use a board that running MyBB that does manage by session. It may be a configuration option (I am not an admin) nevareth (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

XennoBB and "Full" unread tracking

FLCLFan marked XennoBB as supporting "full" unread message tracking. I did a quick test on the official forum (http://community.xennobb.com/index.php). It doesn't seem to be the case. What I did was:

  • Register.
  • Login.
  • Wait until some unread messages appeared (forums marked as having unread messages).
  • Logout.
  • Login.

At this point no unread messages were indicated anywhere (I didn't actually read any of them).

This looks like "Session" unread tracking. Solf 12:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there a reason you're waiting before marking it to Session - given the evidence I think it's more accurate to correct it immediately, pending any disputes. Or perhaps mark the entry as 'disputed', so that anyone reading it is aware that there is uncertainty. --BP
I think my test is not 100% accurate. There might be something that I don't know/understand. There might be a configuration option. I'm assumming that FLCLFan has had a good reason to mark it as "Full", so I'm hoping for his reply (I also posted on his talk page). Solf 19:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I just checked and did the login and logout thing with a unread message and it was still there so it must be Full. FLCLFan 01:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I just checked it again on what appears to be "official" forum: http://community.xennobb.com/index.php . I was able to "lose" all markers by logging in from one browser (IE), doing logout and then logging in from Opera (with the same user). When I did the same in one browser (IE), it cleared "unread" markers on the boards but I was still able to see unread markers beside the messages inside the board. My guess it is either using some "cheating" or I was simply seeing cached page. Proper "Full" support requires that unread markers survive different browsers and/or different computers -- because all this should be done server-side. I'm marking XennoDB as "discussed" until there's more clarity on this subject. Solf 12:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Unread tracking colour coding

Does anyone have an opinion on whether the unread tracking field should be colour-coded? And should it be green for Full, red for Session, amber for Unknown/Disputed/etc, or something different? - obviously it's not a clear Yes/No decision, but the only real benefit of Session is the simplicity/speed, which I don't think are enough to say that Full isn't the superior option. Anyone disagree? --BP

Colours are good :) However I'd propose more neutral colors (e.g. light blue and light yellow) because Full is not better than Session in all cases. Problem with Full is that "truly honest" implementation may have to maintain (number of users)*(number of topics) read markers (in the worst case scenario which, admittedly, is pretty unrealistic in real life). Nevertheless the amount of this data can get out of hand quickly on the popular forums (think WoW forums :)). Since all unread/read decisions have to be made against this data, the performance of Full unread tracking may become unacceptably poor. So in the end Full tracking may be best for most forums (since they never reach amount of users/topics sufficient to cause serious performance issues), but there are cases when Session may be preferable. Solf 19:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, I would argue that this is a technological problem, not one with the feature itself.
However, for any busy forums with performance issues caused by tracking, it is still a better solution to use Full+cutoff, rather than Session. (ie: So only messages posted in the past X months are tracked.) This gets around the performance problems without any significant effect on the majority of user's tracking experiences. --BP 09:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
That's certainly an option. Well, since nowadays I don't want to use a forum without Full tracking, if we could influence public opinion with red/green colors, it might be for the best :) Solf 17:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
OTOH, for WoW-level (World of Warcraft) forums (which admittedly is an exception, not a rule), cutoff may need be so low as to be practically useless. Solf 17:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
My experience is that the busier the forums, the less people tend to look back at previous messages anyway. I think the absolute minimum cutoff (for somewhere with WoW-like quantities of posting) to remain useful would be a week, with a month or three for more normal places. But I think the only way to test how well it would work for big boards is to implement it. Anyhow, I agree with you on trying to influence public opinion, so if there are no big objections before tomorrow I'll go through and colour all the cells. :) --BP 18:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've coloured the column. I also started doing a quick check and filling in some of the missing data, but now my connection is playing up, so I'll continue it another time. --BP 01:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


FuseTalk

I have split FuseTalk into two entries (CF and .NET), since the .NET version does not support all the features of the CF one, and it could be misleading if, for example, someone wanted a .NET forum with a calendar supporting Oracle. However, after looking for latest release dates, I noticed my earlier version changes may not be accurate, but I couldn't find anything conclusive on the website. The Fusebox forums claim to be using FuseTalk 4.0 (see footer), but there's no mention of an FT 4 on the official website (that I could see) even though it has apparently been around since 2003. Is anyone able to provide anything which backs-up or overrides what I changed? BP 10:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Updated some information on YaBB

The info was a little out of date in the features table, so I clarified the info a little bit. Note I'm one of the developers of YaBB, I hope it's OK that I updated this.

LoonyPandora 14:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


MesDiscussions

Can someone with better French than me check if MesDiscussions allows for downloadable software, or if it is only a remotely hosted service. If the latter, it should be removed from this article (although if anyone wants to create a Comparison of Internet forum services article, it could go there instead, along with the other services mentioned just above section 2.1) --BP 13:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the creator of MesDiscussions.Net software :
In the professional version, the code of the software is given to the customer so that he could install it on its own server.
However the shared and serenity solution are remotely hosted services.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.234.165.4 (talk • contribs) .

vBulletin FAQ

In a recent revision a link to a vBulletin FAQ was added to the External Links section. I have removed it since I don't believe it is appropriate for this article which is intended to be a comparison between the features of various forums, not a collection of links to help files for owners of a specific forum software. Please discuss this here before re-adding it or anything similar. Blair - Speak to me 06:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The other external links seemed similar. The help files, while skewed toward vBulletin, consist of information that would be helpful to any forum owner. Up to you if you choose to relist www.vBulletin-faq.com - if you think its worth adding. Joeychgo 11:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I still don't think that this link is appropriate. About half of the information is about how to set up a vBulletin forum, and the other half only has sample code for vBulletin. And to be honest, pretty much all of the information presented in it can be found by a decent Google search anyway.
Blair - Speak to me 01:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

additions / deletions

I'm not sure what to think of some of the edits happening in this article. For example, the "14:01, 8 January 2007 89.242.139.18 (Talk) (Changed Jon England to Jonathan West)" edit was misdescribed. He also removed numerous forums from the list; not just a simple name change! --larz 22:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the article to a previous version, it seems like an old revision from October or November was edited. --DietrichM 20:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

W3C XHTML validation

I think there should be a column telling whether the forum software passes these tests. --Indolences 07:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Invisionfree

Would Invisionfree count as a forum software? I know for a fact it's quite a popular service, but since it's modified from Invision Power Board, is it eligible? Sorry I'm unclear on the concept. --Sapphire Flame 19:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, this article is only about forum software, not hosted forum services. correct me if I'm wrong. --DietrichM 23:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

OpenID

Can the comparison mention which software supports OpenID logins/signups, and which doesn't?--Saoshyant talk / contribs (please join WP:Portugal or WP:SPOKEN) 16:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Remotely Hosted

Shouldn't we add proboards and the others at this point? I mean granted we may not know all the internal coding, but we do know for the most part all of the features and the file system that most are using. thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.161.236.124 (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Search Engine column pointless

Basically every forum application has a search feature, unless the app is just someone's 5-minute hack. If the odd "Search Engine" term was supposed to mean something different or more specific, the original poster never bothered to define it. If there are no serious objections, I mean to remove the column. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.70.49.114 (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

SMF testimonial

I used SMF for a fairly major forum a year or two ago, and it got hacked and database corrupted. If you don't keep up with the patches you'll get fucked at some point, and they seemed to come out every two weeks.

vBulletin is far better. Signal15 20:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

edgeBoard

The external link to edgeBoard appears to be dead. I suggest deleting edgeBoard from the list of forums. Wrldwzrd89 20:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Since nobody commented on my suggestion, I went ahead and removed it. Wrldwzrd89 12:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Article size

This article (the main article, not this talk page) is getting rather large - should it be split into 4 sub-articles? The 4 sub-articles could be subpages of Comparison of Internet forum software, with the main article turned into a sort of stub that links to these sub-articles. Wrldwzrd89 17:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if it needs to be split into sub-articles. However maybe it would be moving bits to a /archive for sections not posted in for a year. Brollachan 15:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
For other reasons I would like a split-up (next to this total picture): For ASP forumware versus PHP (idem others). It took me quite a lot of time to extract the ASP data only and many people work according to only PHP or ASP, not both. Example working out ASP forums: Forum suiting GhostTroop best? AND: I think DotNetNuke is missing in this table, as it has forums? 190.56.17.160 16:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I have created some test user subpages that are basically a preview of what a split of this article by language might look like. The links are on my user page. Wrldwzrd89 19:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Perfect to me! What others think about it? Maybe the question is more: Should there still be a total overview left, or just mention three sub's? And if a total overview, should it give all data, or maybe even more general data, like ASP versus PHP and server issues etc.; and then point to the sub's for detailed info? 190.56.17.160 21:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the article should stay focused on comparing Internet forum software, and point the interested reader to other Wikipedia articles for server issues, such as ASP vs. PHP. Also, anyone against splitting this article? Wrldwzrd89 12:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Quite late I find out that dnfBB has "C" instead of ASP, but the link refers to ASP.NET... InstantForum is lacking on the tables 2 and 3. 190.56.17.160 18:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there are also some other forums missing information on the other tables. One of my goals is correcting these omissions. Wrldwzrd89 12:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

BSD style license naming

I don't want to start twice the same discussion but I think "BSD" license is not precise enough. You can have a look and talk about this on a previously started discussion on Talk:BSD_licenses#Free Software Foundation about BSD licenses naming. Regards, 193.253.141.80 14:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article has some problems. I'm not sure exactly what else is unencyclopedic besides the test for unread message tracking, which I moved to Wikibooks and linked to. Wrldwzrd89talk 14:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Why sort by language?

Why is the comparison of functionality sorted by the language the forum is written in? Surely the comparison should be of what the software actually does, not how it was created? --203.113.234.214 (talk) 12:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The original page had every forum software in one large page. It was too large, and thus the most logical way to divide the page up ended up being by the language used. NeoThermic (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree, the language shouldn't be the categorizer. It indicates that there are functional differences between forums written in different languages. I can't think of another good way to categorize them, though. Perhaps commercial/non-commercial? I can imagine a lot of people are only looking for free forum software. AlexanderM (talk) 16:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone is repeatedly removing the Admin Zone link from the External Link section without discussion on the Talk Page. This link has been added many times by many different editors going back quite a way, and is definitely appropriate for the article. There are way too many alterations being made to the External Links without discussion and concensus. The Sandman (talk) 18:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree - there needs to be a consensus review on external links added or removed from the article. Too many people have added irrelevant links or removed appropriate ones. Wrldwzrd89talk 12:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This continues to be an issue. Whoever is repeatedly altering the external links has no business doing so without first discussing it here. This article is not simply a chart with superficial comparisons between the various forum software products. The Sandman (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

And again we have an anonymous editor removing links without discussion which have been here for quite a while and regarding which the concensus was for inclusion. The Sandman (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Added AEF

This is a popular forum software. Googles Cache for the Same is around 5000 pages of that site alone. The membership strength is around 3000 more than most of them listed right now. Its also listed in Forum Matrix, OpensourceCMS, HotScripts Its popular than many other listed out here Moreover its also a Default Board in a Popular CMS MKPortal

If you have any reasons to remove it then please do it HAPPILY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rongup (talk • contribs) 14:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Big revert

I have done a long overdue revert for this article, as most of it is duplicative with the following articles:

Please keep individual comparisons on one of those three articles. We created them for a reason, and that is to reduce clutter on this article. ANDROS1337 02:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Remotely hosted forum services

Regarding the note about "remotely hosted services" under the Subarticles heading: would anyone object to creating a page that compares remotely hosted services such as Lefora, Proboards, Uservoice, ZetaBoards, etc.? 168.244.21.78 (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Security and anti-spam

Forum spam is a major issue for most forums, wasting valuable time and risking the look and feel of the site. It seems to me that security is an essential feature in comparing forums, so I have started a section with that in mind. I welcome comments and additions, and urge the WikiPolice not to revert my changes without serious thought. Thanks. Heenan73 (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Re-merge of list

I've taken the WP:BOLD step of re-merging the three sub-articles back here, keeping only those entries that are notable enough for their own article. As you can see, clutter is no longer a problem, and we can keep it clutter-free and spam-free by sticking to the "articles only" rule, which is consistent with how many other list articles are successfully maintained. I've proposed deletion of the sub-articles, which are confusing to readers who don't know what language a system is implemented in, and require flipping back and forth between articles to compare, for example, software written in PHP with software written in ASP. Captain Conundrum (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Feature: API

One feature that I am missing from the comparison chart is the existence of an API for programmatic querying and posting of messages. --Srittau (talk) 11:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Parrot?

Is "Parrot" an actual software Title? Bud0011 (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

skin care Problems Good always

While the holidays are a time to let go and enjoy , your skin is likely to have suffered from too many sweets , too little rest and enough attention to skin care . Onset of winter , and its effect on the skin, often ignored in our care regimen skin . The New Year is a perfect time to examine how to care for your skin and make the necessary adjustments to achieve the new spotless, bright look you want , from your face all the way to the toes time.

Cleaning is the first step to beautiful skin. If your skin is dry and itchy dry the contrast between the hot interior and the explosion of low winter temperatures , use Gentle Foaming Cleanser . This gentle cleanser helps restore the glow to your skin without drying . If the red, irritated or inflamed skin Delia Bella is a problem , use a gentle cleanser like Soothing cleaner . Key ingredients such as lavender and echinacea soothe the skin , while panthenol help heal irritation and anti - Ozonate complex protects the skin from environmental stress . If unsightly blemishes have made ​​an unwanted presence , is complex clinical Cleansing deep cleanse your pores with salix alba extract () to combat outbreaks , while the extract of sugar cane layer renews skin surface , and chamomile oil relieves irritation . Oily skin or combination may be particularly difficult in the winter because they must find a balance between combating excess oil without drying the face its essential protective barrier. SkinMedica Facial Cleanser is a good choice to effectively cleanse your skin while balancing oil production naturally . Oat amino acids prevent water loss through the strengthening of the lipid barrier and borage extract removes excess sebum , leaving the skin toned and conditioned .

Choose a moisturizer for winter usually involves using a richer formula than used in the warmer to better protect your skin from the harsh elements of months. For dry or mature skin is an excellent option PCA Skin Collagen Moisturizer . This rich emollient cream softens and moisturizes skin with key shea butter , hydrolyzed wheat protein and olive oil , ingredients while sweet almond extract adds a fruit softening , nourishing film that balances the skin pH and protects against the winter elements . The challenge of combating stains , keeping skin hydrated is particularly difficult in the winter. M2 Skin Recovery Moisturizer is great for fighting acne without drying solution. This versatile cream also reduces the appearance of dark spots and fine lines and wrinkles .

Of course , healthy skin is not just about your face. Body scrubs are the way to go to get rid of rough, dry flakes , and revealing its fresh new skin. They work to exfoliate and smooth the surface of the skin , leaving it more receptive to the benefits of moisturizing lotions . Eminence Cranberry Pomegranate Sugar Scrub is a gentle but effective ideal for all types of skin exfoliating . Granules of cane raw sugar contain natural hydroxy acids Alphy natural exfoliation , while Granada cranberry and provide powerful antioxidants to protect and balance the skin, leaving it bright and shining .

Once your body is clean and radiant, apply a cream or body lotion to lock in moisture and protect your skin from the harsh effects of the elements of winter. Replenix CF Green Tea Antioxidant Moisturizing Lotion is an ultra - moisturizing formula with penetrating emollients and softeners lipids to moisturize and protect . Trixera Selectiose rated Avene Emollient Cream is an excellent choice for those with severe skin irritation and dryness , while Epionce Renewal Enriched Body Lotion is suitable for all skin types . Strengthens the natural moisture barrier of the skin extract date fruit extract to nourish and rose hip extract to lighten and brighten , to give your skin a radiant look .

Last but not least, despite the sometimes sad days of winter , sunscreen for the face and body remain a key element in protecting the skin for the long term. But why settle for a simple sunscreen when you can get a three-step treatment for face with one product? La Roche- Posay Anthelios 50 First Anti-Aging Daily sunscreen combines anti -aging treatment , matte primer and an innovative sunscreen formulation. Rated Pevonia Botanica Hydrating Sunscreen SPF 30 is ideal for protecting your body from the damaging effects of the sun option . This soothing lotion provides effective broad-spectrum sun protection , while illuminating and moisturizes .

The new year brings a perfect opportunity to accelerate your routine skin care . Take a new approach to body care, protection and skin preparation for the coming months ! http://deliabellaantiaging.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by JenniferMWoods (talk • contribs) 14:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Article clean-up

Today, I've removed quiet a lot entries from this list for the obvious reasons:

  • First of all, the article doesn't start with this for the fun of it:

This is a list of NOTABLE internet forum software, as judged by Wikipedia's notability policies, obtained by searching Wikipedia for WP:N. Please don't add external links or wikilinks to nonexistent articles – instead, read our notability policies and write the article first, ensuring to demonstrate notability. Entries without articles, redlinks, external links, and links to articles that aren't about the forum software in question will be pruned periodically. Fill in the background info too, please, to make this article useful.

  • Most of the removed entries only had a GitHub (or other)
  • I couldn't find much references to these software, nor enough websites using it (but that could be me)
  • WP:WTAF, because it doesn't link to an article and thus doesn't have a red link, it doesn't mean it doesn't have to follow those rules, right?

If I removed an entry that does have a Wikipedia lemma, please add it back in. I checked for them, but couldn't find one. I'm sorry if I did, it wasn't my intention.--84.195.214.118 (talk) 12:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Some missing entities

LITHIUM TECHNOLOGIES https://lithium.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.34.187 (talk) 00:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


Loomio Ruby/JS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loomio

FlaskBB Python (Flask). http://flaskbb.org/

DajangoBB Python (Django). http://djangobb.org/

Sugar Ruby. https://github.com/elektronaut/sugar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deleet (talk • contribs) 07:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

A few missing entries

I noticed it's missing a few forums, namly ASP.NET ones:

"ASP.NET Forums" (made by Microsoft), "Community Server - Forums" (mutated from the former), and "Yet Another Forum.NET" (modelled on phpBB)

A number of others, including: Slash (the Slashdot forums engine, Perl), Scoop (Kuro5hin.org's engine, Perl), PHPNuke (a popular Slash-like clone, PHP), and Drupal (sort of a wiki / blog / CMS engine, Python IIRC). Then there's the whole mess of Wiki engines, but I don't think those will ever go anywhere ;-)

NodeBB - nodebb.org (based on node.js) is missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.235.64.4 (talk) 02:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

From article source: "This is a list of NOTABLE internet forum software, as judged by Wikipedia's notability policies, obtained by searching Wikipedia for WP:N." Johnny Bin (talk) 11:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


ExBB

Exclusive Bulletin Board, a Russian flat file forum

  • [http://www.exbb.net/ official site] (Russian)
  • [http://community.exbb.net/ mods, skin and other] (Russian )
  • [http://www.exbb-int.siteburg.com/ intenational page] (English)
  • [http://exbb.clans.it/forum/ Italian site] (Italian)
  • [http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exbb Italian Wikipedia page] (Italian)

Community Server

Does the Enterprise version of Community Server really cost $9999?


Yazd Forum was missing and I added it

Yazd forum was missing from the list and I added it. Cheers

Download, export, portability

User data and migration is a significant concern for forum software users. I did some research, can we add a column to the feature table? Nemo 12:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Also needed due to m:Discourse chatter. Nemo 15:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Oracle RightNow, Telligent Evolution, Get Satisfaction

According to [1], the most used forum software in the top million web properties are (in order) vBulletin, phpBB, SMF, XenForo, Invision Power Board, Vanilla Forums, Oracle RightNow, Discourse, Telligent Evolution, Get Satisfaction CMS. Should we add Oracle RightNow, Telligent Evolution or Get Satisfaction to the comparison table? These are more similar to issue trackers as far as I can see, but more research may be needed. Nemo 08:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Adding accessibility criteria

Accessibility is a real concern in terms of web pages, a internet forum is made of web pages, so, this criteria (that has its own norms as you might know, cf. https://www.w3.org/WAI/ ) should be considered in this comparison of internet forum software. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.88.137.202 (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree this should be considered, but this is a criterion hard to judge. Can you propose some sources the article could rely on? Nemo 15:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Feature table cleanup

The changes have made due to the following reasons:

  • Sources that where irrelevant to the table have been dropped, the information it was a "source" for (as non of these where actual sources for any information) has also been dropped.
  • Sources that lead to dead URLs or are simply outdated have also been dropped, including their respective content.
  • The features table is ment for the latest release, and the latest only. Information regarding old versions has been dropped.
  • Fields with "Plugin" that linked to non-maintained plugins that do not support the latest version have been cleared, with the sources dropped.
  • There was no definition for the "Languages" column to indicate it with Yes or No, the sources provided in the explanation where no help either, therefor I consider this Original Research and therefor removed it from the table. I wanted to first change this into a column that said "translatable", but since all software in this list support this, it seemed quiet pointless.
  • Finally, fields like "Planned", "Plugins" and "Partial" now use Wikipedia templates.

There we go, a clean and trustworthy table. --YannickFran (talk) 14:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to perform a partial revert for the parts of [2] which clearly don't enjoy consensus and which are not based in policy, per previous discussion:

  • in some cells you removed a reference and replaced the status with something decided based on nobody knows what;
  • no reason was provided to remove information on portability and NNTP;
  • the languages criterion is very clearly defined and objective.

I'm open to revising the languages criterion if the objective threshold is felt to be too arbitrary; I appreciate that all the other criteria are extremely fuzzy. Nemo 08:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Most of your changes were kept; I'm especially glad that you adopted a template for the "Plugin" style at last. It's not acceptable to keep an information while removing the corresponding reference, nor to change an information without providing a source or rationale (or even while removing a reference stating the contrary). We can however discuss on standards for references to use and definitions to improve, or the other real issues, which were outlined in 08:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC) and never addressed by you.
[3] follows the criteria which I previously described, while [4] didn't follow any logic in that it even removed references which were added based on criteria proposed by you («you best refer to feature overviews from the forum software»). I also note that you didn't follow your own advice above that "blanks are discouraged". Feel free to elaborate on the rationale and methods you propose and how they are based in policy, clarifying whether you are rescinding your previous suggestions. Nemo 09:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Lovely how you claim in the edit summary that my changes where made "without consensus and disregarding previous discussions" while it have been your changes since the very beginning that where done just like that. Anyway, I've once again cleaned up the article. Did you even read the "sources" you used? Some where threads that weren't even relevant to what they where a thread. Some where outdated (as old as 12 year old conversations) and not relevant to the latest version of the software - which this table is about and are therefor unusable. Again - and still - you put in a table that was a big mess and you continue to think that others are going to clean it up for you. Please, if you keep pointing the finger at me, perhaps it is time to look in a mirror and check if you aren't doing the very same thing you're accusing me off. Your edits have been controversial from the beginning due to a lack of quality. And that lack of quality continues to reappear, and honestly, I'm getting sick of it. Heck, I've tried more then enough to help you out. I've pointed out multiple times what had to be cleaned up, I've given multiple suggestions at where to look, how to keep the table the way it is supposed to be but you've ignored every single piece of feedback. And if that feedback was applied by anyone else, you where the one to revert it every single time. Sigh. Anyway:
  • Every cell of which the "source" was removed, was cleared to indicate nothing.
  • Portability was removed due to the lack of a definition. "Software portability is a key assessment criterion for the choice and procurement of software" is not a definition. Anyway, even if it had a definition, there is no source to provide that "software portability" is a key assessment criteria for forum software. Because it isn't. All forum software will run in just 1 single environment. If we are going to consider individual database types different environments: than there already is a table for that. However, we don't. Why not? Because "software portability" is completely irrelevant to forum software.
  • The Language column was dropped because the definition of it given in the article wasn't a definition either. Additionally, the content was based on calculations based on a source. Yet the provided source shows no information about languages. I suggest that if you want to add that column again, you define clearly what it is supposed to indicate. Does it mean that the software supports translations? Does it mean that it just uses a correct language? Does it mean it provides languages as optional download (maintained by the community?)? Or are these supposed to be included to be accounted for (just like plugins: if they aren't, don't count them as part of the software). So far, there was nothing "clear" about this and since the source didn't provide any information, it isn't "objective" either, not by the content that is provided to proof its correctness.
--YannickFran (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you feel your suggestions have not been considered. I did consider them, for instance you suggested to use forum comparisons as source and I used one, but then you removed that very reference.
  • Your removal still made several statements unsourced, so I reverted it. If you feel some information is now incorrect, feel free to remove it (of course it would be better to find better sources).
  • Software portability applies to any software, according to sources; do you have any source for your personal opinion that it doesn't apply for forums?
  • The definition provided already answers your questions. Can you point out an example row where it is hard to apply the definition (e.g. where you'd place a no intead of a yes, or vice versa)?
I hope this discussion and your edits can get more concrete. Nemo 09:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
You considered them, then ignored all of it completely. Ever since you added these new columns in the table months ago, nothing has changed. You didn't do anything with any of the feedback. Your edits from earlier today just keep proving everything I've been saying. I told you you can't use the unreliable out-dated source that is ForumMatrix. What did you do? You sourced EVERYTHING with it.
  • Please point out what I left unsourced? Everything of which I removed the "source" has also been dropped because there was nothing to proof it. Meanwhile, you are taking an years old "source" and applying it to everything. Do you call that "providing a source"? Because it isn't. Removing everything that was already there but not sourced isn't moving anything forward either. See the template on the top of the page. It asks for additional verification, not for removing everything that was already there. Obviously, that doesn't mean you can just add more without sources. Hence why your content keeps getting dropped.
  • Where did I say that it doesn't apply to forum software? I said the source doesn't proof it. Neither is there anything in your "sources" that even talk about this. The definition provided on the bottom of the article isn't clarifying anything either.
  • I have been hoping that you would take feedback and make some normal edits for months now, you haven't done anything ever since.--YannickFran (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Features focus

To follow up on my earlier message, I find it problematic that some columns in the feature comparison are included just because they were in the original table inserted in 2005 or so, without ever being discussed or even compared to sources. Common comparisons detail over 50 features (or even 70), so we have to draw the line somewhere.

Some features don't seem especially relevant to understand the nature of a software and furthermore don't have any reference, hence I propose to remove them immediately (they can be reinstated later if someone finds sources):

  • Calendar
  • Image attachment

Some features are relevant, so I propose to focus on finding reliable sources that state so, but to keep them in the table we should at least make sure that there is wide agreement on which software satisfies which criteria and reference at least a basic comparison:

  • Flat
  • Threaded
  • Unread message tracking

Some features are probably relevant, but currently lack sources and are highly debatable (almost anyone can claim to be a "Yes" under some definition), so I propose to find sources talking about them but also to define clear criteria to assign Yes/No and to empty any cell which doesn't have a reference showing (non-)compliance with said criteria:

  • User selectable themes
  • WYSIWYG editor

Some features feel important, so I propose to find some source for their importance, and could then be added to the table once clear criteria are found:

  • Duplicate thread prevention
  • Forum spam defenses
  • User-friendly URLs

--Nemo 10:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah... no. ForumMatrix is not a credible source. Not anymore. Do you even check your sources? Come on, most of its data is from 2011 and earlier. Forum software has seriously moved on since then, you know? --YannickFran (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I know. Yet a portion of the article's table still comes from 2005. Do you know better options? Nemo 09:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
No I do not. But because there is no source that is reliable doesn't mean you can just pick an outdated unreliable source.--YannickFran (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know, which forum software supports tags, like stackoverflow.com. Imho information and discussion does not fit properly into static categories. Usually it applies to more than one subject and category at a time. Thus, tag based (category free) forums will be the future, I think. --consuli74 10 October 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Consuli74 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

This is a good point. Do we have some source on tags in forums? Nemo 09:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I've been looking for some more sources. I only found one limited comparison: doi:10.1109/CITSM.2014.7042171 (PhpBB, MyBB, and SMF), doi:10.1049/cp.2014.1367 (security of phpBB vs. ideal). [5] is not especially relevant, but lists many possible features; [6] lists some requirements they had and how they're satisfied by Discuz: Template opinion-topic submission; Topic filtration; Questionnaire-topic submission; Voting; Online chatting; Post merging; Thread aggregation; Topic states setting; Online testing; Redeeming; Reward-topic submission. --Nemo 12:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Putting the same out-dated source on everything isn't sourcing anything. Additionally, no discussion has been made about dropping Calendar and Image attachments. Removing them because they are irrelevant in your opinion, despite being important forum features, is ridiculous. Thank you for once again proving my point that you don't take any feedback in regard.--YannickFran (talk) 15:46, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Additionally, "Other features" has been removed as well. This lemma is about a comparison, not a list of features in forum software. That's another lemma. If it doesn't compare anything, it has no place in this lemma.--YannickFran (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

New unsourced information

How about we start reverting all additions which don't provide (third-party?) references at all? E.g. [7]. Any other idea how to improve the situation of this article as regards citations? Nemo 07:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

How about no.--YannickFran (talk) 10:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Do you mean "yes"? [8] Nemo 13:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
How is the link you provide even relevant to this discussion? Anyway, removing everything that was already there without a source isn't how this works. New edits? Fine, if these aren't sourced correctly (for example: your edits) than those should be reverted, content that was added years ago? No. For these, sources need to be found. Reliable, up-to-date sources.--YannickFran (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Size

It would be helpful to have some sort of size comparison. For example, the total size of all download files required to install the forum.

Also, the table doesn't seem complete. For example, Flarum is missing. David Spector (talk) 18:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Features table

Nemo bis, are you for real? You're blaming me that I need to take it to the talk page of the article, yet you yourself are the one who found it appropriate to discuss this on my talk page? Anyway, the point still stands and let me quote it for you. Again:

I couldn't care less about the number of sources you've added. I can add a bunch of sources in an article that hasn't anything do with the subject and call it a day too. The fact that you added 4 columns to that table and didn't even fill 81% of the fields you added says enough about the quality of your contribution. As if that wasn't enough, another 11% of the filled fields are just saying "Maybe" and adding even more insult to injury, one of these even has to question its own content; "plugin?". How can a feature 'maybe' be included? What does that mean? It's part of one download and not of another? It's either Yes, No, Plugin or Planned. If you add a column, that's fine, but you should make sure that it actually adds some value to the article and do proper research for every forum software in the list, not just the ones you like. Neither is that table for how features are implemented (OAuth, server-side plugin; that's all irrelevant in this table), it is there for whether it is available in the particular software or not.

Your "additions" to this table are not appropriate or useful. Simply replacing "maybe" by "partial" isn't going to solve it. The fact that you filled it with "maybe" is just half - and honestly the minority of - the issue: your addition leaves way to much blank, unfinished information or simply isn't clear. And again, you cannot expect other editors to "finish" the mess you are making. It doesn't matter whether or not Wikipedia is a collaborative project, other editors are here to add new info, not to clean your mess up. You know what you have to do: replace these "maybe"'s with useful content and add information for all the others. Otherwise, stop reverting because your just trashing the page right now. --YannickFran (talk) 08:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for finally commenting on the talk page, over 4 months after my proposal. For now I'm restoring my version, as you had multiple months to comment on my proposed additions and there is no consensus on your removals.
You make several statements that don't seem to be based in policy and hence I don't find productive to discuss: please add references to what makes you think that "It's either Yes, No, Plugin or Planned", that no parentheses are allowed and that blanks are discouraged. Once I understand the context of these claims of yours, which are unprecedented in my experience on Wikipedia, I'll be able to reply.
Personally I find we should be discussing other things, based on Wikipedia:No original research etc.
  • What features are considered important by sources? Does our table reflect that?
  • Are there controversies on whether some of the listed products would qualify for some of the selected features?
  • Is it possible to find good sources for the cells of the table? How do we proceed to remove the warnings about the lack of citations?
  • Disregarding the possible development of the table, is there some row or column which is currently too far from respecting our content policies? (For instance I understand you removed some rows because of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight.) Should we remove some of the columns in the stripped-down version due to their total lack of sources?
Nemo 08:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
The only advice in Wikipedia:WikiProject Software#References is basically to look for research papers. A quick search finds little: mainly studies about spam and forum data mining (like doi:10.1002/asi.21323 and doi:10.1007/978-3-642-23151-3_11 which are sort of interesting). Finding more overviews would be extremely helpful. Nemo 09:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
First of all, you don't need to request if you could add new rows to the comparison table. Just do it. Second of all, I would have been fine with it if you would have done it and just like anybody else, if I would have seen the question, I would have responded with "Sure, go ahead". And thirdly, even if I would have said "Sure, go ahead", I would still have reverted your "addition": it's useless and confusing in its current state. Just replacing "maybe" with "partial" isn't solving anything. And once again, as I've said before but you don't seem to understand: Wikipedia is indeed a collaborative project but other editors are not here to finish your half work. Ho I wish it would in fact be at least half, but no: you added 80 cells, of which you filled just 5 with actual content and you didn't even bother to clarify the features you added in the "Feature explanation"-section of this article. This is what people call "quality control". And my "Research" comment has nothing to do with Wikipedia:No original research. With "research" I mean: go look for all the other cells correct content too, not just for the forum software you found.
Anyway for that other thing:
* It's either Yes, No, Plugin or Planned: in a table that is supposed to say whether or not a system supports something, these are the obvious things to fill in. Putting "maybe" in there is like putting nothing in there.
* parentheses: again, this table is for showing whether or not a system supports a certain feature, not HOW it is implemented.
* blanks are discouraged: I've never said that there shouldn't be blanks. I said that you can't leave 75 of the 80 cells you add empty.
Anyway, I'm sick of this. If you don't want to discuss these changes before you add them. So be it. --YannickFran (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • "Maybe" is definitely not equivalent to a blank. We are showing information that proves something exists, that may qualify as satisfying the requirement.
  • Parentheses: can you clarify what makes you think so? I don't see anything that would discourage additional, relevant information.
  • Blanks: interesting assertion, where do you draw the line? Is there some guideline which assisted you in determining this limit?
I notice you don't address my points on undue weight and reliable sources. That's a pity. From now on, I suggest that you pay more attention to Wikipedia's (and this article's) need for sources. I'm doing my best to make this article better sourced and we need to encourage such work. Nemo 15:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I've addressed your points plenty of time. How do you respond? By taking my words out of context or even completely reforming them to what best suits you. Anyway, let me be clear one more time:
  • These additions of you continue to be confusing and continue to provide no additional value to the article. Filling the whole table with blanks, "Maybe" and "Partial" and more useless information that what's supposed to be in the table is not acceptable and, as said, confusing and useless for the people that are looking for this kind of information.
  • The table's content is still questioning itself: "Partial (admin-only, also per-category;[39] plugin?[40])", "Maybe", and you find it weird that these edits are being undone?
  • You continue to add to these tables with the "others will clean up my mess"-mindset. Yes, Wikipedia is indeed a community project, but as said so many times: that doesn't mean other should clean up after you.
  • Because you give everything a source doesn't mean its a good addition. First of all, it has nothing to do with the template on top of the article, that template is about content that's already on the page. Second, I've found that most of your "sources" aren't even "sources" and belong more under "original research" or people have to read the whole source to actually understand what that "Maybe"/"Partial" of yours actually means. For these kind of things, you best refer to feature overviews from the forum software and make it clear whether or not it is supported, not to random topics on forums with responses that are questionable at best. And if so much is just "Partial", than you should question yourself whether or not the feature that that column is about is perhaps to broad.
  • The simple fact that there are fields with "Yes (plugin)" while "Plugin" has its own indication proves that you've put absolutely no quality control into this.
  • Just putting in new features in the table isn't going to cut it either. There is a reason every feature is being explained below the table. What the heck would "i18n" stand for? Do you really think non-technical people even know what that mean? Not to mention that the number of languages on itself isn't a feature, multilingual support is, but that's not what your edit is trying to indicate. The number of supported languages isn't even correct (you're ignoring community translations, the fact that many of these translations aren't being maintained, and again that "Maybe" thing, etc.).
  • And finally: your edits just prove again that you cannot discus the situation properly. You've been continuously accusing me for not taking this to the talk page while I've done that plenty of times and I've pointed out plenty of times what's wrong with your edits in the past. Now you once again keep saying to me that I've to discus to keep the straight-forward version of the article over your edit that continues to question itself?
It's your edit that is being questioned here, it's your edit that needs to be discussed, not the original article. So please, I ask you politely - one last time - stop reverting to your changes if you don't solve the issues with it or use the talk page for what it is: talk or heck, put the table in the talk page and improve here on your edit and when that's done, go ahead put it back in. And again, replacing all "Maybe"'s with "Partial"'s or just removing the question marks isn't solving anything either. And if your now going to comment on this and just immediately revert back to your table instead of waiting for a response, than please, don't talk because your arguments will be useless once again. --YannickFran (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for addressing some of the points.
  • Could you clarify what you mean with «you best refer to feature overviews from the forum software»? Usually I prefer third-party sources, but if you make a list of sources that you think useful (or better yet integrate them into the article) that would certainly be progress. I'd especially like to find a source on the relevance of the various features (some are extremely dubious, like "user-selectable themes" and "calendar"), but we can do that later.
  • We can certainly clarify the meaning of some of the columns and better define the criteria. What do you suggest for the i18n column?
  • For the "plugin" option, do you mean the style="background:#ffff90;"| Plugin? I can use that, sure. Is this usage wide enough to warrant creating a template for it perhaps? Then it would be more discoverable.
Nemo 09:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Ok, no suggestions; I'll proceed. Nemo 06:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Not getting suggestions doesn't mean you can just prosseed. Also: "Revert undiscussed removals. Please achieve consensus on the talk page.", are you serious? Your additions have been disputted multiple times here now and you answer with putting "achieve consensus" in the edit log? Because you've ever waited until you got any kind of consensus? This article isn't yours, your not the author and not the only one that get to decide what's in here. Also, there have been plenty of reasons listed above why that "removal" is necessary: once again, the info that got removed was contradicting or even questioning itself and if that wasn't the case it was just unclear information that required the user to go to the source to find out what was actually ment by that. --YannickFran (talk) 10:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
I suggest that you avoid personal attacks and provide constructive suggestions to improve the article. I've reverted your unconstructive removals and restored the consensus version. Nemo 13:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
"Consensus version"? Who's consensus? Let me answer that for you: Yours. Only yours. The article before you started messing with it, THAT was the consensus version. I suggest that before you continue to revert this you start to do what this page is ment for: talk. So far, you haven't done anything of that. And even if you did, you just continued to revert to the disputed version. You did that very thing today again. Your edit isn't the consensus version. Don't try to tell yourself some lies. Anyway, I've provided plenty of constructive feedback. Plenty for you to ignore every single one of them. Heck, even with todays edits you are proving me right once more. "[ForumMatrix is an out-dated source, it can't be used as a source for todays version]" (or however I worded it). What was the next thing for you to do? Literally source EVERYTHING with ForumMatrix (some of the content of that source is a decade old, I repeat: a decade). And everything that did not fit, you just removed. Content that was there for years for which there is a template on top of the page asking for sources. And by the way, that doesn't mean that you can just keep adding unsourced material - before you get any ideas. --YannickFran (talk) 16:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I would like to propose that the ability to update forum software (much like wordpress updates system) is tracked in the features table, or elsewhere in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.168.100.132 (talk) 17:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

The link of the XMB forum software points to Sony's XrossMediaBar <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XMB> instead of the (non existent) article about the eXtreme Message Board software. The XMB forum software's website would be <https://www.xmbforum2.com/>. 95.114.23.16 (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Help

Some one help me to understand the dark Qeenrach (talk) 10:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Add NodeBB

Another forum software Greatder (talk) 05:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comparison_of_Internet_forum_software/Archive_1&oldid=1183558910"