Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Drupal/Archives/2011/July

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


Examples

Let's get a few things straight here.....

  • The "Examples" section was wrongly named "High-profile websites built using Drupal" since it's impossible to accurately measure whether they are high-profile or not. If you can suggest a better heading with a good reason, I'm all ears.
  • Next, the manual of style specifies that lists should be sorted alphabetically, not by some arbitrary third party such as compete.com. If you wish to sort by third party data such as page views, include them in the list and keep it updated.
  • Lastly, you should only add notable entries (has article or has ref) and most importantly it should be OBVIOUS that it's built on Drupal, either on the website itself or via the ref. Failure to do so will result in removal.

I hope this clears things up a bit. DO NOT just revert my edits. See WP:BRD and WP:3RR. Thanks.

--Hm2k (talk) 12:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"it's impossible to accurately measure whether they are high-profile or not" Seems like a slightly ridiculous thing to say to me, is it impossible to accurately measure whether the Whitehouse site is high profile? Also not sure why it should be capital letters OBVIOUS that a site is built on Drupal. Most good sites (and this applies to all CMSs) will not advertise the platform they are built on, as it's rarely something that users need to know. This means that pretty much any notable site will not be allowed to be listed. Demonstrably built on Drupal would be a much better test. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.140.88 (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

  • You're assuming that the Whitehouse website is high profile, without actually providing any reliable measurement. That's why its not feasible.
  • In order for it to be in Wikipedia it needs to be verifiable. If you're able to verify that it's built on Drupal, it's a good example. They don't need to advertise, it just needs to be verifiable.
  • How does being demonstrably built on Drupal differ from being obvious? Surely demonstrating it's build on Drupal automatically implies it was obvious.
--Hm2k (talk) 12:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  • The website representing the office of the 'leader of the free world', the most powerful person on the planet. Would this be a high profile website? How about a bit of common sense.
  • Obvious is completely different from demonstrable. As I said, with many, many sites it is not at all obvious which platform they are built on, and yet it can be demonstrated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.95.207 (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Common sense says that just because you think it's important, doesn't mean it is important. If you can demonstrate which platform it's on, I'm sure it would be pretty obvious. --Hm2k (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
No, that is what the Wikipedia policies and guidelines are for. Check the dictionary yourself, it states that demonstrably means "in an obvious and provable manner", so yes, demonstrable does indeed imply that it is obvious. --Hm2k (talk) 22:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
WordNet is a combination of a dictionary and a thesaurus. Check the entry for 'demonstrably' in WordNet for yourself. You are wrong. --Hm2k (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
As I said, look up the definition in a dictionary. The word 'demonstrable' has a different meaning to the word 'obvious'. You still seem unable to grasp that quite basic fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.147.109 (talk) 11:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, they are different words but "demonstrable does indeed imply that it is obvious" --Hm2k (talk) 21:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
No, it's the other way around. Obvious implies demonstrable, demonstrable does not imply obvious. For example, Fermat's Last Theorem is demonstrable (as in it has been demonstrated), but it is by no means obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.241.43 (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Why are these links to the Wikipedia pages of the organizations whose websites are written in Drupal? Surely if I click on one of the links under the "Examples" header, I expect to be taken to an example of a website authored with Drupal, rather than a wikipedia page for an organization who chose to use Drupal to author their website. Ruke47 (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Updated. I've added external links to the section. Plommespiser (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
This isn't about usability, so much as being a reference supporting this article. You should follow the reference and read about how drupal is used instead of following the Wikilink or visiting the website. --Hm2k (talk) 07:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Drupal/Archives/2011/July&oldid=470229967"