Talk:Joomla/Archive 4

Ad hoc suggestions
Recently an IP editor added a few links to websites that use Joomla! as examples under the heading "Well-known Joomla-powered sites". This was quickly reverted. However in reading through the article from the perspective of a casual reader one of the biggest questions that looms in my mind is "what kind of result does Joomla! create on the web?" The article doesn't answer that question at all. I actually think that the IP editor had a good idea in the the article should provide links to some examples of Joomla! websites. The danger, would of course be that many commercial concerns will add their own websites as "examples", so I would like to propose that we keep it to just perhaps three in number and use only non-commercial websites that use Joomla! This can be indicated with a comment in the section. I know of quite a number of non-commercial Joomla!-powered sites that would be good examples. I also think this section should be at the very bottom of he article as a separate external links section from the present one and labeled "Examples of Joomla! websites". Are there any objections to this proposal? - Ahunt (talk) 13:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think what we're lacking here is a source that says these are "well known"; I'd assume that Joomla probably has information like that somewhere, or its possible that a third-party has reviewed Joomla and given examples. Also, I'm a bit concerned that this is less encyclopedic content and more something that you'd expect as a marketing piece, in which case, readers would hopefully use the external links (like the one to Joomla's own site) to find that information.  Shell    babelfish 14:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that "well known" is far too subjective. I was more suggesting including "good examples" rather than "well known" examples. I would rather include asome example links than have readers try to find them on their own. There is an example list on the Joomla! website, but I thought a short list here would save people from going to look for it. Maybe we should just link to that page instead? - Ahunt (talk) 13:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Lacking any further input then I will add the link to the Joomla examples page. - Ahunt (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] :::::Well-known Drupal-powered sites - on the Drupal page, so I suggest you guys do something similar to facilitate comparisons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.22.168 (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I prefer the example format on the Drupal page. A few example links to sites (under 10) on the main article in my mind provides both evidence of Notability and makes the articles a more useful tool in which to compare CMSes. A link list at the bottom of the article titled "Examples of Joomla! websites" would be appropriate, located above the External Links list, though I think they should be accompanied by a reference stating their attribution to production/authorship in the software. Rthrash (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I too prefer a few direct links to some Joomla websites, but as you can see above I didn't find any consensus to do that. My own concern was that it would quickly be added to as website owners would see it as carte blanche to add tons of spam links to their own sites. Also I see no need to list "well-known" websites, but rather "good examples" of the range of designs possible and use only non-commercial websites, too, to avoid the trap mentioned above. - Ahunt (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The external links here and on Drupal do not meet WP:EL and are WP:NOTLINK. 16x9 (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * User:16x9 - you need to explain exactly why you think that examples of the subject of the article are prohibited by WP:EL and/or WP:NOTLINK. I have read both of those and I don't see it there. These are not extraneous or spam links - they are on topic, relevant and add meaningfully to the article comprehension. - Ahunt (talk) 02:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree. They're definitely on topic and relevant. They provide nothing more than a minute representation of a list that would otherwise extend into the hundreds of thousands of entries, and greatly facilitate comparisons between CMSes in an encyclopedic manner. Further, removal of such links would seem to violate WP:Preserve and if demonstrated as a pattern of behavior, show evidence of WP:DIS. I see no consensus for removing such representative links, thus WP:Preserve should prevail. Rthrash (talk) 12:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Further to this point, I interpret WP:NOTLINK as actually supporting inclusion of representative lists of related information. The key word here is the purposefully and carefully chosen first word in each definition: "Mere…". If the only article content were such links, I would agree with the removal. As it stands though, my opinion remains that removing such Notable information only serves to devalue the article and weaken WP's credibility. If the links failed to meet WP:EL formatting criteria, then the editor should follow WP:Preserve and fix them, rather than delete them which WP:DIS defines as a potential form of disruptive editing, which in good faith I am sure it is not. Rthrash (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree - just waiting for User:16x9's explanation of why it was removed. - Ahunt (talk) 14:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * More evidence for including such links can be found in a careful reading of WP:ELYES, particularly sections 3 and 4. Examples are certainly relevant, and in my opinion qualify as an exception of WP:ELNO (which includes the key qualifier word normally in its heading) section 10 and 11, and definitely do not qualify under section 4 of the same. I can see how in good faith though one could lump them other those categories without careful, deliberate and time consuming consideration. Normally, it would merit removal, but not in this case. I think a request for User:16x9 to revert the deletions to their original content and make and corrections that deviate from WP:EL formatting standards per WP:Preserve is in order. I'm just a rookie here or I'd make the proper formatting corrections! - Rthrash (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

All of these links are subjective and spam. Because website X uses A software does not add value to the article. Additionally, WP is not a WP:DIRECTORY. If your individual products want to have a showcase or case study of their product it can be listed elsewhere. WP:PRESERVE does not apply here as it is just links. 16x9 (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I disagree with you - the links you deleted were all official Joomla website links which are specifically allowed and encouraged at EL. Official websites cannot be considered spam.


 * On the question of whether example websites would be allowed or not WP:EL says:


 * Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia, but must conform to certain formatting restrictions. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail; or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.

Some external links are welcome (see "What should be linked", below), but Wikipedia's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable.


 * I believe that a consensus-agreed and limited number of links to non-commercial websites to illustrate what Joomla websites can look like would be specifically permitted under WP:EL.


 * I believe you have erred as well in saying "If your individual products want to have a showcase or case study of their product it can be listed elsewhere." No one is proposing adding links to their own websites (if any) here. The ELs you deleted were all official Joomla pages and the ones I proposed are not my websites, if fact I never named them. They are non-commercial websites I have come across that show what can be done with Joomla. I had three in mind as examples:


 * Michael Geist, professor at University of Ottawa and Canada Research Chair of Internet Law
 * Soaring Association of Canada
 * Ultralight Pilots Association of Canada


 * So here is what I would like to propose:


 * Reinstate the deleted official Joomla site links that were deleted by User:16x9 since these cannot be spam and are permitted by policy
 * Add the three example websites listed above as WP:EL permits these and I believe a small number of non-commercial Joomla website links is justified for illustrative purposes. I think the illustrative links should be limited explicitly to perhaps six examples and a comment inserted to that effect.


 * Let's see if we can find some consensus here. What does everyone think? - Ahunt (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ahunt. I further have no issue pointing to commercial websites as example only, since they provide a meaningful way to gauge CMS capabilities. Six seems like a very reasonable number. Rthrash (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You don't understand the policy then. The offical website for Joomla! is linked.  Linking to additional pages on that website are not need as WP:DIRECTORY.  The example websites are also unencyclopedic as they are subjective and really any idea or feature can be duplicated with other technologies.   has a WP:COI here ... does anyone else edit this article regularly because consensus may be hard to get without WP:CANVAS. 16x9 (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay you seem to be just repeating yourself. There have been a few others working on this article in recent months - let's give it a few days and see who else comments. Also you may want to note that WP:EL is not a policy, it is specifically a "style guideline" and is therefore not mandatory, even if you are interpreting it correctly. - Ahunt (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry for repeating myself, I don't know how to explain it any better . 16x9 (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the point 16x9 is that you don't explain. Citing policy without describing the details of your interpretation is what is happening. The point of discussion is to build understanding and develop consensus among editors. Ahunt mentions that WP:EL is part of the style guide and therefore is a guideline not a policy that requires strict enforcement. This is an extremely important distinction. Jaygilmore (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I neglected to add that I support the inclusion of Example Links. Such links support facts and provide evidence of how the detailed features of the application works beyond what could be described in the content and shown in screenshots. I also support the limitation of the number of links and do not object to commercial websites since it is a key use for content management systems. I would not object to ensureing such links were selected by merits and discussed prior to inclusion to prevent and police spam. Jaygilmore (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You, like you little friend Rthrash are WP:COI and can run along. 16x9 (talk) 13:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * User:16x9: Making unsubstantiated accusations like that is not how you find consensus on articles. If you have a problems with some editors then you will have to indicate why you think they are in a conflict of interest. Otherwise it just comes over as bullying. - Ahunt (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay I will explain. and  are developers of or work closely with the MODx software.  I recently put the article up for deletion.  Now the two of them claim  Unequal standards.  The only reason they support the inclusion here is because they want the same inclusion on their vanity page.  16x9 (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am a co-founder of the MODx project and I have never attempted to hide this fact. Would it not be simple to create a fake account of a third party to make these types of edits? As such, I am highly cognizant of the ultra-critical importance of maintaining a NPOV. Anyone is welcome to add criticism to MODx and point out functionality it does not address or just outright areas that it fails in. In fact, I have added "negative" information to the MODx article from Reliable Sources (see Water & Stone and Secunia tracking).
 * From WP:COI: "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." Please present evidence that shows me to be in violation of this bolded statement at the very top of the article. I firmly stand by my intention and now publicly stated goal of participating in this entire discussion in absolute and total good faith. My desire is to improve the quality of all WP articles on content management and to possibly help reach WP:Consensus between editors of a format to use across all articles. If it is a COI to want to improve the information across all similar pages, then yes, I absolutely 1000% am guilty as charged of having a COI. If we had a format to follow then the rules would be clear. I thought this is what WP:Consensus is all about?
 * My understanding of being encyclopedic may be complete off base and I would appreciate education on this front. When WP:NOT states that it is not bound by the constraints of traditional encyclopedias and may have longer listings, I too that in good faith that more comprehensive coverage is appropriate and helpful to WP readers. Personally, I'd rather have a sole source of representative information on a subject that links to directories of links if more research is merited and where appropriate. Long overdrawn lists of links is certainly overkill and each CMS in this section could have thousands of sites listed. I fail to see how 5-6 sites violates WP:EL.
 * User:16x9 I find it your overt hostility saddening, and unfortunately at this point I have to be openly honest and say I don't know how I can maintain the core WP tenant of viewing your edits as done in good faith. Please carefully consider WP:DBF and WP:5P (especially the last two). Rthrash (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My understanding of being encyclopedic may be complete off base and I would appreciate education on this front. When WP:NOT states that it is not bound by the constraints of traditional encyclopedias and may have longer listings, I too that in good faith that more comprehensive coverage is appropriate and helpful to WP readers. Personally, I'd rather have a sole source of representative information on a subject that links to directories of links if more research is merited and where appropriate. Long overdrawn lists of links is certainly overkill and each CMS in this section could have thousands of sites listed. I fail to see how 5-6 sites violates WP:EL.
 * User:16x9 I find it your overt hostility saddening, and unfortunately at this point I have to be openly honest and say I don't know how I can maintain the core WP tenant of viewing your edits as done in good faith. Please carefully consider WP:DBF and WP:5P (especially the last two). Rthrash (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * User:16x9 I find it your overt hostility saddening, and unfortunately at this point I have to be openly honest and say I don't know how I can maintain the core WP tenant of viewing your edits as done in good faith. Please carefully consider WP:DBF and WP:5P (especially the last two). Rthrash (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * User:16x9 I find it your overt hostility saddening, and unfortunately at this point I have to be openly honest and say I don't know how I can maintain the core WP tenant of viewing your edits as done in good faith. Please carefully consider WP:DBF and WP:5P (especially the last two). Rthrash (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * So as I understand it then you are saying the only reason that these two editors want to see the external links included in this article is so that this can be used as an example for the type of links that can be included on the MODx article? That isn't much of a COI, especially if that other article gets deleted. - Ahunt (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If I can butt in and try to help out a bit - Ahunt has explained why he feels that policy and specifically the external link guidelines support the inclusion of these links - 16x9 you've said you disagree, but you haven't give much of a persuasive argument as to why? Perhaps there's a software Wikiproject that could help shed some light on whether or not these types of sections are customary? I'll have to admit I haven't seen many articles that have a section on "Good examples of x software" - most programming languages, platforms and frameworks seem to get by without these. Shell   babelfish 17:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Example section as you stated seem like an ad. There are hardly verifiable and are subjective.  WP:ELNO see 1,2,4 and 14.  If a casual read wants to find out what type of results they should visit the main Joomla! website and look for additional content.  16x9 (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * User:Shell_Kinney - Thanks for jumping in! I would have to say that most software cannot be shown by website examples - CMSs are probably one of the few that can be illustrated by websites as examples, hence the lack of other examples of this. Most other software is illustrated by "screenshots". I don't think screenshots would work for this article subject, because the content in the examples is copyrighted and its use in this article, as opposed to in the article about the organization that owns the website, wouldn't qualify as "fair use" under US copyright law.


 * User:16x9 "There are hardly verifiable and are subjective". Actually they are 100% verifiable, if you check the three examples that I gave above and read the source code for the pages (Ctrl+U on Firefox) you will see that the generator is listed as "Joomla!" - therefore it is verified. "Subjective" - I can't see how the word is relevant to an example website - what is a "subjective website" as apposed to an "objective website"? I merely suggested these three because they are fairly good examples of the range of websites that can be generated by Joomla, they are non-commercial and I have no connection with them personally other than I came across them on the web, checked the source code and noted that they were Joomla generated. How much more objective than that do you want, or are you talking about something totally different here? - Ahunt (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Would looking at the source code not be original research? Also you can make the genertated by meta date say whatever you like.  It is subjective in you determination that it is a good website.  You can make anything look good with time/money (well almost anything :P).  16x9 (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * User:16x9 - To specifically address your comment that including examples would violate "WP:ELNO see 1,2,4 and 14." again I have to disagree. Using the three websites I listed above as typical examples:


 * 1 - "Any site that does not provide a unique resource..." They actually would add a resource to this article, because unlike most other software articles that contain example screenshots, this article contains no examples.
 * 2 - "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" - clearly that is not applicable. The three sites I listed are all valid examples of Joomla sites and furthermore in reading their content there is nothing that meets this exclusion there at all. They are all earnest and non-controversial websites run by upstanding people or organizations, with accurate information as far as I can tell.
 * 4 - "Links mainly intended to promote a website" - again since these would be added to illustrate the software and not promote the websites and because these websites are not in anyway connected to anyone proposing including them this is also "not applicable".
 * 14 - "Lists of links to manufacturers, suppliers or customers" - again "not applicable". Because Joomla is free open source software, the people or organizations who own these websites being proposed as examples are not "manufacturers, suppliers or customers". Specifically they are not customers, because they didn't buy anything. I guess you would have to classify them as "software users".


 * Looking at source code to determine the generator of a website is the same thing as reading a book on a subject to use it as a reference for an article - it is not doing calculations or drawing conclusions, it is just reading a reference to see what it says. As far as the owners of these websites designing them on something else and then putting "Joomla" in the generator metatag, don't you think that is a bit ridiculous? The three sites I suggested above are all reliable organizations/individuals. Two are national sporting/aviation organizations and the other is a Canada research chair for internet law at a leading university - all fairly unlikely to falsify their website generators. To be honest I really think you have reached the point of "grasping at straws" here. - Ahunt (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is how I see them.


 * 1 - A screenshot of the software can be taken and compared. you are trying to add links to examples of sites that cannot be verified. This article is about Joomla! the software not X website that runs Joomla!
 * 2 - see above
 * 4 - The links are mainly to promote Joomla!.


 * No I don't think it is unreasonable for a website to have bad code or a misplaced gernator meta data. Some software doesn't included the tag and some webmasters clean the tag before publishing.  In your search for these three websites is original research because you selected them. It is original thought and not backed by third party reliable sources.  This article is about the software Joomla!  NOT about what it may or may not produce with X amount of time and effort.  16x9 (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I find your arguments spurious, but at least I think I understand the depth of your objections, so let's see what the other editors have to say. - Ahunt (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks for the good faith :P 16x9 (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 1 - Great idea for including a screenshot of the UI. I still maintain that showing the "what" (example sites built in Joomla) are more valuable than the "how" (UI).
 * 2 - Then use examples where there is an associated blog post or forum topic discussing the implementation of a particular listed website in Joomla.
 * 4 - I see this as a valid objection to the example links based on a strict interpretation of WP policies. I likewise view the merits of including examples are a valid reason to use the 5th pillar in WP:5P and make an exception. The example site links demonstrate capabilities of a particular piece of highly specialized software, in this case a CMS. For instance, suppose Joomla powered Slashdot and a person was looking to build a similar site with the same scaling challenges. Would it not be topical, relevant and notable to mention that as an example? That one link would provide a tremendous amount of information, and possibly save a WP user time in the research phase of compiling a short list of suitable CMSes. That said, I would likewise find a suitable compromise of being able list links to "made in Joomla" galleries from the features section of an article. User:16x9 deleted these types of external links on the MODx, Drupal and Joomla articles. Rthrash (talk) 12:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Good thoughts. It may actually be possible to use a screenshot as an example - any copyrighted website won't be usable because its use in this article wouldn't fall under "fair use", but the first example website I proposed above Michael Geist, professor at University of Ottawa and Canada Research Chair of Internet Law is licenced as "Creative Commons" and therefore could be. Perhaps this idea could be used as a compromise - use a CC screenshot instead of links to provide at least one example? - Ahunt (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * While this is a good idea, that particular website is licenced as CC 2.0 which is not free enough to be uploaded on either Commons of Wikipedia itself. That would require a 2.5 or 3.0 licence. Perhaps if another example can be found that has a freer licence? - Ahunt (talk) 14:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This article is still about the how not the what it might possibly produce. 16x9 (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I still think there needs to be some way of showing what the software produces. It is almost like an article about Ford that don't show any of their cars. Sure they are a company, but the point is really the product. - Ahunt (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

how about using the template in the external links section? I will place it there if we agree 16x9 (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds fine, although it doesn't seem to get us an answer to the question of examples. - Ahunt (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Joomla's own showcase page
The official Joomla site now has a directory of example sites - http://community.joomla.org/showcase/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.88.65 (talk) 13:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Organizations Using Joomla
It appears that other CMS entries make extensive reference to adoptions by famous organizations. This article would benefit from more examples of Joomla! use on the web. This is a conversation that was had earlier on the thread (Examples) but that conversation looks unresolved. Since the conversation went a different direction, I wanted to raise it again here. Elizabeth N2 (talk) 13:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, the link to the Joomla! Showcase is not what I mean by my inquiry. The Drupal article makes specific mention of websites and distributions throughout the article. Relevant examples, especially in the introduction, would be very useful in putting Joomla! in context. Elizabeth N2 (talk) 13:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * See my suggestion at Talk:Joomla. —DIV (1.129.106.73 (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC))

High-ranked pages by web traffic analysis
My God, so long.... I agree with the general principle of providing examples of websites using Joomla. Just to be clear, I would recommend the last option. —DIV (1.129.106.73 (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC))
 * One way would be the Joomla showcase at, although this is not curated by WP editors, and strictly speaking we cannot say why some sites are included there and others aren't.
 * Another way would be to find 'consensus' among WP Editors to nominate 'interesting' examples. The above discussion demonstrates the unlikelihood of achieving consensus by this route, even with the constraint that only non-commercial sites be linked.
 * My suggestion would be to include the top 3 (say) sites by traffic in (say) Alexa rankings. They might not be the most beautiful or most innovative websites, but no-one could argue about their notability, it's a purely objective rather than subjective criterion (e.g. the earlier suggestions were all Canadian), and the websites would reflect the kind of implementation of Joomla commonly seen by users, rather than a clever/novel application of Joomla on an obscure website that gets little traffic.

Bidirectional templates
Somebody has misread the claim that there are no bi-directional templates as a claim that there are no RTL templates (there are) and has deleted it. In fact there are NO bidirectional templates other than those that come with the Joomla install. With the exception of "Bees" these also have bugs.

Joomla is designed in such a way that templates can support RTL and LTR natively. However all designers (unless working specifically in a RTL language) seem to be too lazy to add the RTL support. Anyone who disputes this, please provide evidence that bidirectional templates are significantly available. Hell, show me just one :) 89.5.237.175 (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Reference to "Mambo Open Source Development Team - Letter to the community"
This section Andrew Eddie, a.k.a. "MasterChief" wrote an open letter to the community[3] currently refers to ''OpenSourceMatters. . Retrieved on 2007-03-14.''. Unfortunately that is now giving error 500.

Is this forum post http://forum.mamboserver.com/showthread.php?t=57645 the original open letter by Andrew Eddie that was referred to in that History section? If yes, can we just refer to that URL that is still available, instead of the OpenSourceMatters one that is giving error 500? -- sabre23t (talk) 04:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is actually the original post of the letter. I have updated the link. Thank you for catching this. Nathandiehl (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I wanted to mention that the Andrew Eddie letter is reproduced in The Official Joomla Book which also includes a short history of the fork. I'm not going to update the article (because of possible COI) but if someone thinks it is better to refer to a secondary rather than the original, that's a possible source.Mcsmom (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Article name
I see it has been moved to "Joomla!" and back again twice, but I don't see any discussion about it??

212.247.86.210 (talk) 09:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The official website of Joomla! uses the exclamation point. http://www.joomla.org/ I therefore am a little confused by the decision as well. Elizabeth N2 (talk) 13:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Elizabeth, even on their own wiki they use "Joomla!": http://docs.joomla.org/Joomla. Vanderkooij (talk) 09:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Joomla/Archive_1. But the discussion can be re-opened ...preferably if there is new evidence or a new policy.  See also Yahoo!! —DIV (1.129.106.73 (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC))


 * Sozzled2904 (talk) 19:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC) Name (and alternative spellings) and pronunciation guide information added to opening paragraph. These changes should address the concerns raised in this discussion.

Reads like a press packet
Much of the article reads like a press packet describing the Miro split from the Joomla point of view, and some of the rest just promotes the it as a product. Needs significant cleanup to produce a nuanced view of what Joomla is, with some relevant history thrown in (not a play by play). Dovid (talk) 14:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

On further thought, the POV issues extend over most of the article, not just a few sections, and effetcively make the whole thing mostly a press release/advertisement. Also note that almost all the references are to a Joomla-specific (or predecessor Mambo-specific) site. The exceptions are #s 14, 19, 20, and 21... and 14 itself is part of the Joomla/Mambo sphere. Are 19-21 really enough to make this relevant as an article? Not proposing deletion, but please better source your article. Dovid (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

On that note, the use of ref #21 seems intentionally misleading: "Joomla! won the Packt Publishing Open Source Content Management System Award in both 2006 and 2007.[20][21]" - In 2006 it won the overall Award, but in 2007 the overall went to Drupal and Joomla won best open-source PHP. As documented on the Packt page itself.--24.68.32.73 (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sozzled2904 (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC) Agree that the article reads a little like an advertorial and I am proposing to revamp the flow of the story to downplay the self-congratulatory pat-on-the-back for doing little more (in the past couple of years) than release a new minor dot-point bugfix release every six weeks or so.

What clarification?
The statement about the number of people who registered at the opensourcematters.org site says clarification needed. How so? A sourcing comment might be justified but what is there to clarify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.84.47.174 (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

How popular is Joomla?
Is it accurate to say that "Joomla! has become the most important noncommercial Content Management System (CMS) in the world"? Tisane (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a source for that statement . Unfortunately the full report requires registration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.124.136 (talk) 11:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is a survey about "Open source market share" - it uses statistics mainly and does not value "importance", but "one of the most popular CMS" seems plausible to me after reading it:
 * http://www.scribd.com/doc/4161932/2008-Open-Source-CMS-Market-Survey
 * --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 13:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Further Reading Suggestions
I suggest two changes to the Further Reading Section.

I would like to see two books removed: -->This book is about how to make cash while using Joomla, not about how to use Joomla.
 * 1) Dawson, Brandon & Canavan, Tom (2007), Joomla Cash, Packt Publishing, ISBN 1847191401
 * 1) Graf, Hagen (2007). Building Websites with Joomla 1.5 Beta 1. Packt Publishing. ISBN 1847192386.-->This book is about an obsolute version of Joomla, and has been replaced by the stable version. I see no reason to keep this book as it has been updated (and no one should be using beta 1).

Does anyone have any reason to keep either of these two? Nathandiehl (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Since no one has posed an argument to keep these two books listed, I have removed them. Nathandiehl (talk) 13:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The first item deals a great deal with third-party Joomla components, such as SEF and e-commerce components. In short, it deals with Joomla as viewed from a business perspective. Accordingly, it has been reinserted. 70.62.164.12 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC).

References/books
What is the standard for books references here. At some point a larger list was removed, but I can't find in history....

There are several titles in their 2nd/3rd edition that would merit inclusion, neither of the two books listed here are..... 67.142.130.43 (talk) 00:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Security
I just reverted this contribution by, which was made on the basis of an unreliable source which poorly interpretation of the data presented by CVE. If you look at the CVE list using the "joomla" keyword you will see that the entries relate not just to the core Joomla distribution, but to 3rd party extensions i.e. plugins, components, modules. By all means let's have information about Joomla security (whether positive or negative) but be sure to interpret the data correctly. --Simple Boba.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 12:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Moving thread that was being added simultaneous to this post. I am a little confused by the assertion only the core matters from the perspective of security. I think this is subjective, especially in the open source community. When I do a CMS selection for a client, the sum matters. And, in the proprietary world (ex. SharePoint), vendors are evaluated for the security of their entire product. I therefore still contend that this point is valid - although some couching of the point can be made. The larger point is that there is not a strong discussion of security in this article as there is with WordPress and Drupal. This is an important omission as Joomla was mentioned alongside of these two well-known CMS solutions in an IBM report (http://drupal.org/node/290024). Despite the continued presence of severe security vulnerabilities (See MITRE CVE DB as visualized in http://govfresh.com/2011/03/gov-2-0-guide-to-plone/ - the aforementioned argument not withstanding), Joomla still was able to secure CENTCOM as a high-profile user (http://www.centcom.mil/). Given the security requirements of CENTCOM, there might be an active public discussion on how Joomla has mitigated its security concerns (although I have not seen it). Elizabeth N2 (talk) 12:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Wrong link provided: See this for the IBM Report: http://drupal.org/node/290024 Elizabeth N2 (talk) 12:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that information on security is missing from the article (see my comment above) but govfresh.com is not a reliable source in my opinion. I would prefer to see a better source used to, for example, show how many vulnerabilities listed in CVE are currently unresolved. I certainly don't think that an absolute number of vulnerabilities is a valid indicator of a system's security - it could be that there are more users and therefore more people looking for vulnerabilities, which is a good thing not a bad thing. I would be more concerned about fringe systems with few users and therefore a larger risk of there being undiscovered vulnerabilities. --Simple Boba.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 12:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me take each point separately. First, would you consider Drupal, Plone, and WordPress to be fringe CMS systems? Drupal was used for the White House and Plone for the FBI/CIA public sites. And, WordPress powers a huge % of sites on the Internet. So, I think that those comparisons work. Please let me know if you disagree. Second, the point about GovFresh is subjective. There are many refs for lesser known sites. However, I accept your point that a better ref would be preferred. I just worry that there isn't a lot of focus on the CVE DB for Joomla. (I couldn't find any.) Third, I respectfully disagree that absolute vulnerabilities do not matter. Security bulletins for proprietary software from major vendors are typically evaluated by analysts on a product basis. If a driver is the cause of the vulnerability the code patched is part of the product, the vendor takes the hit. While we can argue if this fair, it is an industry practice. Just look at the hit Microsoft takes on its OS for third party issues. :) That said, sometimes the community is lucky enough to receive a balanced counterpoint by a more careful analysis but certainly this often is the exception. I therefore think that there has to be a midway point on this issue. So, based on these points, how best to resolve the missing security section? I think it is important but I am a web consultant who is new to editing articles in Wikipedia. :) I also think the Joomla article is much weaker than the other CMS articles for Drupal, WordPress, and Plone. Elizabeth N2 (talk) 12:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I wasn't saying that Drupal and Wordpress are fringe, although I have no opinion on Plone. Nor am I saying that vulnerabilities do not matter - but simply quoting the number of vulnerabilities in each system does not tell the whole story - we need to put that into context of the number that are unresolved, the speed of resolution, comments/analysis from trusted third party sources etc. Like you I would love to see security-related content in this article. I'll do some searching. --Simple Boba.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 12:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I really appreciate your comments (even where we disagree). Separately, this raises a very interesting point. Should part of this conversation move to the larger CMS article? I say this because clearly our debate on how to measure vulnerabilities is not limited to Joomla. When one is only comparing OSS CMS, I would argue that the issue is canceled out proportional to the size of the user community and degree of innovation. Therefore, comparison of major OSS CMS should reveal a similar number of vulnerabilities for the products as a whole. While core to user contrib might matter as part of this discussion, it becomes even more important when one compares proprietary and OSS CMS - given that proprietary vendors are able to limit their innovation to achieve security goals that OSS communities cannot (and arguably do not want to do for the sake of innovation). From the user perspective, I would argue that most only look at the overall security profile of the CMS. They are not as discerning as you are in your initial comments. However, this could be to the disadvantage of OSS CMS. Elizabeth N2 (talk) 13:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Release date
Joomla 1.0 was released on: Initial release: 17 August 2005

Joomla was the result of a fork of Mambo on August 17, 2005

Joomla 1.0 was released on September 22, 2005

or: 15, 16, and 17 of September (depending on your timezone), Joomla! 1.0.0 was announced, tagged, and released. http://community.joomla.org/blogs/leadership/1771-happy-8th-anniversary-joomla.html

Golgun (talk) 10:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Complete Rewrite Needed
Wow, there is almost nothing on this page. From other people's comments above:

"information on security is missing from the article"

"Drupal and Wordpress have sections for criticisms, whereas this one does not."

"How to pronounce Joomla?"

"an IP editor added a few links to websites that use Joomla! as examples... This was quickly reverted."

Compare the paucity of information here to the detailed information on these pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/drupal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wordpress

It's even shorter than Plone which has a fraction of the market share: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plone_%28software%29

IMHO, it would be highly useful to take the Drupal and WordPress examples and use them as templates here for Joomla.

Northlake (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC) Northlake


 * I don't think a complete re-write is needed as what is here is pretty good. However, you are right that extra content could be added to improve the article. So following WP:BOLD you should work to add that content. --Bob Re-born (talk) 00:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Taking the Drupal and WordPress pages as an example, here's how it might look:

1 History

2 Version History (keep as is)

3 Core Features •	3.1 Core extensions •	3.2 Core templates •	3.3 Localization •	3.4 Auto-updates

4 Extending the core •	4.1 Extensions •	4.2 Themes

5 Community •	5.1 JoomlaDay events ◦	5.2 Joomla.org Community Sites

6 Security

7 Criticism

8 Examples (flesh this out far more)

Northlake (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC) Northlake


 * Be careful with the examples section - it tends to be a magnet for anyone wishing to push their own or pet joomla site. Otherwise that is a decent proposal. --Bob Re-born (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me too. Please proceed! AGK   [• ]  00:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I also think a rewrite is needed (Wikifikation. Current state is too much a collection of features with some incomplete instructions. However, not being an expert about Joomla, I'll not be able to contribute. --Jesus Presley (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Sozzled2904 (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC) While I don't think a complete rewrite of the article is warranted, I agree that several areas could be improved by offering better balance, removing some of the subjectivity and/or bias, and improve the critique. Indeed, it can be inferred that the article reads like an advertisement—most of the information has been sourced from the Joomla website and little has been obtained from secondary sources or independent commentary—but, by the same token, information about the project's future (beyond what is outlined in the | project roadmap)—is difficult to locate. Most of the secondary sources I have researched are merely echoes of material sourced from Joomla's "developer 'blogs" or magazine articles. I will attempt to fill in some of the space about the project's history, including a brief reference to the failed Molajo experiment/"fork" mentioned elsewhere in this discussion.


 * Sozzled2904 (talk) 06:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC) After spending a few days examining the article (removing subjective qualifying adjectives (e.g. "more easy"—when the word easy would be sufficient—and "accredited extensions—yes, but accredited by whom or what), I have essentially re-written the article. Still a work in progress (to expand on events (e.g. Molajo) and update the events from 2014-present.


 * Sozzled2904 (talk) 06:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)✅

Cute Article, but /what/ is Joomla?
so we have details on the history, but compare the Mediawiki article, or Twiki. they have /content/ rather missing here +1 on a radical rewrite (I am new to Joomla, so I came here for info. no much luck)  Yama Plos   talk  04:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Just what are you trying to describe here?
Just read the article and I am left with the impression it was written by Joomla geeks for other Joomla/CMS geeks. I came looking for info that might help me either use Joomla or point me to some resources. There is nothing here that would help. And maybe that's not supposed to be the purpose. But I would have thought that writing something that a lay person can understand is generally preferable on Wikipedia. And I challenge a lay person to understand this article. My background is 1970s trained in IT but been a user ever since. I have inherited a basic website written with Joomla and am trying to decipher how to make some changes that are not intuitive on the site. I did not expect to get the answers here, but I did expect info that might help or direct me. Hope this helps focus efforts on adding more general info. If the existing technical stuff is really deemed useful, then by all means keep it, but I think it would be better if it was secondary and titled so the lay reader would understand it is not for their comprehension. PGorham — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.114.164 (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Packt MVP Awards
I removed an incorrect fix of vandalism and links to non existent pages, but I would suggest just taking them out since the links to those awards (which are not that significant anyway) don't exist. Instead I would suggest a sentence along the lines of "Johan Janssens and Louis Landry were the architects of the Joomla 1.5 framework. Following Jansen's departure, Louis Landry was the architect of the Joomla Platform until his departure from the project in 2012." Mcsmom (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 12:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Joomla → Joomla! – This page's name seems to have been changed back and forth repeatedly. I can't tell when the last move happened, but the official name of the application is clearly "Joomla!", as unwieldy as that is. --Relisted. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC) Yaron K. (talk) 17:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose per MOS:TM. The more English-like version without the decoration is pretty common in sources, so we should use it.  Dicklyon (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Fabrik inclusion is problematic
As noted in the text there are almost 4000 extensions for Joomla! available. Including just one does not make sense. If they are all included the article will be out of control.

69.119.124.136 (talk) 06:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Only extensions that are covered in a book should be mentioned in this article, and we should not give them full subsections unless they are really important. By the way, Fabrik is mentioned in this book. I'm saying this because someone has trouble finding it. Pcap ping  03:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sozzled2904 (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC) As of this date, there is no reference in this article to Fabrik (open source). I agree that entire subsections (or paragraphs) should not be dedicated to specific extensions unless the information would be of historical, cultural or contextual significance.

"Fabrik (open source)" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Fabrik (open source). The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 21 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pichpich (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The consensus about Fabrik (open source) was to delete. Sozzled2904 (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)