Talk:Silverstripe CMS

message: Re this page being "possibly not notable": I have added a review of SilverStripe done on a popular web/ajax website. I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that SilverStripe ranks on page one of "open source cms" at google based on general discussion by the development team and commnity discussing it on forums, blogs, etc. SigurdMagnusson 09:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless I'm missing something, the website mentioned has three sentences about SilverStripe plus an image. Can we do better? ✤ JonHarder talk 18:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Will happily contribute more references during March. In the mean time, while Ajaxian is not a mainstream press site, and that article is fairly informal; it is similar in Slashdot in terms of being high profile but has high quality standards: Anything featured there is notable from a technical standpoint.SigurdMagnusson 17:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: Do we really want a list of all widgets and modules?
It may end up being large. kickme (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Widget + module list 

message: "Thousands of websites ranging from blogs through to corporate and government websites are built using SilverStripe, including:"
Do lines like that not strike you as an advertisement?219.88.91.239 (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the Advert Template. This "article" is tripe. Proxy User (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added facts (e.g. 100,000 downloads) to the article that support that there is indeed thousands of such sites. I've also linked to the community showcase that shows hundreds of examples of work. I have removed the Advert Template. If you feel this is insufficient, please describe how you feel it should be reworded. SigurdMagnusson (talk) 08:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertising 

message: This "article" is extremely coloured. It raves about how fantastic SilverStripe is and all the nice features (half of which don't work), which is not surprising as it has been edited by someone involved with SilverStripe.
But it doesn't say anything about how SilverStripe has horrific application design, releases alpha code as stable (ModelAdmin, User Defined Forms), how the docs are a mess, how the site tree assumes a finite number pages (with the alternative, ModelAdmin, not up for the task), how there are bugs and generally unexpected behaviour thanks to the before mentioned application design (if you can call it design), overusing static variables and inheritance.
Clearly they don't know a thing about OOAD at SilverStripe, although the nice pictures of story cards with a header with the term "Agile" may make it seem otherwise. But if you create sort of a bastard Observer pattern implementation, and call it a Decorator, you've lost ALL credibility. But that's not all. They like messing with the PHP object model, supposedly to "patch PHP's deficiencies". Well that doesn't sound so bad does it? Until you find out these so called deficiencies are actually in the SilverStripe developers, and their knowledge of OOD, or even just basic proper OO practice.
The bottom line is that SilverStripe is like a turd in an Armani shoe box. And this "article" is just to make the box prettier.
I say "this article is NOT objective", and I want a "Controversy" section.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkleijn (talk • contribs) 10:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have to agree with that. I find it somewhat concerning that SilverStripe employees are actively editing this particular article. I would like to question whether these people can live up to the neutral point of view requirement. SigurdMagnusson has been editing this article. One of the edits can be seen here where he removes the advert template. That is problematic considering that he is "lead[ing] the marketing initiative of SilverStripe" (source). --Daniel (talk) 12:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I made some changes putting things in perspective, removing superlatives and such and adding some critique, but I'd say at least the "Press and the Media" section would have to be removed before we can remove the "advertisement" label.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkleijn (talk • contribs) 13:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extremely Coloured 

message: I have removed the section on Object Oriented Design that included criticisms of SilverStripe. The reasons for this are:
* There were no citations anywhere
* A Google search did not show any articles making the same accusations
* The section included non-NPOV language.
A "Criticisms of SilverStripe" section would probably be valid, given the apparently valid nature of the concerns listed on the page. For this reason, I'm suggesting that whoever wrote that section do the following
1. Post their criticisms with examples of offending source code to a blog or website (perhaps just a quick google sites page or something)
2. Add their criticisms in list form to the bottom of the page as a "Criticisms of SilverStripe" section, as is the custom in most Wikipedia listings of software, providing citations linking back to the blog post. Ensure that you keep more colourful language on the blog post, and keep criticisms _strictly factual_ on the Wikipedia page.
Please note: I am not a SilverStripe employee. I live in Melbourne, Australia. SilverStripe is based in New Zealand. You can view my personal information at http://alirobe.com 
--Alirobe (talk) 12:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms of SilverStripe 

message: The latest major release of SilverStripe has significantly changed the look and feel of the administrative interface; the image used is no longer accurate.  Does anyone have a good replacement using SS3?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sekjal (talk • contribs) 17:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update image to reflect changes to CMS in SS3 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion