Talk:CodeIgniter

Leave this![edit]

Hey, for sure we should leave this article on Wikipedia. Why? CI is well-known PHP framework, and other frameworks (sometimes less-known and deprecated!) are on Wikipedia too. See this article for more. User:LaminatedCat (My Talk) on 18:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No special treatment — this article needs to establish notability like any other. See also: WP:ININ. -- intgr 18:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article has been deleted three times already (see logs); once through articles for deletion (discussion). -- intgr 18:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't know. My personal hapiness won't ever depend on being or not being this article on Wikipedia. I just saw red link to it (!!!), I'm coding in it, so I thought that I can help. Don't wanna fight ;-) User:LaminatedCat (My Talk) on 18:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of deleting it? I don't think it would make Wikipedia better. Zslevi 19:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting WP:N#Rationale for requiring a level of notability:

In order to have an attributable article, a topic should be notable enough that the information about it will have been researched, checked, and evaluated through publication in independent reliable sources.
In order to have a neutral article, a topic should be notable enough that the information about it will be from unbiased and unaffiliated sources; and that those interested in the article will not be exclusively partisan or fanatic editors.
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate directory of businesses, websites, persons, etc. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

That ought to answer your question. -- intgr 20:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check this: [1] [2] And it's noted in a number of techblogs. --Zslevi 20:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs are not reliable sources. -- intgr 20:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CodeIgniter is a fine PHP webframework. It's in the same catagory as Zend Framework, Symfony, CakePHP and others. The stub needs to be extended but surely don't delete it.

It's good to have some reference about CI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belgampaul (talk • contribs)

I know I was looking for some unbiased information on CI (before starting development in it), so I came here. What I really needed was a comparison of PHP frameworks; a checklist of supported and not supported features (found it at http://www.phpit.net/article/ten-different-php-frameworks/ ). I appreciate at least having a page here, though I would prefer more information, such as an example of code structure.--Justfred 17:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that other frameworks don't include Calendar classes or FTP or E-mail classes is patently false and biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by chugadie (talk • contribs)

It says that these things are not default in "other frameworks." As long as there are at least two "other" frameworks (justifying the plurality of "frameworks") that do not have such a feature integrated by default, the statement is true, albeit a bit sloppy in my opinion. The whole article is a bit messy. --Sydius (talk) 00:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the statement isn't very neutral and seems to put down other frameworks that do have said features. In specific, security and XSS filtering ('filtering' in general), e-mail modules, image manipulation, file uploading, localization, pagination, encryption, unit testing and URL rewriting are all features that are either very common among frameworks (both PHP and otherwise), are default features in the PHP standard library, are specialist features where other libraries (such as unit testing) are specialized in. By no means do all those features warrant a comment saying that other frameworks (in which I read 'Everyone Else') do not offer those features, slash offer by default. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.71.153.25 (talk) 12:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This "article" is just a laundry list - if not improved substantially, it serves no purpose and should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.1.196 (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Dear Drmies,

Thank you for your feedback on my contribution to the [article name] on Wikipedia. I noticed that you have tagged my edit as "promotional" and I would like to seek further clarification.

I have made efforts to ensure that the content I added is neutral and supported by reliable and verifiable sources. However, it seems that my edit has been interpreted as promotional. I would appreciate a better understanding of the specific aspects of my contribution that may be considered promotional, and how I can improve it to comply with Wikipedia's policies.

I am committed to contributing constructively to Wikipedia and following the community guidelines. I would be grateful if you could provide me with more information about the issues you have identified and any suggestions for corrections. I am open to making the necessary modifications to ensure that my contribution is impartial and meets Wikipedia's standards.

Thank you for your time and assistance.

Sincerely, Yuma2020

Yuma2020 (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really want to explain the word "promotional" here; a dictionary can do that for you. Drmies (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]