Talk:PhpBB

message: Page needs updating to reflect that Beta 4 has been released 217.42.227.230 22:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure hoping Beta 4 results in a release! Been waiting on v3 before I migrate a board from something else to phpBB... Jake b 06:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Never does...it might result in RC1, but there will be (and have been already) changes. 84.56.46.124 09:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Frankly I'm not concerned about not having a release for a while. It'd be nice not to have weekly security updates for a year on a supposedly stable release this time. Chris Cunningham 10:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Version 

message: Regarding the edits from Tragic romance: I'm embarrassed even to have my sentences in the same section. Proposing to delete comments he doesn't like.
I realize this is a Talk page, not an article, so informality is fine. But that kind of attitude is starkly out of sync with the spirit of Wikipedia. Not only is it in extreme disregard and disdain for contributors, it is also deliberately hostile and confrontational. 72.36.251.234 17:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no edits in recent history by any user named 'Tragic romance', either on this talk page or in the article. -Amatulic 19:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's viral marketing to whip up the interest for when 'Tragic Romance' finally makes a show. Jake b 16:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Troublemaker on the page? 

message: Building Online Communities With Drupal, phpBB, and WordPress by Robert T. Douglass, Mike Little, Jared W. Smith.  Apress, 2005. 
Building Online Communities with phpBB 2 by by Stoyan Stefanov, Jeremy Rogers, Mike Lothar.  Packt Publishing, 2005. 
phpBB: A User Guide by Stoyan Stefanov, Jeremy Rogers.  Packt Publishing, 2006.  
I don't have any dogs in this fight, I just want to learn phpBB because it has been installed at work for a corporate idea forum.  I saw article is cited for lacking criteria of "notable" software, one of which is linkage to third-party books.  Perhaps winner of this edit war might find above books satisfy criteria and worth posting, in properly formatted fashion, on content page. I'm sure one or more may be of interest to other neutral parties simply interested in learning the software. Paulscrawl 20:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's certainly likely to do it! I'll have a look for some of those on Google Print when I have a chance, and get some of the statements here properly referenced. Seraphimblade 23:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those three should take care of the notability question. I'll place them in a "Further reading" section until someone uses them as actual references. ✤ JonHarder talk 01:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, I think  still applies to the article because the three potential sources have not yet been used to expand and reference the article. As it stands, it only uses primary sources. ✤ JonHarder talk 03:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Books 

message: This entire section is unnecessary and should be removed.  The first paragraph primarily describes the function of a  database abstraction layer.  This is neither unique to phpBB, nor is it noteworthy.  The list of supported databases should be moved to a bullet point in the features section.  The second paragraph describes a templating and localization system.  Once again, it is not unique and should be removed.  The third paragraph rambles about versions and dependencies.  This information should be available on the phpBB website should someone be that interested. --Hamitr 03:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed this section and moved all relevant information elsewhere in the article unless it was already mentioned.  I moved the php version info to the history section rather than deleting it.--Hamitr 00:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Technology Section

message: I don't know if it's been changed in version 3, but in version 2 the template system is far from a strength. The classes and id's have little relationship to their function making it tough to use CSS as you'd want to do a redesign. So I'd say that there are differing viewpoints on that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Macgruder (talk • contribs) 17:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a strength considering that one can change the HTML code without knowledge of the PHP backend. The problem you described is not a problem with the template system, but rather with the default template delivered with phpBB. Other templates are completely stylable using CSS. 88.64.72.189 15:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templated System a strength? 

message: Does anybody know examples where overloaded phpBB forum was fixed by adding additional phpBB or database machines? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.98.173.72 (talk) 11:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  phpBB Scalability 

message: what does this even mean???  the first part of the sentence - the "because of this, the security of phpbb has been disputed" makes perfect sense.  the second part...  not so much.
maybe whomever added it was trying to say "because of this and because new versions addressing security issues are released in a relatively small timeframe from one another, the security of phpBB has been disputed".  of course, they didn't do a very good job, if that was what they were trying to say.
and if that is what they were trying to say, it is highly POV and, arguably,  factually incorrect.  what constitutes a "relatively small timeframe"?  i consider a week to be a small timeframe, but i don't consider a month to be one.  some people might even consider a year to be a small timeframe, but, for software, in general, i think a year is an incredibly long timeframe.
of course, i also said this claim was, arguably, factually incorrect.  i'll present evidence of that, now, using my own definition of a "relatively small timeframe".
phpBB 2.0.22 was released on Dec 23, 2006 
phpBB 2.0.21 was released on Jun 09, 2006 
phpBB 2.0.20 was released on Apr 07, 2006 
phpBB 2.0.19 was released on Dec 30, 2005 
phpBB 2.0.18 was released on Oct 30, 2005 
phpBB 2.0.17 was released on Jul 19, 2005 
phpBB 2.0.16 was released on Jun 27, 2005 
phpBB 2.0.15 was released on May 07, 2005 
phpBB 2.0.14 was released on Apr 15, 2005 
phpBB 2.0.13 was released on Feb 27, 2005 
phpBB 2.0.12 was released on Feb 21, 2005 
phpBB 2.0.11 was released on Nov 18, 2004 
phpBB 2.0.10 was released on Jul 17, 2004 
phpBB 2.0.9 was released on Jul 12, 2004 
phpBB 2.0.8 was released on May 25, 2004 
phpBB 2.0.7 was released on May 13, 2004 
phpBB 2.0.6 was released on Aug 03, 2003 
phpBB 2.0.5 was released on Jun 16, 2003 
phpBB 2.0.4 was released on Jan 15, 2003 
phpBB 2.0.3 was released on Sep 30, 2002 
phpBB 2.0.2 was released on Aug 12, 2002 
phpBB 2.0.1 was released on May 20, 2002 
And finally, phpBB 2.0.0 was released on Apr 04, 2002 .
of these, only two releases were released within a week of an earlier release.  phpBB 2.0.13 and phpBB 2.0.10.  both of these were over two years ago.  "new versions addressing security issues are [not] released in a relatively small timeframe from one another" frequently enough to justify such a generalization. not when there are 19 other releases that don't do that, not when the last time it was done was well over two years ago, and not on something that's trying to be encyclopedic.
while i'm at it, i do think it's silly to judge the security of a product not based on whether or not there are any currently known vulnerabilities that are both severe and easy to exploit, but rather on the frequency of releases in the changelog. you can't, after all, use a changelog to deface a website. there's a reason changelog is not in the :Category:Web_security_exploits category.
i can appreciate not wanting to figure out how to search vulnerability databases and instead relying on "meta" information to determine what's secure and what's not, but don't presume for one second to have any clue what you're talking about when that's the basis of your opinion Misterdiscreet 04:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Security 

message: After a year of development and extensive testing, phpBB 2.0.0, dubbed the "Super Furry" version, was released on April 4, 2002, three days later than intended. --Wikipedia
 What a nice April Fools joke phpBB made! :) --Mayfare 02:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[April Fools]] 

message: I would propose that this article be reorganized to provide a little more emphasis on the fact that phpBB2 and phpBB3 are now equally mature, and to provide a little more information about each. Here is how I would organize the article:
First, keep the section about History, but trim it down to a very schematic overview of phpBB's history, mentioning significant events (not necessarily interim releases).
Then, create a section titled phpBB2, which would talk about when phpBB2 was started, its features and compatibility, current release, etc.
Then, another section titled phpBB3, which would talk about when phpBB3 was started, its features and compatibility, current release, etc.
These new sections would replace the "Future development" and "Features" sections. (Once phpBB3 goes gold, the "Future development" section could be brought back to talk about phpBB 3.1.x once that project started.) The idea would be to help indicate that phpBB3 is no longer in development, but is practically a mature product. It would also help to emphasize that for the near future, phpBB2 and phpBB3 will both be stable platforms supported by the phpBB teams.
Webmacster87 03:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Go ahead and rework the thing ;) 129.187.98.166 15:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I've gone ahead and made changes to the article. Instead of trimming down the History section, I've expanded it with more complete information about some significant events for phpBB, including some recent ones, and removed some redundancy. In addition, I've added the new phpBB2 and phpBB3 sections to indicate that both of these are products of the phpBB teams that will be supported for awhile and offer different featuresets. Of course, feel free to expand on these sections if you wish. Feel free to let me know if you have any feedback for the changes, and feel free to edit/correct/expand the sections that I've added. Webmacster87 05:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: That's perfectly fine. I'm used to American English, and although I did try to follow British English, I did miss a couple of things there. Thanks for fixing them. Webmacster87 17:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization of this Article? 

message: I don't understand the premise for moving the article to PHPBB and replacing all of the instances of phpBB in the article with PHPBB.  The newspaper copy editor's site referred to does make it clear that PHPBB would be correct -- however, that page is not a Wikipedia guideline.  MOS:TRADE says that eBay and iPod are preferable to EBay and IPod.  Those two appear more like phpBB than REALTOR. DonutLover 19:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PHPBB is wrong. The only correct capitalization of the program is phpBB. The only reason that the title of the article says PhpBB is due to an issue with Wikipedia's program that insists that the first letter be capitalized, however it should NOT say PHPBB, because that is wrong. Webmacster87 13:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalisation 

message: I removed the 4 additional external links which all point to phpbb.com.  Before adding such links, please note Wikipedia:El#Points_to_remember which states:
# Links should be restricted to the most relevant and helpful. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not by itself a reason to add external links.
# External links should typically not be in the body of an article. Include them in an "External links" section at the end or in the appropriate location within an infobox.
# Avoid linking to multiple pages from the same website unless there is good reason to do so.
I'm aware that there has been significant discussion regarding EL in the past, and I believe that my edits reflect the compromise struck near the end of Talk:PhpBB#phpbb_fan_sites.--Hamitr (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I would also add that for this article, I think that links to hosting services should not be permitted. Even if they're free hosting services, phpBB.com already has a designated place on their website where hosts can promote themselves if they so choose; Wikipedia should not be used as a source of free advertising. Links should purely be added to supplement and expand the information found in this article. Webmacster87 (talk) 17:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links cleanup - Feb. 17, 2008 

message: This entire article reads like an advertisement.  This is aside from its rambling prose which jumps all over the place...
:This is because it is for the most part written and WP:OWNed by the phpBB folks. Just try adding anything to the "Criticism" section. OH! There isn't one! That's because phpBB is perfect! Proxy User (talk) 03:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have any valid criticism, go ahead and add it. Just make sure that there's some significance to it. Just writing "phpBB sucks" or "I like vB better" doesn't cut it. However, relatively few people keep this page current; if you want to add or fix something, you are more than welcome. No one is stopping you. Webmacster87 (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: some might say the "Security" section is the "Criticism" section. certainly security issues will be easier to provide WP:RS citations for than usability issues. what other criticisms do you propose be discussed? Misterdiscreet (talk) 01:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertisement? 

message: This article seems to continously repeat itself, sometimes on non-notable issues! -- Fluteflute Talk Contributions 08:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repetition 

message: I wholeheartedly agree with whoever added the note that this article suffers from a poor lead section which quite frankly dates back many years. However, what would be the best way to improve it? It's hard to come up with a good way of expanding it without making it seem too much like an advertisement, and quite frankly vBulletin, Invision Power Board, WordPress, and other articles describing free software of this nature don't really have much more of a lead section than this article does... Webmacster87 (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: History, development, adoption... there's loads to work with. Yes, a great many articles suffer from this, but that just means we've got a lot of work ahead of us. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Best Way to Improve the Lead Section? 

message: Just wondering if anybody would object to me moving pbpBB2 after history and before phpBB3. After all the order was 1, 2, 3, correct? TheWeakWilled 10:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of versions 

message: I removed this reference from List of social software and thought it might be worth using here. (I think it was citing phpBB's notability.)
:
--Pnm (talk) 03:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A phpBB reference 

message: PhpBB 3.0.6 is referred to as the next release.  3.0.8 is the current and 3.0.9 is due out soon.  I'll put it on my long todo list unless anyone else wants to take it on.  
I also think that the history section has far to much weight given the profile of this package.  (Cf. phpMyAdmin or even Apache server)  WP's job is to be an encyclopaedia, not the official history of phpBB. --  TerryE (talk) 12:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree - the history section is way too long, and most users will only care about the current state of the software, and its features. I've expanded a bit on the lead section with a selection of the features. -- Dandv(talk|contribs) 06:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs a freshen 

message: I've just backed out an edit by Palmbeachguy.  My reasoning is that this editor quotes an web article by www.siteground.com which is basically, IMO, a motherhood and apple-pie sort of "keep you application up to date or you'll be hacked" caveat from a hosting provider. This type of caveat could just about be applied to any complex PHP application.  I feel that if we are going to include specific criticisms of this package then we should reference a primary security firm and current vulnerabilities that the latest version does not yet address, or at least a history of tardiness at addressing open vulnerabilities.  -- TerryE (talk) 18:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Security Vulnerabilities 

message: When I try to install phpBB. I did installed it using FileZilla to transfer files and introducing the phpBB as of my active user on the forums and I well done with that. --Lt. Allen (talk) 04:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Installed phpBB 

message: Even though phpBB 3.1 is the current version, the 3.0.x (3.0.12) branch is still being maintained and is still available for download.  This should be mentioned in the article.  Also, the information box at the upper right should also mention this branch version.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.116.240 (talk) 07:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  3.0.x branch should be mentioned 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on PhpBB. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060618062154/http://rankings.big-boards.com:80/?filter=phpBB,all to http://rankings.big-boards.com/?filter=phpBB,all
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Did nothing happen in the last 2 years since "June 27, 2016"?
Could someone update this article? Sadly I dont know anything about this.
The people behind the project should be interested to keeping it up to date... right?--Eheran (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not know how you got this. 3.2.2 was released on 7 January 2018 and 3.2.3-RC2 was just released a few days ago.-- 🐱💬 05:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably because "phpbb is dying" has been trending in the last few years. May be due to discourse and others, or just users moving on e. g. twitter, facebook etc.... It kind of changes how people communicate. Also Discord. I liked phpbb though, always convenient to use IMO. 2A02:8388:1600:A200:7F68:61BB:BDB:FB57 (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anything new? 

message: How popular is phpbb these days? Discourse seems to have gained a lot of former phpBB users. I am just curious - would it be useful to add a paragraph
or information about popularity? Should have external datapoints to be able to verify that. 2A02:8388:1600:A200:7F68:61BB:BDB:FB57 (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popularity? 

message: I would like to hear yall's opinion 64.184.66.33 (talk) 07:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Does It Mean To Be Feminine?