Talk:Joomla

Sources of information about Joomla

One of the main sources of information available to the general public comes from the reports posted on the Joomla Volunteers Portal. From the middle of 2023 the availability of regular reports has been severely restricted; in effect, a blackout of information available to the public.

The information in the Joomla article is somewhat unreliable as a result of the lack of reports from Joomla teams or the official Open Source Matters, Inc website. --Sozzled2904 (talk) 21:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree it has gotten harder to access that information, but using your own personal blog as sources for your edits is highly frowned upon and against policy. jnr (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Name and punctuation

I believe the name of the product is "Joomla" without the exclamation point.

• Joomla is the world’ s most popular open source CMS (content management system). With 2.7 percent of the Web running on Joomla, the software is used by individuals, small & medium-sized businesses, and large organizations worldwide to easily create & build a variety of websites & web-enabled applications. [1]

The description on the official project homepage should speak for itself, but lots of people enjoy adding the explanation point. I guess it's like using the backwards R in the logo for Korn. I'd rather not confuse the logo with the name.

If, however (and *sigh*), there is a guideline requiring us to keep it in, just revert me. I don't mind. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It isn't consistently used on the Joomla website, so although it forms part of the graphical logo I'm ambivalent about whether we have it in the text of the article. Whatever way we go though it should be consistent i.e. all or nothing. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 21:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's mention in the article that they used the exclamation point, either as part of the logo (to attract attention?) or "officially" as part of the name. But first, let's research that.

When we did the article for Korn a few years back, some enthusiastic contributor actually placed the article at Koяn or KOЯN - I guess to be as precise as possible. But it confuses people.

I'd prefer not to use "Joomla!" (with the exclamation point) until and unless we determine whether the people who created the project feel it is (or was) part of the name. Then we could include a paragraph or even a whole section on the usage of that punctuation mark. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Mentioning the exclamation mark briefly in the lead, then omitting it in the rest of the article works for me. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 14:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It was originally part of the name and then fell into such disuse - because it's silly - that it doesn't matter anymore. WRobertson 21:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The position of the Joomla! Project and Open Source Matters is that the exclamation point (!) is a part of the Joomla! trademark, and as such, should be included in the first use of the word "Joomla" and may be omitted from following uses of the word "Joomla". This is the consistent with Joomla!'s trademark policy regarding the (R) symbol as well. jondn (talk) 00:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

More here, and link to extended discussion in Talk Archive therein. In particular, I'm surprised nobody else mentioned WP's Yahoo! article. —DIV (1.129.106.73 (talk) 14:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC))

Sozzled2904 (talk) 09:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)  Done Name (and alternative spellings) and pronunciation guide information added to opening paragraph. These changes should address the concerns raised in this discussion.

Sozzled2904 (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC) Regardless of how "Joomla" is referred to (with or without the exclamation mark or associated trademark indica (e.g. ™, ® and © in Joomla's official branding policy)), as far as I can tell the Wikipedia article does not extensively quote from copyrighted/trademarked material and, as an aid for further research, the article is not impaired by removing constant references to how Joomla wants to brand itself.

How to pronounce?

How to pronounce Joomla? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.52.73 (talk) 18:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Sozzled2904 (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)  Done

History

The history section is broken up into a lot of single or double sentence paragraphs. This is a detriment to the flow of the article. Elizabeth N2 (talk) 12:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Sozzled2904 (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC) A work in progress. The original entry for Joomla was written over a decade ago and has not really been maintained very well; article updates focused only on version updates as opposed to how people and events shaped the course of the project.

Sozzled2904 (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2023 (UTC) I went as far as I could, based on information scattered around the internet, and left the history of the project as it was in mid-2020. During the latter half of 2020 and early 2021 there were several changes to the make-up of Open Source Matters, Inc., in particular the composition of the Board of Directors, that are absent from the article.

Furthermore, in August 2021, the "Joomla 4.x" project achieved a milestone—6 years after the project commenced—with the first public stable release known as J! 4.0.0. This achievement and the publicity surrounding the public launch are also absent from the article. As the article currently stands, the implication is that the J! project is little other than a software development activity composed of hobbyists or enthusiasts without any clear purpose or objectives. Sozzled2904 (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Molajo

The distribution described at Molajo doesn't appear to be notable enough for its own article: should it be merged here? Invitrovanitas (talk) 14:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Molajo, while definitely an interesting distribution that has yet to be launched, is currently just that, a distribution. So until we add an entire section for a distribution that may or may not be launched at some point in the future, I don't think we should include it here. jondn (talk) 01:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Sozzled2904 (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC) Still a WIP, I'm researching the impact of Molajo on Joomla (or vice-versa) and begun work to include a reference to these activities and events.

Sozzled2904 (talk) 23:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)  Done

Just kill it. it was little more than vapourware — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:B261:4400:960:41B8:98AC:9DD4 (talk) 20:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Sozzled2904 (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC) Whether one could characterise Molajo as vapourware or not—Molajo never launched beyond an overhead projector—the events at that time polarised the community, leading to an exodus of several key contributors from Joomla. I can't cite references as to who did what to whom, what or why things happened in the ways they did (any more than asserting that Wikipedia would benefit by removing all references to Molajo as if it never happened) and therefore kept things short, evidence-based and without personal bias or subjectivity on the matter.

Forum for the Future (FftF)

Sozzled2904 (talk) 05:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC) At one time I remember reading an article relating to the formation of the FftF working group. The title of only current information about FftF is Forum for the Future: Where are we now? that provides a clue that the working group was established some time ago. At its inception (as I recall), the working group cited Nicholas Dionysopoulos' opinion article written in 2015 as one of the factors influencing the creation of FftF. I have not been able to locate information about the origins of FftF and, for the time being. If anyone knows where the original article about FftF can be located, it would be nice to add it here.

FtfF appears to have disbanded.Sozzled2904 (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Removing the dot-point release "history"

Sozzled2904 (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC) Someone, in their eagerness to update the Joomla story, added several lines of narrative to the article with the release dates of half-a-dozen version-patch/bugfix releases. This activity (which ceased a few months ago) gained some encouragement within the Joomla user community (see the discussion here: https://forum.joomla.org/viewtopic.php?f=48&p=3619320). Given that there have been 153 minor (almost trivial) dot-point releases in the past 15 years, it serves no useful purpose to advertise each and every one of them in Wikipedia. One can obtain detailed information, if one searches, at various Joomla code repositories or at the official website.

I have not seen other cases, with other software products on Wikipedia, where details of every bugfix is mentioned to the point of being a nauseating litany of non-achievement.

Sozzled2904 (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC) Again, someone in their "eagerness" to list the latest dot-point/bugfix release of Joomla had modified the release history table to include the latest release. The latest version-number is indicated at the top of the article, together with a reference (citation) with information about the reason for the release. Repeating the same information in the version history table does not add any value and, for the reasons mentioned above, this is unnecessary. Before modifying the structure of this table, with a view to adding dot-point releases to the history table, please use the talk page first.

Franz.wohlkoenig (talk) 06:31, 18 March 2023 (UTC) "The latest version-number (...) at the top of the article" – The latest version-number isn't shown.

Alpha & Beta 'releases'

What is the thinking on Alpha & Beta "releases"? For example, Joomla 4.0.0 Alpha 1 was 'released' in November 2017, but there's no mention in the text, nor indication in the "Joomla! versions" table. It only appears in the Infobox at the top of the article. The "Joomla! versions" table does indicate version 4.0 as a "future release", but it is unclear what that really means: for example, it could mean that the developers stated a year or two ago that they planned (or hoped) to start working on a new version (4.0) in 2019 — albeit with no new code having yet been written. —DIV (1.144.110.126 (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC))

Sozzled2904 (talk) 08:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)I don't like the idea of including alpha/beta version releases in the (rewritten) version history table but there it would be of small significance to include a reference to the progress of future releases (whether they actual make it to "stable" or not). That's a future work as part of a major rewrite that I am undertaking.

"Major Version" and "Released As" creates unnecessary confusion

In the version tables, someone has deemed it appropriate to add notes about a "Major Version" and "Released As", which creates additional confusion in the context of the article. Joomla 3.x has never been known as the 4th major version, and trying to refer to the 4th major version is extremely strange.

The versions should consistently be referenced how the project and the community know them, not how someone arbitrarily tries to number them. If someone wants to explain why the jump from 1.0 to 1.5 is considered a major version jump, similar for 1.5 to 1.6, then go for it.

(Note, due to COI, I cannot make substantial edits to the page and can only offer this suggestion.)

Michael (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Sozzled2904 (talk) 05:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC) That "someone" was me. Let's try to unpack this (it's a bit complicated). While J! 1.5 was not supposed to be a major release—it was supposed to be the LTS version of J! 1.0—J! 1.5 introduced a parcel of changes that partly allowed some features of J! 1.0 to continue to operate but, for all intents, J! 1.5 is not backward compatible with J! 1.0. I'm sure there would be an army of experts who have different views but does it really matter when J! 1.0 and J! 1.5 are now obsolete? J! 1.6 was not supposed to be a major release but when you consider what changes were made to the code, the database and the community as a consequence, it was pretty "major". J! 3.0 was supposed to be a major release but, according to various primary sources (cited in the article), it wasn't. The intention I had in mind to have a "Major version" column was to make sense of the numbering "system(s)" used by Joomla but, in hindsight, it wasn't worth the trouble and, to do so, invites unnecessary criticism and distracts attention from the purpose of the article. Therefore, in the interests of not wanting to unnecessarily complicate matters (or mock however the SVN was supposed to be used for), I've removed the "Major version" column and will let taxonomy experts figure things out.

Criticisms

Drupal and Wordpress have sections for criticisms, whereas this one does not. (Inconsistency) 75.76.183.29 (talk) 08:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Sozzled2904 (talk) 22:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC) Early criticisms about the Joomla project are, perhaps, now a matter of historical interest; those criticisms persist to this day with reference to the project as it was over a decade ago. Perhaps one measure of the success or otherwise of the project could be the tapering in interest in Joomla's popularity by examining Google Trends? Not sure if a graph using Google Trends data from 2005-present would be worthwhile, however. I think it may improve the quality of the article to mention some criticisms along the way (in the History section, but not necessarily draw attention to them by having a separate sub-section to deal with those events discretely.

Community

The community part on the Joomla webpage is supporting its customers with information. In the Forum users help each other and the Joomla magazine is supporting the users with professional help. Furthermore, the community is informing about Joomla! Days around the world. This event gives the possibiliy to meet other people and to exchange knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheermischi (talk • contribs) 09:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Sponsorships

Sozzled2904 (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC) Yes, it's true that the Joomla! Project "accepts sponsorships". It's also true that the project has classes of sponsors (e.g. bronze, silver, gold, etc.) based on how much money is invested by entities whose products and services may be advertised in various ways on websites managed by the project. I think it's a mistake to list the companies who sponsor J! (merely because of how much advertising budget they've contributed) or to maintain that list. The whole section about sponsorships is written like a press release rather than as reliable reference material. Furthermore, the article does not explore the level of control that sponsors exercise over the project and that deepens the mystery rather than providing any transparency. I would recommend the removal of the second and third paragraphs from this section.

Joomla in crisis (2020)

Sozzled2904 (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC) I reverted the change made by Veritas17057 who wrote "I added a Citation needed to the statement 'In his welcoming address to Joomla and Beyond OSM President Brian Mitchell accepted as fact that Joomla was in crisis.' I listened to the J&Beyond 2020 speech by OSM president Brian Mitchell 2x and did not hear any mention of a crisis. Maybe this statement is from somewhere else?"

Mitchell used the word "crisis" in his opening remarks (at 2'10" and at 2'40") where he talks about J!'s "response to the crisis". Mitchell certainly was referring to the COVID-19 pandemic crisis but there were other matters, not publicly revealed until a year later, that were happening in the background. It may have been an overreach on my part to conclude, from the video or from Mitchell's remarks at the FftF convention in Spain earlier in 2020, that Joomla was in a state of crisis (although, from a business perspective, other evidence might be obtained to support or refute such a view). Whether or not Mitchell explicitly said that J! was in crisis, his address was his definition of what was essential for the survival of the code, community and the culture. When people talk about the survival of something I think we're talking about something facing a crisis. As a result of the criticism made by Veritas17057 I have softened the wording in the article and re-instated the citation.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Joomla/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MSG17 (talk · contribs) 22:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined
(b) (MoS)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Most of the sources are primary links to Joomla's website, consisting of mainly release statements and forum posts. Very few third-party sources are used.	Fail
(c) (original research)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The article mostly focuses on the product itself and community, but not its reception among the larger public.	Fail
(b) (focused)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
No daily changes. Passed	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Both images are properly tagged	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	The Joomla code, community, culture image seems to be rather insignificant and is more fit for a marketing presentation.	Fail

Result

Result	Notes
Fail	Sorry, but the sources situation is unacceptable. I have to quickfail this article. I would recommend taking some time to research coverage of Joomla in reliable sources; Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources is a good place to start.

supposed to be have been released

My attempt to fix the word salad of "supposed to be have been released " by removing the superfluous words "have been" has been reverted. Can anyone suggest another way of fixing this article, or can we get consensus to restore my fix? ϢereSpielChequers 11:40, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Sozzled2904 (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC) Fair comment. The present perfect continuous tense in English is complicated for people for whom English is not their first language. I have changed the sentence from Originally, this version was supposed to be have been released in July 2012 ... to The original plan was to release this version in July 2012 .... The amended sentence states something that happened in the past, (i.e. the simple past tense).

Suggest better reference for Joomla founders

To describe the founder a reference (11) to the 10 years anniversary article from Brian Teenman is used on which no further names are mentioned.

The reference (12) from Andrew's post is IMHO more complete. I suggest to remove the reference to (11). Not sure if I can do so as my reputation here is not yet high enough.

Thx for considering AKempkens (talk) 09:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Awards and recognition

The section relating to "Awards" — sourced entirely from https://docs.joomla.org/Special:MyLanguage/Joomla!_Awards — is impossible to verify as significantly reputable. These "awards" were the result of votes cast anonymously with no requirement that the voters were in any way involved with the companies who conducted these votes. The primary purpose of including these awards here on Wikipedia is not to attribute any merit to Joomla but, instead, to promote various companies such as CMS Critic, Packt and others that have no involvement with the Joomla project.

There is no dispute that Joomla is recognised in the open-source CMS market space (and a reference to the sources quoted by the Joomla marketing people appears above) but commentary that appears on various websites (such as the CMS Critic website) could be perceived as advertorial material submitted by software developers, or copied or plagiarised in order to manipulate market share; it is not possible to verify impartiality or an absence of bias by such authors. Material sourced from sites such as these needs to be weighed with a grain of salt; rather than including a disclaimer in the Joomla article about the reputability of awards or trophies, it is better to remove the table written by the Joomla marketing team from the article entirely.

Further, this "Awards" section does not appear on non-English translations of the Joomla Wiki page. Sozzled2904 (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

"References to primary sources"

While there may be more references to "primary sources" than to (say) independently researched commentary, this is because many so-called independent commentators have biases about the Joomla project. For the most part, although some primary sources may be interpreted as having a secondary purpose to lead readers to a more positively favoured opinion about the Joomla project, primary sources are quoted in the article where they support factual content. It cannot be helped that primary sources often contain opinion masquerading as fact; the purpose of the article is to provide as much fact as possible. I feel that the use of the phrase "relies excessively on primary sources" is not entirely justified; it is subjective and dismissive without providing a rationale as to why primary sources are unreliable.

There is not much reliable secondary source information available in this subject. Joomla is something of a "niche" product. I should like to see the warning advice relating to "primary sources"—appearing at the head of the article—to be removed. Sozzled2904 (talk) 07:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY has a couple considerations that should be raised when Wikipedia users are reading an article. As you mentioned, articles by the subject about itself will present inherent bias even when it is unintentional. You note that this is unfavorable in independently researched commentary, even though presumably they also contain factual information. However, relying on primary sources can also lead Wikipedia editors to interpret the information themselves, leading to violations of WP:NOR. Additionally, over-reliance on primary sources can be an indication that a subject is not actually notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. Articles should meet WP:SIGCOV, and significant, reliable secondary coverage is valuable in assessing notability.

If the Joomla article was straight-up bad, it would likely be deleted. The WP:PRIMARY serves as an advance notice to readers of this article that it is not perfect and serves as an ask for editors to help improve the article. By adding the issue, this article also gets added to several categories that are regularly patrolled by users whose mission is to improve the quality and quantity of citations in Wikipedia articles (such as Category:Articles lacking reliable references from February 2024, Category:All articles lacking reliable references, Category:Articles needing additional references from April 2024, Category:All articles needing additional references, and Category:Articles with multiple maintenance issues).

I believe the tag should stand as it is accurate (albeit not nuanced) and beneficial information for both readers and editors.

Vegantics (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

References