Talk:BuddyPress

This article was nominated for deletion on 7 August 2016. The result of the discussion was keep.

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
	This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as Low-importance).

Advertising[edit]

I just added the "advert" flag to this, because this is a very positive-spun article with the only source being the project's own website. That opens up questions of notability as well as of advertising. - Nat Gertler (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree with this assessment. BuddyPress is an open-source project that is used widely. Wikipedia needs a page on BuddyPress, though it may be true that this one needs editing. -- Mkgoldnyc (talk) 01:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I second Mkgoldnyc's input. Wikipedia needs a BuddyPress article because it is a widely used community based website forum implementation software and is based on GPL license principles just like Wikipedia. Fqi (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

complexity[edit]

Mention how BuddyPress's thread model might be more or less complex to users vs. 'competing' software's. Jidanni (talk) 09:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I second this, and add that the Article would be improved if it also listed alternatives to BuddyPress. Comparing and contrasting them would also be nice.Tym Whittier (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Embedded ELs?[edit]

I've removed this tag, "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be used in the body of an article."

The point is that there's a section of external links to sites using this platform. Splitting these ELs off to a footnoted section would make navigate more convoluted and would have no benefits that I can see. This is a section specifically about these ELs, as ELs.

A separate question is whether this section stands up to being worthwhile overall. As examples of a platform like this are useful, I would claim that it is – but this is certainly up for debate. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]