Talk:Joomla

message: How to pronounce Joomla?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.52.73 (talk) 18:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: How to pronounce?

message: The history section is broken up into a lot of single or double sentence paragraphs. This is a detriment to the flow of the article. Elizabeth N2 (talk) 12:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sozzled2904 (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

text: Furthermore, in August 2021, the "Joomla 4.x" project achieved a milestone—6 years after the project commenced—with the first public stable release known as J! 4.0.0.  This achievement and the publicity surrounding the public launch are also absent from the article.  As the article currently stands, the implication is that the J! project is little other than a software development activity composed of hobbyists or enthusiasts without any clear purpose or objectives. Sozzled2904 (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

text: Molajo, while definitely an interesting distribution that has yet to be launched, is currently just that, a distribution.  So until we add an entire section for a distribution that may or may not be launched at some point in the future, I don't think we should include it here. jondn (talk) 01:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Sozzled2904 (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

text: Sozzled2904 (talk) 23:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

text: Sozzled2904 (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

text: FtfF appears to have disbanded.Sozzled2904 (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

text: Sozzled2904 (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Franz.wohlkoenig (talk) 06:31, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

text: Sozzled2904 (talk) 05:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: The distribution described at :Molajo doesn't appear to be notable enough for its own article: should it be merged here? Invitrovanitas (talk) 14:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Molajo, while definitely an interesting distribution that has yet to be launched, is currently just that, a distribution.  So until we add an entire section for a distribution that may or may not be launched at some point in the future, I don't think we should include it here. jondn (talk) 01:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Sozzled2904 (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

text: Sozzled2904 (talk) 23:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

text: Sozzled2904 (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Molajo 

message: Sozzled2904 (talk) 05:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: FtfF appears to have disbanded.Sozzled2904 (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forum for the Future (FftF) 

message: Sozzled2904 (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sozzled2904 (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Franz.wohlkoenig (talk) 06:31, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing the dot-point release "history" 

message: What is the thinking on Alpha & Beta "releases"?  
For example, Joomla 4.0.0 Alpha 1 was 'released' in November 2017, but there's no mention in the text, nor indication in the "Joomla! versions" table.  It only appears in the Infobox at the top of the article.  The "Joomla! versions" table does indicate version 4.0 as a "future release", but it is unclear what that really means:  for example, it could mean that the developers stated a year or two ago that they planned (or hoped) to start working on a new version (4.0) in 2019 — albeit with no new code having yet been written.  
—DIV (1.144.110.126 (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Alpha & Beta 'releases'

message: In the version tables, someone has deemed it appropriate to add notes about a "Major Version" and "Released As", which creates additional confusion in the context of the article.  Joomla 3.x has never been known as the 4th major version, and trying to refer to the 4th major version is extremely strange.
The versions should consistently be referenced how the project and the community know them, not how someone arbitrarily tries to number them.  If someone wants to explain why the jump from 1.0 to 1.5 is considered a major version jump, similar for 1.5 to 1.6, then go for it.
(Note, due to COI, I cannot make substantial edits to the page and can only offer this suggestion.)
Michael (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sozzled2904 (talk) 05:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: "Major Version" and "Released As" creates unnecessary confusion

message: Drupal and Wordpress have sections for criticisms, whereas this one does not.  (Inconsistency) 75.76.183.29 (talk) 08:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sozzled2904 (talk) 22:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms 

message: The community part on the Joomla webpage is supporting its customers with information. 
In the Forum users help each other and the Joomla magazine is supporting the users with professional help. Furthermore, the community is informing about Joomla! Days around the world. This event gives the possibiliy to meet other people and to exchange knowledge.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheermischi (talk • contribs) 09:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Community 

message: Sozzled2904 (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sponsorships 

message: Sozzled2904 (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joomla in crisis (2020) 

message: My attempt to fix the word salad of "supposed to be have been released " by removing the superfluous words "have been" has been reverted. Can anyone suggest another way of fixing this article, or can we get consensus to restore my fix? ϢereSpielChequers 11:40, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sozzled2904 (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: supposed to be have been released 

message: To describe the founder a reference (11) to the 10 years anniversary article from Brian Teenman is used on which no further names are mentioned.
The reference (12) from Andrew's post is IMHO more complete. I suggest to remove the reference to (11). Not sure if I can do so as my reputation here is not yet high enough.
Thx for considering AKempkens (talk) 09:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest better reference for Joomla founders 

message: The section relating to "Awards" — sourced entirely from https://docs.joomla.org/Special:MyLanguage/Joomla!_Awards — is impossible to verify as significantly reputable.  These "awards" were the result of votes cast anonymously with no requirement that the voters were in any way involved with the companies who conducted these votes.  The primary purpose of including these awards here on Wikipedia is not to attribute any merit to Joomla but, instead, to promote various companies such as CMS Critic, Packt and others that have no involvement with the Joomla project.
There is no dispute that Joomla is recognised in the open-source CMS market space (and a reference to the sources quoted by the Joomla marketing people appears above) but commentary that appears on various websites (such as the CMS Critic website) could be perceived as advertorial material submitted by software developers, or copied or plagiarised in order to manipulate market share; it is not possible to verify impartiality or an absence of bias by such authors.  Material sourced from sites such as these needs to be weighed with a grain of salt; rather than including a disclaimer in the Joomla article about the reputability of awards or trophies, it is better to remove the table written by the Joomla marketing team from the article entirely.
Further, this "Awards" section does not appear on non-English translations of the Joomla Wiki page.
Sozzled2904 (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards and recognition