Talk:Invision Community

message: :Shortly thereafter, on November 12, 2004, a version of the software was released (with restrictions on code and limits on usage) again as a trial, only for the purpose of letting people preview the software.
Can anyone substantiate this claim? « alerante ✆ ✉ » 21:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed sentence from article 

message: Link to Transverse Styles was added by 65.33.171.38 to this article.  This isn't about vBulletin. Checking the vBulletin page notes that this IP address put in the same links on that page and they were removed.  It may bear watching. Ipstenu 18:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed vBulletin Link

message: This isn't a link repositry.  Should we have so many? I moved the French ones to the French wiki page as best I could (my French sucks) becuase it seemed more appropriate. - Ipstenu 16:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. I'll link to the official resource list. --Phatmonkey 19:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I feel Transverse Styles should be removed from the external links since it is a commercial skin website. I also question the reliability of InvisionFuse as a resource site which has relatively few downloads all of which require registration. I also wonder if Invisionize should be included in the external links section since it is most likely the largest modiciation resource. However, registration is also required on this site. Any thoughts? -- Scohoust 12:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it's very silly having a large list of resource sites here. I've added a polite comment above the links asking people to discuss any resource site additions here. A better solution needs to be found, a IPB wiki for information (including a list of resource sites) might be interesting! --PhatmonkeyTalk 19:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It would be helpful if IPS kept their resource list up to date. However, with the appearance of IPSBeyond, I doubt they'll be too willing to support other resource sites. --Scott 20:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

text: In response to Scohoust 12:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I was involved in the dispute on phpBB; we came to an agreement that official and unofficial links should be separated, and that particularly contentious links should be discussed and a consensus arrived at. We need to be careful that the "External links" section doesn't turn into just another directory of links. æle ✆ 21:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm all for discussion, which is what I started with InvisionFuse. I was (and remain) interested in whether people considered this to be a link which is useful to an IPB user. While I agree it relates directly to IPB, there are a lot of other sites which do so also. How do we define which should be listed here and which shouldn't? Looking at the VBulletin page, they have done exactly as æle suggested, with the focus being mainly official links. The InvisionCube link seems to have made its way in as well - a site as far as I can see "exists to sell products or services." WP:EL Comments? --Scott 21:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any unofficial commercial add-on, etc. sites should go. æle ✆ 22:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've rearranged the the links using VBulletin page as a template. That might clear it up a bit. And removed InvisionCube, was not aware of commerical addon restrictions. Is there some guidelines on external links that we can use? --Crangic 22:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That looks better, good job. The external Links guidelines suggest that links to sites which sell products or services should be avoided. --Scott 23:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Links?

message: I registered for a demo recently and found out that the timeframe is now reduced to 24 hours,so I updated the information. If anyone can give a specific date of when the change took place, please edit again. 202.156.6.54 04:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated demo timeframe 

message: I think something needs to be mentioned about how many people are still using the 1.3 Final forums when many many serious secruity issues have been found with it.
--85.210.56.145 17:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secruity Issues 

message: You said you deleted the link to IpbWiki? Because I see it again...I personally agree. This article is about IPB. IpbWiki is one of many modifications for IPB. It shouldn't get any special attention just because it links IPB to wiki software. Invisionize, which is free, should be there, but anything that is paid doesn't belong there. Compguy11 10:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IPBWiki points to the Wikipedia article on the related topic.  That's why it's under 'See Also' and not external links.  IkonBoard is also listed, even though it's not really related to IPB, but it's sort of a cousin. The line got squidgy.  Frankly, IPBWiki is the only one of it's kind that I'm aware of, offering a good bridge between Wiki and IPB.  I'm honestly not sure if it should stay or go (and in fact, I'd missed that it came back).  In this case, since it's really closely integrated with IPB, even though it's pay, I'm ... leaning to leaving it be. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 15:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Much nicer than my version :) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 20:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: IpbWiki

message: The Whole of IPB is paid, why allow that if your so strict on not allowing paid modification sites. All the official links are no use to anyone that doesnt want to pay. Can anyone say hypocrite
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.190.131 (talk • contribs) 
: If the site brings something that is value added content (and which can be interesting) to the  reader of the Invision Power Board article, then why not? Whether the site is interesting enough to be added to the article is a subjective matter of course and will have to be decided on a site per site basis.
: But if the site provides a content that's just an incarnation of Invisionize I'd rather not see it listed. And yes IpsBeyond is also an incarnation of Invisionize, but it IS the official resource site. Francinne 06:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paid Modification Sites 

message: At least as far as I can remember. It was IPB's version of Release Candidate. Not sure how best to put this into the article, or if it's even relevent at all. --Scott 16:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made it a foot note. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 17:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PF = Pre Final 

message: That screenshot is not of a default installation of IPB; in fact, Invision Power Services edited the default template to add the IPS Job Openings announcement at the top. This needs to be edited, or replaced by a screenshot of an actual default installation.--68.108.222.137 20:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's fine. Go ahead and replace :) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perfect.--68.108.222.137 00:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screenshot 

message: I have added infomation in the "releases" area regarding the 2.2 private beta. It was listed in depth, but totally ignored on the list at the top.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.163.178 (talk) 
:Except that it hasn't been 'released' yet :) Released means that it's out and available and supported. 2.2 is in beta, so it's not there yet. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2.2 

message: Some words before you read,
Wikipedia is free, as no longer is IPB. So why do Wikipedia should offer support to a commercial enterprise?
This whole entry should be deleted.
My two cents.
Gabricis
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.114.228.2 (talk • contribs) 
Microsoft isn't free. Free is not a requirement to be included on Wikipedia. Accurate information about IPB, stating that it's proprietary software, is included on this page. No 'support' is given for or against IPB. This article simply explains what IPB is and how to get it.  Also, please sign your posts with ~~~~ :) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not 'free' so let's delete the page

message: I've readded the link to :Category:Free Invision Power Board hosts as it can be usefull to people visiting this article. Francinne 10:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also - added link to Category Free Invision Power Board hosting 

message: I would like to request inclusion of The Admin Zone, a resource site for forum owners and administrators with articles, interviews, tutorials, and discussions covering all aspects of online forums. In regards to IPB, we have thousands of members who manage IPB forums, 8 original interviews with key IPB personnel including Matt Mecham, countless discussions directly and indirectly relating to IPB, and a moderator for our IPB forum who is also an IPB developer (Brandon Farber). The Admin Zone has an Alexa Rating of 6,942, 31,567 threads, 233,976 posts, 15,729 members, and 3,121 "active" members.TAZ Sandman 19:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it matches to ipb closely enough to have it included on this page, it's a general admin site of which only a small section relates to ipb... And it's already on the Invision Power Services page (too be honest I don't know if the interviews with the people from Ips are enough for that either, but anyway...). Just my 2 cents. Francinne 22:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I also agree with this.  Although the site has some information relating to IPB, it just doesn't contribute anything to the article.  Wikipedia also doesn't add links to places based on how many posts they have.  You also used the pronoun "our", which implies you are from The Admin Zone.  It is not exactly NPOV for somebody related to this site request for its inclusion. (and you also added the link without our consensus, which the comment clearly says not to do) Compguy11 06:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Francinne and Compguy11, it's just not IPB specific. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 15:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Link Request - The Admin Zone 

message: I see there's an expand article box at top of the article, should we resplit version 2.0 and 2.1, since there was a fair bit of information before the merge? I think for the rest most of the things which need to be mentioned in this article are mentioned already really... Francinne 12:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanding article 

message: I've tried to edit that weird addition into something that sounds a little less fanboy 'they are teh eviiiiil!', and removed the unverified claim that IPB code lifted from phpMyAdmin code - Folks, Forums are not reliable sources.  They're a great example that people were upset, and can remain as a ref for that, but everything else needs a good, reliable, article.  Find a good source for the phpMyAdmin stuff and then add it back in.  -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 20:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A furor of fan pissiness

message: I would like to add a couple of lines to this article about the duplicate content issues with this software and also add a link to a website that attempts to deal with this (www.seoipb.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.188.162.49 (talk) 
Please don't forget to sign your comments.  I went to the site you noted here, and all I found was a website that says IPB doesn't have good SEO.  Regardless if that is true or not, every software has issues, but it doesn't mean we can link to every person who attempts to fix it. Simply put, it is more like advertising than actually adding information people want to know. Compguy11 04:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Ipstenu's standpoint. Francinne 14:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Add link request

message: I would like to add a link to an IPB skin resource [IPBSkinworks.com] as many users are unable to find reputable and high quality skins for this forum software.
:This is not needed, as Invision Power Services has their own "IPS Resources" for skins, mods, etc. In my opinion, this looks to be nothing more than a ploy for free advertising. Uniquely Fabricated (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Add link for skin resources

message: The Version 1.3 section says "The last free full version is Invision Power Board 1.3.1, which is not as widespread as 1.3 because of the short available time before 2.0 replaced it." I'm fairly certain that IPB 1.3.1 had the same license as the earliest 2.0 release, which stated that you were welcome to use the software for free for trial purposes only. this topic seems to agree with my memory, so either 2.0 is free and also the last free full version of IPB or 1.3.1 isn't. I don't really know if free for evaluation purposes would mean the same as free for all purpose use in the context of this article, which is why I want to discuss this before editing.--Comrade Kesha (talk) 03:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Version 1.3.1 was seen as an update to 1.3, fixing some features and security issues. It "borrowed" from 2.0's license, however, as it was a 1.x release, was released for free. 2.0 was released free for about a week after it was released, and then was removed and replaced by a demo version, which the article states. This leads me to believe that 2.0, was free during that single week, and then went to paid. 207.7.162.118 (talk) 02:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

text: 1.3.1 was only free if you got it as an update for 1.3. Because they changed the license with 1.3.1 and made it a trial version, instead of free. You can see that by looking in the footer of the board. --88.79.241.166 (talk) 12:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

text: I updated the page with clarification on the nature of 1.3.1 being "free." I don't think the source is great, but I'm not sure if a more reliable source on this information exists anymore, so if anyone can find a better source, that'd be great. However, it's still a better citation that the previous information, which had no source at all. Comrade Kesha 21:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invision Power Board 1.3.1 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Invision Power Board. 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/20080127015420/http://www.ibforen.de:80/index.php?ind=downloads&op=entry_view&iden=45 to http://www.ibforen.de/index.php?ind=downloads&op=entry_view&iden=45
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 04:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Invision Community. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081010134120/http://www.adminfusion.com/forums/64-invision-power-board/8227-invision-power-board-license-explanation-1-3-1-3-1-2-0-2-1-a.html to http://www.adminfusion.com/forums/64-invision-power-board/8227-invision-power-board-license-explanation-1-3-1-3-1-2-0-2-1-a.html
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6Fwae5ION?url=http://community.invisionpower.com/topic/176769-new-demo-accounts/ to http://forums.invisionpower.com/index.php?showtopic=176769
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Invision Community. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080617093730/http://forums.invisionpower.com/index.php?showtopic=235197 to http://forums.invisionpower.com/index.php?showtopic=235197
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090829222643/http://forums.invisionpower.com/topic/286168-invision-power-board-3-0-0-and-applications-released/ to http://forums.invisionpower.com/topic/286168-invision-power-board-3-0-0-and-applications-released/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100819193909/http://community.invisionpower.com/topic/311959-ipboard-310-and-applications-released/ to http://community.invisionpower.com/topic/311959-ipboard-310-and-applications-released/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I would suggest removing the extensive list of version details in the article (which I don't want to do unilaterally) or put the versioning in a list or box ; then concentrating on the Lead and "the what" of the subject matter.  Flibbertigibbets (talk) 03:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed the Lead to be more concise and hopefully more understandable.  The versioning, if retained, might be best suited for a table.    Flibbertigibbets (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Version List