Talk:WordPress/Archive 1

Link to Wordpress.com/FreeCharity.org.uk
I'm not sure why my link to FreeCharity.org.uk was deleted, can it be explained please. (Added by 212.219.244.36 on June 2, 2006)


 * I didn't remove it personally, but I can understand it being removed. Thousands of websites use WordPress, we can't list them all. As for WordPress.com being listed -- despite the fact that it's a for-profit service and nonbeneficial to the WordPress project, it has a perceived closeness with WordPress that other sites lack. -Sean Hayford O&#39;Leary 06:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

b2 merge
I would like to merge b2\cafelog with this article. The b2 article is a stub, and the project is dead: it is only significant in its relation to WordPress. I'd like to move the contents of that article into the History section of the WordPress article or create a new b2 section. Sean Hayford O&#39;Leary 21:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * As no objections were raisesd, I've merged the articles. Sean Hayford O&#39;Leary 21:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

What happened?
why was WPMU merged with WP after a strong decision to keep them separate?user:Designdroide
 * There were 2 for and 2 against. I wouldn't exactly characterize that as a "strong decision to keep them separate". - Etcher 02:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Developers list
Ia m not sure Alex King is still active on developing wordpress. I get that form AlexKing.org. &#91;&#91;User:Designdroide&#124;Design&#91;&#91;user_talk:Designdroide&#124;droide]]]] 03:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Beyond a blog publishing system
I'm removing this section because it contributes nothing useful. If you want to revert, please edit the section heavily before doing so, or, better yet, just incorporate it into the current article.

Brrk.3001 23:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Question: Appropriateness?
As a new WikiPedia user (yet to have an account) and a WordPress developer, I've written several tutorials on customizing WordPress and work to actively educate people on the benefits of using WordPress not only as a blogging platform but as a CMS. After reading some of the discussion and the article itself, I think my opinions would be considered (and rightly so) quite biased :).

With that said and realizing the goal of objectivity that WikiPedia promotes, I'm interested in contributing to this article, whether or not I get any credit for it.

So, my question is in regard to appropriateness. What contributions would be considered valuable to the quality of this article from an active developer's perspective?

Here are a few things that I would consider useful information to users who would check this WikiPedia entry but, in my inexperience, may not be able to categorize or describe appropriately:

- Using WordPress for your own projects - There is a wealth of WordPress user generated content on how to customize WordPress for their own needs. Perhaps starting by referencing the WordPress Codex where the majority of its features have been documented?

- Examples of Corporate Adoption (History of WordPress) - Rather than spending time referencing the countless commercial sites that use WordPress, how about a brief history of it's use on a much larger corporate level? Perhaps references to articles citing businesses such as the New York Times, etc.

Looking forward to any and all suggestions,

4.224.237.160 12:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There's a wealth of information out there on how to develop good strategies for Magic: The Gathering. That information, however, would be inappropriate for wikipedia as would the information you're proposing be added.  Please don't take this the wrong way, but wikipedia.org isn't nor should strive to be a "how-to" manual. Misterdiscreet 21:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Magic: The Gathering is a bad example. There's apparently a whole category dedicated to Strategy. I'd AfD it but I've done enough AfD's for today.


 * I still think it's a bad idea. It'll only encourage developers of completely non-notable add-ons to spam their product, which wikipedia.org doesn't need. Misterdiscreet 21:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WordPress logo.png
Image:WordPress logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sponsored themes
User:86.144.108.254 removed the following statement about sponsored themes, claiming that it was biased:


 * Although this move was criticised by designers of sponsored themes, it was widely applauded by WordPress users, most of whom consider such themes to be spam.

I am putting it back for two reasons: (a) there is nothing biased about it (it gives both sides of the argument), and (b) it is necessary to give some context to the section. I will also be adding a reference. Before anyone else decides to remove it again, please give a clear reason why you think the statement is biased and how it can be improved rather than deleted if possible. — jammycakes (t)(c) 12:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It is quite biased because all the articles linked to only represent one side of the argument. Whilst additional commentary within the comments on the articles represents other views, blog comment systems are not an idea avenue. Might I suggest as an example one of my articles on Wordpress Sponsored thtmes represents an alternative perspective. http://andybeard.eu/2007/07/wordpress-sponsored-themes-how-to-game-the-system.html --AndrzejBroda 00:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added your reference. I would disagree that the statement is biased though - it just needed the extra citation. — jammycakes (t)(c) 08:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Oh, and the blogs I linked to in the first place aren't just random blogs, they are by prominent members of the WordPress community -- that is, prominent as in the blogs that appear in the news feed in your WordPress dashboard. — jammycakes (t)(c) 08:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Now that I have had a chance to re-read your article, it doesn't seem to be an appropriate reference, since it is more a set of instructions on how to game the system rather than a criticism of the decision itself, so if you please, I shall remove it again. I still strongly disagree that the statement is biased in any way: it merely reports the general community reaction to the decisions, which was covered more than adequately by the last reference (the round-up of the discussion by Lorelle van Fossen, who is fairly notable in the WordPress community). Some of the articles that she links to are actually in favour of sponsored themes, so sorry, your statement that it only represents one side of the argument is simply wrong. The other two links are merely references to the original decisions by the parties concerned (Mark Ghosh and Matt Mullenweg).


 * I should also like to caution other editors to be aware of potential conflicts of interest in discussing this matter. Matt Mullenweg reported that some sponsored theme designers were resorting to sockpuppetry on the WordPress forums to attempt to vote down the proposal. — jammycakes (t)(c) 13:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is Wikipedia, not an extension of the Wordpress console. My content highlights the fact that the rules for inclusion in the theme directory are vague, misleading and not universally applied.
 * If you feel that my content is not suitable, then you should at least go to Lorelle's post, explore all the references that she has made, and link directly to a least one of those references.
 * My own article was written in hindsight.
 * Only 318 voted on the poll you referenced, and no anonymous voting was possible, despite the fact that the wishes of the Wordpress founders were made very clear within the Wordpress console at the time. With millions of Wordpress users, 318 votes does not represent a majority opinion and could be looked on as the result of official propaganda.
 * I would like to caution other editors that whilst there were accusations of sock puppetry that might have occurred, this was also a "vote" where all candidates did not have an equal avenue to express their opinion.
 * I should point out I have currently not released any Wordpress Themes myself, my observations are based upon how policies have been implemented, not how they were announced.
 * My article could be improved by highlighting specific popular themes that are still on the Wordpress Themes Viewer, but as I highlighed in my article, that would not benefit the Wordpress community, just as many of the themes which have been removed were actually of exceptional quality.AndrzejBroda 19:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There's no problem with your article per se -- it's just that first time round I only skimmed through it and it was only later when I read it properly that I realised that I had included it as a citation for something that it doesn't actually say. I could go through your other points and respond to them all, but that would be getting off topic, so I will stick to the question at hand: whether the statement in the article is biased or inaccurate, and in that respect I still think that it is a reasonably accurate distillation of the response, backed up by appropriate and reliable sources. The reason I chose Lorelle's post was that it provided a number of links to both sides of the argument (one of the links was even to an article on The Blog Herald saying that sponsored themes are a pretty good business model), presented the best distillation of the discussion that I could find, and refrained from passing any judgment on the issue.
 * If you think I've worded it inaccurately, or got my facts wrong, or that the statement needs to be expanded on, then by all means go ahead, but remember to cite your sources. — jammycakes (t)(c) 20:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

holiday logo
There has been couple of holiday logos recently. One is On Indian national day and another few is on Malaysian national day. Should we include them as they will probably repeat in near future? dimitri 15:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Licence
Could someone add the licence under which it is released (GPL). I feel this is a small oversight, but important. 82.47.0.158 00:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Features list
It states / implies that collection of visitor data and the blocking of IP's are native features of WordPress whereas in fact they are not. Plugins would be used for this. I would suggest those 2 items be removed as they are common to all CMS. --Subnoto (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Pro-Drupal essay
I've removed following pro-Drupal (sorry Drupal users, this men isn't doing good PR for your software and community) part of article twice, due to POV and general statements:

''Wordpress is not great for creating an online business, a full featured website or multiple blogs with multiple authors. You could easily outgrow it if your needs grow beyond what WordPress can do. Extendable, but there are limitations. Blogging is not the answer to everything for everyone. There are many advantages to making your entire website a blog, but there are some downsides to it, too. Creating an online business, a full featured website or multiple blogs with multiple authors using Wordpress can be quite challenging but if you are building a straight on single person or group blog, Wordpress is the way to go .''

Let's look at these statements:


 * Wordpress is not great for creating an online business, a full featured website or multiple blogs with multiple authors.
 * WordPress is used by business quite often, anyone can read more about it at WordPress Showcase. It seems that all those people don't care about POV statements posted above. There are thousands of full featured websites too with multiple authors and all this stuff is based on WordPress. It means that this statement is just untrue.


 * You could easily outgrow it if your needs grow beyond what WordPress can do.
 * This statement is so general, it can be used virtually for any type of software, including WordPress, Drupal, TextPattern, MovableType, Mambo, Joomla and anything you like.


 * Extendable, but there are limitations.
 * One general statement and nothing more. No proofs, no details. As far as we can see WordPress is easy to modify and extend. Another look on WordPress forums and WordPress Showcase shows quite clearly what talented people can do with WordPress.


 * Blogging is not the answer to everything for everyone.
 * Next general statement. If we put anything in place of blogging we'll get universal statement for any article here.


 * There are many advantages to making your entire website a blog, but there are some downsides to it, too.
 * Another general statement and once again no details or proofs to put it into Criticism section. Without proofs it's just POV, nothing more. I still see people who claims that the Only Right Way to build website is to hand code every page in HTML but I'm not posting this under any article about CMS / Blog software.


 * Creating an online business, a full featured website or multiple blogs with multiple authors using Wordpress can be quite challenging but if you are building a straight on single person or group blog, Wordpress is the way to go.
 * Building any sophisticated website can be quite challenging. This is true but also this is universal and general so once again it can be used for any web software.

I hope it's clear why this section was removed. --Piotr Mikołajski (talk) 14:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Wordpress iPod Touch/iPhone App, Over exagerated
The Wordpress app has all the features that the Wordpress Admin panel has.

This is a huge over exaggeration. Im looking at my (official) wordpress app of the app store right now and I can assure you that it only can create posts (and some details such as catagory, time posted), edit them, password protect them, and preview them using your theme.

In short its a very limited post management system for your wordpress blog, describing it as having all the features of the wordpress admin panel is closing on a lie!
 * Fixed it I think?! 16x9 (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Similar favicons
Did you notice how Wikipedia and Wordpress's favicons are similar ? :D

haha, good catch! Alxt 03:21, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Yea but WordPress's is better and that really isn't important The drunken guy (talk) 09:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

criticism section seems redundant
The only thing mentioned in the Criticism of Wordpress section is WP's security track record and this same information had been discussed in much more depth in the Vulnerabilities section. This section felt redundant since it was just restating issues already discussed more fully. If there are other areas of criticism notable enough to mention, then this section needs to be expanded. If not, I think it should be removed. 63.80.51.227 (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You critise something if its bad not for the sake of critising, that could be consider a type of spamming. Remember the Neutral_point_of_view The drunken guy (talk) 09:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Business /Model
Forgive my ignorance, please, I came to this article because I was hoping to cut through some of the crap. How does WordPress make money? Does it? Shouldn't this be spelled out?Genesiswinter (talk) 03:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * WordPress.org is an open-source project, so it doesn't (shouldn't) "make money" in the same sense that the paid versions of (say) Movable Type or ExpressionEngine do. However, it could certainly raise money through donations (ala Wikipedia) if it became necessary (although such a practice would likely be controversial in the WordPress/blogging community). It is also supported by Automattic, which in turn is (per the Automattic Wikipedia article and two sources cited there) supported by VC funding, as well as (presumably) any profits that may result from the services Automattic provides (i.e. primarily WordPress.com). 65.3.163.188 (talk) 02:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It make money by extremly occasionaly advertising on your site, and then you pay for more extra such as a space upgrade, no occasional ads, a domain, css editor, etc. The drunken guy (talk) 09:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Wordpress.com vs wordpress.org
I think we should make the distinction between the two: one of them's a commercial blog host, the other a community that develops the Wordpress CMS-- KelvinHO Wiknerd ( talk ) 05:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with KelvinHO . WP readers deserve to be clearly informed that both exist, that they are different, and what each is.
 * I suggest an almost identical brief paragraph be added to the lead of each article (so readers know early that they are reading the appropriate article), basically saying what KelvinHO said above, and also adding a link in each article's "See also" section to the other WP article and to WordPress.com vs WordPress.org.
 * I'm happy to do it, but as a new contributor would appreciate confirmation first that this is an appropriate approach, especially as no one has yet followed up KelvinHO 's suggestion. Bricaniwi (talk) 01:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Privacy & data retention issues
I'm mulling over the best way to reflect the recent concerns that have popped up regarding the "phone home" features of WordPress. Is WordPress Spyware covers the basic issue, with a lot of back and forth in the comments and related forum. My first question, Should all the existing gripes in this article be combined with this new one in a Criticism section? (I maintain a handful of WordPress sites, and can't imagine life without it, but would love to see some improvement in this one area) - 01:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

WordPress and Wordpress MU
The article on WordPress MU is very short and the code bases are 95% the same, I don't see why we need two articles. 66.226.105.98 04:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I somewhat agree. Let's give it a week or two and see if we can't build on each of them, as they are two different applications. Havok (T/C/e/c) 09:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Do not merge (sorry for the bolding, just noting as my official-ish vote) WordPress and MU, yes, are very similar under-the-hood, but their uses are pretty dramatically different. I say keep 'em separate. Sean Hayford O&#39;Leary 01:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't merge. I agree with Hayfordoleary. Sljaxon 00:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge! It's like saying a Volvo 740 GLE and a Volvo 740 GLE Turbo need separate articles. The MU is just a slightly altered codebase and pretty much does the same thing as Wordpress. Etcher 23:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge! It's the same program with only a few changes.  Plus, most of what is written in the Wordpress article is applicable to Wordpress Mu.  For example, the history of Wordpress also just happens to be the history of Mu, as Mu is essentially an implementation of Wordpress. Dturnq 07:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. Now all that's needed is a from-scratch rewrite of this article to bring it up to quality. Chris Cunningham 09:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * How could you merge when most of the editors above was against it...? Havok (T/C/e/c) 10:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Two for and two against, by my quick count. It can be split again if and when either article improves enough to warrant it. Chris Cunningham 11:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I still think I want to fight this decision WPMU has different purpose then WP. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Designdroide (talk • contribs) 04:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC).
 * I also vote for a separate article for Wordpress MU, as both systems are very different in many ways, from the installation to the back-end administration and security, to the front-end. Just to give an example, Wordpress themes that are compatible with Wordpress single site, are not necessarily compatible with MU.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.138.33.128 (talk) 03:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

WordPress and WP MU are merging as of Version 3.0. If they merge, there will no longer be a WP MU, just WP. Maybe after the 3.0 release? Gravedig2 (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

PCI compliance
I have just removed the comment in 'Deployment' that suggested constant updating with SVN provided "PCI compliance". "PCI" was linked to a dab page, and there was no context to suggest what it was supposed to mean. Nor was there any context provided in the linked article. If the author meant PCI DSS (the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standards) then I think it will need some more description, rather than just a blank assertion. YojimboSan (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

bogus features
* Integrated link management every feature should be integrated. otherwise it wouldn't be a feature. * Typographic filters for proper formatting and styling of text give me an example of a non-typographic filter. please. and the whole "Generates standards-compliant XML, XHTML, and CSS" makes this feature redundant. * Extensible plugin support if wordpresses plugins are extensible, what does a non-extensible plugin system look like?

you may get bonus points in school for adding pointless adjectives to nouns, but on wikipedia, it only serves to distract. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 38.100.22.127 (talk • contribs). It looks like at least the plugin part has been changed to "rich plugin architecture" Kevin chen2003 (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Plugins?
There should be a section on this page discussing wordpress's extensibility... plugins (both free and premium) and themes (both free and premium) make up a big deal of why WordPress rocks.

http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/pretty-link/ http://www.myreviewplugin.com/ http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/all-in-one-seo-pack/ http://www.wpreviewengine.com/ http://www.woothemes.com/

etc. etc. etc.
 * In that case I think a warning should be added, never to trust plugins or themes from an unknown or unverified origin. Here is an example that explains it: - Onno Zweers (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

WordPress Usage
The article currently says WordPress is used for 202m sites. This is ridiculous. There are only about 120m active domains in .com/.net/.org, by comparison. It's impossible to get any sort of meaningful stats on this. Changing it to current number of downloads of the 3.0 version (12.5m and counting) at the WP counter, http://wordpress.org/download/counter/ -- at least that's a figure we can sort of rely on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Therealpowerflower (talk • contribs) 00:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Microsoft Dumps Live Spaces for WordPress
According to this article published on PC magazine, microsoft is dumping Live Spaces in favor of WordPress. Possibly it would be worth mentioning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.99.18.37 (talk) 08:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Security
In the vulnerabilities section, it says that the last major vulnerability was found in a version more than three years old. However, the MITRE CVE database identifies over 25 severe vulnerabilities since 2007. Is this correct?

http://cve.mitre.org/ http://govfresh.com/2011/03/gov-2-0-guide-to-plone/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizabeth N2 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Nightly Builds
Nightly builds for an interpreted language? Isn't there simply the SVN-repository everybody can access? --Chricho ∀ (talk) 14:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

BBpress
the same author has released a free forum http://bbpress.org/download/ 83.176.11.245 22:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I just created the bbPress article. If someone wants to fix any mistakes I made please go ahead :) --FusionOpz (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * it was redirected to Automattic because it is not notable to have its own article. 16x9 (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Um...It's got its own WordPress plugin --86.183.40.213 (talk) 09:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

so what does it do???
I am getting old and perhaps crotchedy (I dont know how to spell it so dont get upset)....The article reads like advertizing: lots of glitzy words that dont mean much to the average amature potential program user (ie me). Almost as if it was lifted from the wordpress web page, which also is full of glitzy language.

What does it do.... would be useful for the average dumb user (me). It appears to run in concert with mysql using php, but what does it do....can I run php scripts against it, store data using it, or does it only allow me to play with fonts and css to make fancy looking presentation. Does it manage many related pages with menus or only one? This is an encyclopedia. Describe. More simple description. The one tree figure is completely opaque. More transparency please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.123.229 (talk) 19:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The WordPress trademark cannot be held responsible for content created using the software
Regarding numerous edits by Ervadegato (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WordPress&diff=next&oldid=479210471)

WordPress is a Content Management System, can be downloaded and installed on your own server. WordPress consequently cannot be held responsible for the content created using the software. If you have issues with some content, you should contact the hosting provider for that site. Jeherve (talk) 15:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * More to the point, the WordPress article on Wikipedia shouldn't be about individual WordPress sites, however notable they may be. If a website is notable, there can be a standalone article about it, but it shouldn't be described in the article about the CMS. Whether WordPress is responsible or not is irrelevant in the context of whether the content should be in the article. --bonadea contributions talk 21:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Choosing Wordpress.COM versus installing Wordpress via Fantastico
I think there's a bigger context with Wordpress, which is barrier to entry/use. Starting up on blogging can be tough, from a content perspective, let alone a technology perspective.

If anyone would like to clean up some writing that I've blogged, they're welcome (i.e. I grant a license) to rewrite The why and how of establishing your web persona (that suggests steps around getting onto wordpress.COM), as well as Installing and customizing Wordpress on your domain where I describe installing on Fantastico, choosing and configuring a theme, and installing plugins.

Daviding 15:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, what does this have to do with editing the article? Chris Cunningham 16:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not that familiar with content protocols on Wikipedia for the entry Wordpress, here. If someone is reading Wordpress on Wikipedia, I presume that they might be considering blogging for the first time.  It's a lot different to be installing Wordpress on a server, and starting up on Wordpress.com where there are already pre-selected themes.  This may be deeper than is appropriate on Wikipedia.  Daviding 15:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If anyone important sees this, I am not aware of protocols for talk pages, but this appears to be blatant self-promotion and spam. 130.56.71.53 (talk) 05:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Wordpress.com
This article should at lest have a very basic explanation of what Wordpress.com is, and how it relates to and differs from the Wordpress.org project. Right now there's absolutely... nothing. Come on people! 202.154.147.97 (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you check the hatnote, the first thing under the article title? kashmiri  TALK  01:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Article doesn't tell me squat
Is WordPress intended to run on individual personal computers, or is it intended to be installed and run on a Web server? This crucial bit of information needs to be in the lead section or the first or second sentence of the second section. The article currently dances around the subject. It mentions PHP, which tells me it is probably a server application, but I can't be sure. For a reader who has never programmed in PHP, the whole article is an unfathomable mess. &mdash;QuicksilverT @ 19:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC) I thoroughly agree that where WordPress runs if the first thing you need to know about the program. All other details can be understood only in that context of that knowledge. NormHardy (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it is mainly intended for installation on Web Servers, but you can install it on your own computer. This web page [] says "Did you know that you can install WordPress on your personal computer for learning and testing purposes. ... If you install WordPress locally on your computer, then the only person who can see that site is you. If you want to have a live WordPress site available to the public, then you need to have a Domain and WordPress Web hosting." I agree that this should be made clear in the article, so I have added info near the beginning. FrankSier (talk) 23:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Wordpress is not a Content Management System out of the box.
Wordpress is NOT a CMS out of the box. It has to be customized to become a CMS. Please refer to: http://codex.wordpress.org/User:Lastnode/Wordpress_CMS

If you goto www.wordpress.org - it does not state that it's a CMS. If you google wordpress, the title tag specifically states that it's a blog tool and publishing platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webosb (talk • contribs) 02:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

--- Agreed - Wordpress is NOT a CMS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.192.255.122 (talk) 13:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

List of Plugins
I think it would be beneficial if someone in the know would create a list of plugins and their usefulness. French wikipedia already has something started here: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_plugins_pour_WordPress  I just don't know enough to make one though i'd love to learn from it :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eth4n (talk • contribs) 02:20, 16 January 2007


 * Maybe someone could make a "List of WordPress Plugins" page on here then too or maybe a small section on this page. The drunken guy (talk) 09:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be way too long and unwieldy to so something like that, but there are a collection of significant plugins that have been around for a long time that are perhaps worth documenting. For example WPML, Visual Composer, Jetpack, Akismet, bbpress, buddypress, etc... Jeffery Thomas 19:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

If new preview versions come out, ...
... they can be added at Template:Latest preview software release/WordPress. The latest preview listed was rather old (much older than the stable version) so I removed it. Samsara 08:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The bbcnewsplanet.com link added by Mean as custard (and restored by KH-1) leads to a blank page. It doesn't smell right with that BBC-like domain, likely some attempted exploit. If it is a legit link and not spam or exploit, kindly link to a functioning page. AvaUVqSG3Nphw7wE (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Broken Links
I've found several broken links in article, I fix one yesterday and now it's gone. Mi edit was on MU section in ref=24 the broken link was fixed and pointed to "What is WordPress MultiSite and when to use it". But now section was edited and ref list has changed.

There are more broken links, here and in many other articles. Shall I go on fixing them? Sebastopolys (talk) 12:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Confused
hmmm, this seems kind of confusing. not sure how users would actually utilize any of these features, based on this entry. --Sm8900 (talk) 02:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * And this sentence, "Themes may be installed using the WordPress "Appearance" administration tool or theme folders may be uploaded via FTP.", is confusing of itself... Schissel | Sound the Note! 11:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

There are two ways to upload a theme to wordpress one is through the appearance tool under admin user permissions where you can switch between themes & search for new ones. The other way is using FTP (File Transfer Protocol) which is a route using the file system inside the server which will require access to the files inside the hosting account. Using FTP you can purchase a WordPress theme off the internet and download it into a zip file then upload it to proper file in Managed WordPress file system. WordPress is a little weird in the fact its essentially a plug-in that has plug-ins for it inside it. Sorta like Inception.

Lunarshadow246 (talk) 23:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

.com and/vs .org ?
are they ..the same ..different? ..how? ..why? --wiki-vr.mp (talk) 06:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Added a clarification in the summary but made it more confusing to distinguish between the two. Will gather some resources & attempt a 2nd update.

To clarify wordpress.org is the site for the free wordpress CMS (Website Builder) download/help articles/plug-in library & wordpress.com offers hosting options for wordpress. Which there are plenty other hosting providers as well not just wordpress.com. --Lunarshadow246 (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Wordpress now requires PHP v7.2
Under Vulnerabilities, it is said that WordPress requires PHP v5.2. This is no longer the case, as it requires PHP v7.2, (released November 2017.) https://wordpress.org/about/requirements/

Ælphanum3ric (talk) 03:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wordpress-5-0-3-dashboard-1024x585.png
 * Wordpress-5-0.png

Didn't understand shit
I looked up WordPress to check what it was all about. Read the first paragraph and my mind went blank! Guys, guys: write for the common man, people like me. IT personnel don't need this enciclopedia entry. We do.

Wordpress v5.0, Gutenberg and ClassicPress
Should there be a section on major version change and introduction of the Gutenberg editor (which had poor reviews when introduced as a plugin) that has resulted in a branch of WordPress being developed called "ClassicPress"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidyutblogger (talk • contribs) 01:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

WordPress Premium Plugins
Hi. The 75 SW plugin list of and the less detailed ones of [https://looks-awesome.com/category/plugins and seem to be a reliable source for the WP article. No one of them details clearly waht is free, Premium or "freemium".

Moreover, Google XML Sitemaps, which is one of the most used, seems to be available only for Premium users. It can be freely downloaded, but only Premium users have a Plugins or Users Setting option in order to import and integrate the SW into their Wordpress account and domain. Probably this needs a reliable source to be cited in the article.Micheledisaveriosp (talk) 21:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing for premium plugin numbers
A couple of times since it was published yesterday, editors have attempted to use this post as a citation for the claim that WordPress has approximately 15,000 premium plugins. Problem is, none of the numbers in that post add up, even internally. It cannot be considered a reliable source. Some of the problems:


 * They admit that "The exact number of premium WordPress plugins is impossible to get", then proceed to make up a number
 * The sites they actually list, with counts, are claimed to have: 7,100, 81, 84, 300, 100, 50 plugins (some qualified vaguely with "over").
 * The previous counts only add up to 7,715, barely half the claimed 15,000
 * No effort is made to determine which of the counted plugins may be cross-listed on multiple sites, meaning they've been counted more than once and should be removed (further reducing the 7,715 number)
 * No effort is made to determine which of the supposed 7,100 plugins listed at CodeCanyon are duplicated, for example bundles of plugins which are also listed individually (reducing the site's 7,100 count, and thus the 7,715 total)
 * Their final conclusion is that 55,000 public plugins + 8,000 unlisted plugins + 7,715 (inflated) premium plugins = "over 80,000" plugins

There's no citation for the article's current "1,500+" claim either, and frankly I'm tempted to remove that from the article entirely. But if it's going to be replaced, it needs to be replaced with something more verifiable than an anonymous claim in some blog post, using numbers that don't even come close to checking out. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 09:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I vote for removing the number totally. Unverifiable claim and even if done so, it would be outdated pretty fast. robertsky (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm with you on that.
 * (Also, corrections: My link above is a 404, not sure if it changed or if I just screwed it up originally. But the article is reachable as https://wporb.com/wp/how-many-wordpress-plugins-are-there/. And I originally characterized it as "anonymous", which is not true. The author's name (Stefan Pejcic) is listed in tiny text under the title, which is superimposed over a busy image. It's like it wants to be missed.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 00:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2020
Reference 106 should be update.

Replace: https://codex.wordpress.org/Configuring_Automatic_Background_Updates

With: https://wordpress.org/support/article/configuring-automatic-background-updates/

In addition, many links to the old https://codex.wordpress.org/XXX should be replaced with their new links at https://wordpress.org/support/article/XXX

Also, some links use HTTP, but many of them have a secure HTTPS version. Ramiy (talk) 22:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌ The Ref 106 link was already replaced with one from the Wayback Machine. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

This "ad spiel" doesn't make sense.

"Accessibility The WordPress Accessibility Team has worked to improve the accessibility for core WordPress as well as support a clear identification of accessible themes.[25] The WordPress Accessibility Team provides continuing educational support about web accessibility and inclusive design. The WordPress Accessibility Coding Standards state that "All new or updated code released in WordPress must conform with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 at level AA."[26]"

WordPress has many teams of developers and Accessibility team is far from being a good example. The above also seems to be incorrect. As a bystander I haven't seen any "educational support about web accessibility". On the contrary, team members seem to often engage in bickering (and worse) in public forums which is very discouraging for anybody trying to learn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.205.177 (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2020
Update article with information pertaining to the release of WordPress 5.5.

WordPress 5.5 "Eckstine." Release date 2020-08-11. "Lazy loading images, default XML sitemaps, automatic updates for plugins and themes, upload ZIP files to update plugins and themes, block patterns, block directory, inline image editing, improved accessibility." Rgudonis (talk) 11:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅, but written in a more concise manner. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 12:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

missing pp template
this page is protected. but where is the :pp:vandalism?110.136.41.56 (talk) 04:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅ – added. Wham2001 (talk) 08:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

dead link
https://web.archive.org/web/20050216134428/http://sixapart.com/about/corner/2004/05/its_about_time.html
 * 24.7.104.84 (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm puzzled about this report of a dead link. I don't see it anywhere in the main article text. Unfortunately as this was contributed by an IP address user, I cannot ping the person to find out why they put this here. Anyone else have an idea? - Dyork (talk) 01:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2020
Change improvments in improvements Erikvanbeek~nlwiki (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done – Thjarkur (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

"Wp-admin" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wp-admin. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 10 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 12:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Unclear/Misleading/Wrong maintenance status on releases
The History section shows WordPress releases, colored according to their maintenance status.

The article does not describe the WordPress projects maintenance policy. I tried finding this information on the WordPress website and release notes, but found nothing like that except for what I mention below.

What is the maintenance status displayed based on?

On the official WordPress releases page at https://wordpress.org/download/releases/ it says (emphasis mine):

> This is an archive of every release we’ve done that we have a record of. > None of these are safe to use, except the latest in the 5.7 series, which is actively maintained.

It says that only the most recent version is maintained. So it seems to me that the maintenance status is wrong and misleading readers and users into trusting outdated releases that potentially contain security issues.

It looks like 5.6 received a patch release on the same date as the latest 5.7 release. One could assume this is a security fix. The statement clearly contradicts that though, and I can not find any 5.6.4 release notes. The 5.7.1 release notes on the other hand say mentions fixing issues that exist “between 4.7 and 5.7”.

Kissaki (talk) 07:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , WordPress’ official stance continues to be that only the most recent release (5.7 at the time of this post) should be considered supported. The 3.7-5.6 branches will continue to only receive security fixes going forward - Recent Build/Test Tool changes and GitHub Actions update.
 * Does that answer your question? – robertsky (talk) 08:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Does that answer your question? – robertsky (talk) 08:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

WordPress, WordPress, WordPress...
I don't know, why some articles are started to be off for WP:ORG, but the first information block seems to be ad. Unfortunately... Halakievsk (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

bbPress section
The article bbPress redirects here. But there's little info about it here. It's a forum software plugin made by the wordpress devs.

It's likely what WordPress forums run on: https://news.softpedia.com/news/stored-xss-bug-affects-all-bbpress-wordpress-forum-versions-503646.shtml,

hashing passwords of bbPress: https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2019/06/19/popular-content-platforms-putting-passwords-at-risk/, https://securityboulevard.com/2019/07/insecure-default-password-hashing-in-cmss/

bbPress is a forum plugin source: https://www.how2shout.com/tools/free-best-open-source-forum-software-online-discussion.html

Greatder (talk) 06:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 October 2018 and 12 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lunarshadow246.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)