Jump to content

Talk:Joomla/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Global Configuration

I wasted upwards of an hour this morning (EST) trying to figure out how to save the global parameters for Joomla articles. Is this information in the Joomla article here at Wikipedia? If not, I think it should be. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Revert issues

It seems the Joomla page is currently being taken over by a revert warring user. I've already warned the user regarding possible vandalism regarding inclusionist materials and the subsequent changes need some consensus to qualify that they are made in good faith. I do not want to enact the 3 revert rule on them. Please sign your name, for or against these changes, so it is seen whether this style of editing deserves consensus. El Mariachi (talk) 09:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

El -
There is no need for personal attacks by calling me a "revert warring user" or to threaten me by suggesting my good faith actions are "possible vandalism." The truth is I have responded to you *exactly* as you have asked, as documented on my talk page where you initiated this discussion.
Initially, you reverted my change and asked that I document reasons using the Edit Summary field. So, I did so! I redid my changes, in small pieces, and added messages clarifying my reasons.
You also marked an image I uploaded for speedy deletion notice and I objected. A Wikipedia editor agreed with me and responded thus "I have removed the speedy deletion notice from the image since, as you noticed, the tag was incorrect. I have also warned the editor who placed the tag, since he obviously knew it was improper."
The goal we share is to ensure claims in this article are verified. I am certain if we continue to work through this patiently and calmly, we will reach consensus. It will be helpful if we follow the Talk Page Guidelines and use the DIFF to clearly layout the change made to which you object.
It appears much of your concern centers around the Australian Trademark for Joomla and who obtained the trademark. I provided you evidence on my talk page in response to this concern with a Joomla! forum link identifying the individual as a community member who goes by the handle Mixed.
It is my goal that the article maintain a NPOV, that it contain verifiable facts, not rumors, and that it reflect the realities of history. I am certain we share these goals.
Kind regards, AmyStephen (talk) 15:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
El Mariachi, could you please be more specific about what your concerns are? You reverted a great deal of information that appeared to be reference and your explanation doesn't seem to cover all the different things you took out. Thanks. Shell babelfish 16:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
My concerns are that the historical record of how the name Joomla came about has been lost. By removing the trademark and related content on how the name came about, at least from a timeline perspective, the Joomla page goes more towards an advertising space for the Joomla project. We've also had anonymous IPs attempting to create link farms out of the Joomla page. This sort of editing was also seen on the Mambo page, and was subsequently resolved through consensus on that project's talk page, so the same sort of issue should be applicable here.
The reason I consider this an edit war was that 4 initial edits were done which removed historical record, and then another 10, making it exceedingly hard to grab the encyclopaedic content out from the claims about "personal attacks" and "conspiracy". Twinkle is not designed for this sort of work when I'm working as an RC patroller. To have a user claim conspiracy when all I'm trying to do is finalise the historical record and see if there are any discrepancies in verifiable material also doesn't help.
Whilst I do believe the initial revert I did was done in good faith, I was still unhappy that Twinkle reverted the sum total of the initial 4 edits by AmyStephen as there was information midway through those edits that remained current. I was planning on returning those pieces of information in a rewritten, verifiable format once I'd finished sourcing the rest of the historical record of Joomla between Aug 2005 and Sep 2005 (i.e the Foundation/name development/slogan development process - that which AmyStephen feels is conspiracy and unverifiable, even though I've got verifiable citations).
This is why I only did 1 revert using Twinkle and then raised it on the Talk page here. In order to maintain consensus and present the most NPOV view of Joomla as a project, that which contains verifiable information about the project and how it came about should not be removed. The trademark is part of that verifiable content.
Thanks El Mariachi (talk) 02:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like the two of you (and any other interested editors) need to hash things out here on the talk page -- reverting is generally not helpful for much other than vandalism. Next time, if you notice Twinkle makes a mistake, you might want to revert yourself and do it right manually. Shell babelfish 17:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I am for the way it the article currently stands. AmyStephen's edits seem to be NPOV to me--she's even made edits to remove bias POV. I agree-don't revert, talk it out... Nathandiehl (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
To have statements present like "Some were disappointed that the selected name was not taken from a spontaneous community effort to suggest names." comes across as a POV push (i.e all actions surrounding Joomla should always look good, regardless of historical accuracy), and from the research I've been extracting from the Joomla forums itself, it is factually incorrect. It doesn't reflect the historical record. The push towards a new name started with Andrew Eddie (on 18th Aug 05) who pitched it to the wider community to generate that name, but then an external marketing organisation took over control and process, to get that name. This is confirmed by statements made by other Core Team members regarding the amount of legal processing that happened between 18th Aug 05 and 2nd Sep 05. Stating "some were disappointed" doesn't show that the Core Team had already employed the marketing org at that point from a historical perspective, let alone started the trademark paperwork that was required prior to name submission on 2nd Sep 2005. All of this material is based on verifiable content I can find on the Joomla forums from Core Team members. Having a timeline there helps people understand how the name came about, which then provides value to the Wiki.
Thanks. El Mariachi (talk) 02:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
El -
You continue to say I am not reflecting the historical record, but I only have made claims where I can - and do - provide evidence. Try to address my claims one at a time. Look at the evidence I have offered. Respond specifically to each piece. I think that will help us drive to consensus.
1. Regarding the Trademark (sorry to repeat this for the third or fourth time, but you have yet to respond to this): The trademark was initiated on September 2nd - one day after the name announcement by the core - by a member of the community who goes by the forum ID of mixed. Here is the evidence of my claim Joomla! forum thread. If you wish to refute that claim and continue claiming that the Joomla! core team obtained the trademark on their own, then *please* produce evidence that demonstrates otherwise.
2. The Joomla! name - I provided a link to the name announcement from the Joomla! core team. I also provided a link to the community initiated brainstorming process. If you do not like the word choice that "some were disappointed", then, please offer an alternative wording. I am certainly flexible on that! If you have links to better resources, then please propose such links.
3. The timeline: If you have a timeline you believe is important that you can substantiate with verifiable proof, then please share it.
With respect, AmyStephen (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not saying the Core Team obtained the trademark on their own. I have never said such a thing. In the initial copy that was removed, it was stated that the name, not the trademark, would have been generated weeks or months earlier. You can't have a trademark on a name that doesn't exist. The fact legal processing of the name was spoken by members of the Core Team does indicate that the name was already predetermined. The links which matter are:
http://forum.joomla.org/viewtopic.php?f=124&t=272: Andrew Eddie suggests community involvement on the name
http://forum.joomla.org/viewtopic.php?f=124&t=272&&start=600#p20188: Acknowledgement that they hired an external brand consultancy to choose the name, same thread
http://forum.joomla.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=89: Polling thread for validity of a community driven name
http://forum.joomla.org/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=2682#p21198: Brad Baker says that they have taken legal steps prior to the name announcement.
http://forum.joomla.org/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=2682&start=210#p25191: Shayne Barlett outlines the process they used (including legal IP checks) and states why it wasn't a community based name.
As the trademark is just the outcome of this naming process, the fact changing the name/trademarking was talked about previously (within the context of the Mambo Steering Committee, prior to the fork) does indicate that a name existed prior to any breakdown in communication between the Core Team and Miro. I just need to verify the availability of these sources (as in it is verifiable content, but not publically available).
Thanks El Mariachi (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Paragraph 1: El - The link I shared says Mixed got the trademark on his own on September 2, 2005, the day *after* the name was announced. If you believe that the Joomla! core team had *any* involvement with the trademark, please share evidence. Your statement: "it was stated that the name, not the trademark, would have been generated weeks or months earlier" is simply not true, no matter how many times you repeat it. You have not provided any evidence of that. It is a suspicious theory without basis.
Paragraph 2 - I agree that your link is better than mine. I propose this change.
Replace this: "Some were disappointed that the selected name was not taken from a spontaneous community effort to suggest names."
To this: On August 18th, 2005, Andrew Eddie called for community input on names and indicated the core team would make the final decision. The name the core team chose was not in the list of suggested names and this caused some hard feelings.
(Then, continue with the existing logo process.)
Paragraph 3 "Acknowledgement that they hired an external brand consultancy" - El - that is not proof of what you are saying. First of all, who is Circlefusion? He (she?) is not an authority. Secondly, what he (she) said does not match what you are suggesting.
Paragraph 4: That is the link I provided and suggested we replace, above.
Paragraph 5: Brad Baker's statement on legal assistance: It is broadly known and well published that Eben Moglen and the Software Law Freedom Center provided legal assistance to the Joomla! core team during this transition and continue to provide legal guidance to this day. I propose we add the following to the record, as I do see the SFLC's involvement as important and relevant:
Add: Eben Moglen and the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) assisted the Joomla! core team beginning in August 2005, as indicated by Moglen's blog entry from that date and a related OSM announcement. The SFLC continue to provide legal guidance to Joomla! project.
Paragraph 6: Shayne Bartlett - I do not see Shayne in that post - or on that page. Regardless, showing a link where Shayne indicated they had to check out the legality of the name makes sense. Of course they would! What's your point?
Paragraph 7: You continue to suggest a link between the naming process and the trademark, even after seeing proof to the contrary numerous times. Yes, please do find verifiable, publicly available proof. In fact, I ask that you refrain from repeating the same conspiracy theories, over and over, absent that proof.
Hopefully, you will find my suggestions satisfactory, AmyStephen (talk) 04:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I do not find your answers satisfactory in the way they attempt to claim a conspiracy. All I'm trying to do is source all of the historical record on the name, how it came about and what that means for the trademark (is it even legitimate as it stands, since it was done by a third party without authorisation from the Core, and what does this mean for naming convention as per Wiki MOS?) in terms of academic citation. I've also restored the link to Shayne's word as per the relevant thread. For some reason, Wiki made it a dead link, but that's now fixed.
The revised copy I agree to, but please, stop seeing conspiracy and paranoia where there is none. It just comes across as a POV push on your part to claim conspiracy by putting words in my mouth that do not exist on record. Thanks El Mariachi (talk) 10:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Where in AmyStephen's post do you see here talking about a conspiracy theory? What specific parts of her research do you dispute? Shell babelfish 13:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Shell, in her closing statements, she states "I ask that you refrain from repeating the same conspiracy theories, over and over, absent that proof". She initially stated such statements when I was discussing this issue with her on her own talk page before the discussion finally shifted here. That's where she's talking about a conspiracy theory. No-one else is.
I have agreed to her copy revisions as they stand, until such time as I can get the status of Mambo Foundation (well, at that point, it was MSC) verifiable material prior to 18 Aug 05 regarding changes to the name and potential trademarks. It is this material (because it was the same actions carried out by the Core Team under the auspices of Mambo, not Joomla) that is what considered conspiracy and in dispute by AmyStephen as far as I can tell. Thanks El Mariachi (talk) 00:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea what you hope to obtain from Mambo Foundation that addresses Joomla!'s name and trademark, but I am certain you will bring it forward if you find something. What I do believe we have consensus on is the two modifications I proposed and El has agree to. Unless there are other objections, I will implement the revisions tomorrow morning in order to allow time for objections, further clarifications, questions or, for those who understand proper Wiki procedure to recommend a more appropriate approach, should my suggestion be wrong. Thanks! AmyStephen (talk) 01:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Changes made, as per agreement. AmyStephen (talk) 22:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Dual talk pages

It has come to my attention that there are two talk pages for the Joomla page. Talk:Joomla redirects to another page and really should be redirected back here. Thanks El Mariachi (talk) 00:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Logo Resources

If there are no objections, I plan to add the following after the existing portion discussing the Logo selection process:

Following the logo selection, Brand Guidelines, a Brand Manual, and set of Logo Resources were published on October 2, 2005 for the communities use.

AmyStephen (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Done AmyStephen (talk) 03:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Development team v. Core team

Use of the term development team is incorrect here. In software, development refers to the production of code. The Joomla! and Mambo core teams including marketers, graphic artists, documenters, and others who are not engaged in development. The development team or working group includes many people who are not members of the core team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.84.52.108 (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It was the development team that forked away from a business relationship with Miro, and subsequently developed the code into the Joomla product. It is the development team that has developed the code from version 1.0 to version 1.5.2. If you wish to talk about the working groups, I would suggest a separate section be created inside the Joomla page regarding the political and management structures of the Joomla project. El Mariachi (talk) 23:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
El - Please let Mambo go. This is Joomla!. In Joomla!, it is the core team who oversees the project, as it always has been in Joomla!. The development team in Joomla! is simply one of many working groups teams. I agree with the objection to your changes. Development team is incorrect. The Joomla! Core Team is correct, as it originally was indicated in the text. Now, you have asked that changes be discussed on the Talk page. Please, I ask the same courtesy from you. I have provided reference material demonstrating the objection was indeed correct. What reference material can you produce to substantiate your claim? I will return in the next couple of days and see if we can resolve this. 64.89.180.145 (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC) I was not logged in. That comment was mine. AmyStephen (talk) 03:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joomla/Archive_2&oldid=285419170"