Talk:PhpBB/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Passive voice

Currently, the phpBB article is written almost entirely in passive voice. I know avoiding passive voice can be difficult, but check out the definition and compare it to the article text. I think you'll agree that reading text written in active voice is much easier and more enjoyable. :] — Ringbang 21:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

phpbb2mods.com removed

I've removed the link to phpbb2mods.com. The reasons for this are as follows:

1) Near as I can tell, the only modifications that have been released there are ones by AbelaJohnB and there are far too many modification authors to link to every authors personal webpage. AbelaJohnB may have higher aspirations for his site, but so, too, do lots of other modification authors.

2) If this wikipedia article is going to link to a "non-official phpbb modifications" site, phpbbhacks.com would be a much better site to link to. It - unlike phpbb2mods.com - has hundreds if not thousands of phpBB modifications submitted by a myriad of people.

Maybe when phpbb2mods.com becomes more popular, it can be linked to, again, but right now, I think linking to it is little more than an attempt at vanity. TerraFrost 04:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I've also removed the link to www.packtpub.com/phpBB/book. Reasons are described below:

1. It's blatant advertising. In fact, everything added by 61.11.8.140 constitutes blatant advertising, imho:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=61.11.8.140

2. The Microsoft Windows article doesn't provide links to books about Windows, nor does [MySQL]], etc. Neither should this article, by precident. TerraFrost 21:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

External links again

I'd love it if we could keep the links down to official phpBB sites only. The same has been done at vBulletin: only officially-recognized vBulletin sites are listed now because deciding what unofficial sites to link to causes too many arguments. æle ✆ 22:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You might love it, but it's silly and devalues the Wiki entry. I think it's time to dispute this issue officially, and I plan to do some reading on the "official" process for doing so. The phpBB Group Junta does not own this wiki entry.

Yes, external links again

Maybe if you want to make this an extension of the Official PhpBB Group, you should delete EVERYTHING except for a link to phpBB? The "no unofficial links" thing is silly, and there is no general precedence at Wikipedia for it. This IS NOT phpBB Group's personal little wiki page. Is the "no unofficial links" thing a Wikipedia policy? No it is not. There is no rational reason not to have useful well known popular "unofficial" links, except perhaps selfishness.

Though it is not an official policy, so much argument over external links detracts from actually writing the article. I will not revert your changes again, because I feel that it is pointless when discussion is completely ignored. (See above.) As for your argument as to deleting links, we have — the only links that existed before you inserted phpbbhacks.com were to official phpBB sites. æle ✆ 00:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Your argument is that the only links before the unofficial one was inserted where official ones - that doesn't really mean anything at all. Before this whole article was here there was nothing at all, shall we revert to that? It makes as much sense! Sure, it would be good to keep the noise level of fan site links low, but there seem to be one or two that stand out. Phphacks is one that stands out. It's a valid link.

As to discussion being completely ignored, considering that there have been many who wanted and added the links only to have you and a few ohters remove them, perhaps it is you who need to listen?

Regardless of whether or not 80.4.224.4 [1], GPHemsley [2], NeoThermic [3], and I are in the right, the article should be left in its original state without these contested links. They can be added back if consensus shows that the links should be kept.

As to the link itself, I think that allowing unofficial sites like phpbbhacks.com would open a huge can of worms, especially in the precedent it sets. Users might see fit to simply add links to their own sites without discussion, and we would have a hard time keeping certain unofficial sites in the list without angering those who wish to link to other sites. æle ✆ 02:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems there are as many who think it should be included. Maybe it should stay until there is consensus shows that the links should not be kept? Your position is completely at odds with much of the content here at wiki. You are excluding content based on your particular personal POV. Most other articles err on the side of inclusion rather than exclusion.

And aren’t we talking about specific well established sites with community? We're not talking about this or that random site. Not "Joe's Little phpBB Hack-o-rama", we're talking about a well established widely used and widely contributed to mod site. Could be any side with their kind of following, but phpbbhacks stands out, and you know it.

I have never personally visited phpbbhacks.com. In fact, I'm not even a phpBB user — I haven't run a forum on it for months now. However, this conflict is very similar to the one that was recently resolved at vBulletin, and I'm using the example set there by discussion between other users. This is not "completely at odds with much of the content here at wiki". æle ✆ 23:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that you don't like that particular site, and are hiding behind what is an argument that is irrelevant to this specific case. Sorry, I'm not saying that to make a personal attack, it's just an observation that I think you are being very “proprietary” in a way that suggest that you think the phpBB Group should have exclusive “ownership” of this Wikipedia entry. That is wrong thinking on your part.

Again, I have no connections to the phpBB Group at all. If I did, I'd probably run my Web site's forums on phpBB. æle ✆ 23:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Providing high quality external resources is completely appropriate. Your insistence in listing only "official" sites smacks of some type of bias, some specific non-objectivity, misuse of Wikipedia to achieve some personal goal, and has the appearance of impropriety that leads to speculation on some undisclosed relationship (true or not) with phpBB Group. It's just inappropriate for you to suggest that there are no "unofficial" sites worthy of inclusion here.

I am not trying to make any value judgment on phpbbhacks.com or any other unofficial phpBB Web site. I simply believe that allowing even one unofficial external link would be a bad precedent, because determining whether a Web site is worthy of inclusion in the external links section is very subjective and will eventually lead to never-ending arguments over the value of a certain site. æle ✆ 23:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Your insistence on this issue suggests to me that perhaps a formal complaint of dispute is in order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.85.2 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 26 January 2006

sign your posts please -Ste|vertigo 19:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

So, why is the vBulletin article allowed to not have external links, and yet we are not? Edward nz 21:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

I'm mediating this case per request of the chief. Please dig through the recent history and list all of the external links which have been in the EL section below. I'll expect these wont be removed from the talk page. -Ste|vertigo 19:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Let it be noted that I'm the only one who has edited out links in the external links section who has any connection with the phpBB group. Everyone else who has removed links isn't connected. NeoThermic 20:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[http://www.phpbbhacks.com Popular PhpBB mod site] (Quite a few repititions of this one.)
[http://forum.neptunepinkfloyd.co.uk Excellent example of phpBB in action]
[http://www.forumtemplates.com/phpbb/ ForumTemplates.com: phpBB] - Offers a collection of free phpBB styles.
[http://www.place2share.be An example of a phpBB-powered forum]
[http://www.oldapps.com/phpbb.htm Old Version of phpBB]
[http://phpbb3.de/ phpBB3 Demo Site]
[http://www.phpbb2mods.com/ Unofficial phpBB MODifications]
[http://www.packtpub.com/phpBB/book phpBB Book]
[http://www.phpbb.com/support/ phpBB Support Resources]
[http://sourceforge.net/projects/phpbb/ phpBB SourceForge Project Page]
[http://mcintosh.cjb.net/wiki/index.php/Spell_Checker phpBB Spellchecker] - Spell checker for phpBB.

These are all the links back to the end of July. I would personally agree with the removal of some of them, but some seem like they wouldn't hurt the article any. - Pureblade | ^Θ 20:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

phpBBHacks - Been dscussed, and as NeoThermic has said, breaks the TOS of phpBB by redistributing the psd files
forum.neptunepinkfloyd - SPAM
forumtemplates - Does that mean that the likes of phpbbstyles.com, forumimages.com etc should be allowed? Or what about the million-and-one other temlate sites out there? I haven't even heard of these guys before so Remove
place2share.be - SPAM
oldapps.com/phpbb.htm - You can get it off the sf.net page, so SPAM
phpbb3.de/ - There is an officl phpbb one at area51.phpbb.com, so I'll count this as SPAM
phpbb2mods.com - SPAM as discussed
packtpub.com/phpBB/book - I think you'll find that the wikipedia disallowes theese types of links
phpbb.com/support/ - Coul stay if needed, but dosen't nee to seen as there's already a link to phpbb.com
sourceforge.net/projects/phpbb/ - Stay
mcintosh.cjb.net/wiki/index.php/Spell_Checker - That's lovely and all, but I think you'll find that it's still spam as there's the spelling cow mod already liste at area51.phpbb.com IIRC Edward nz 21:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

External links take five billion

Hmmm, the last time I discussed this was just prior to be becoming an admin yonks and yonks ago! Well, I'm still of pretty much the same opinion. We should only add external links which are useful to the article. There's some useful guideline pages on this:

The objection seems to be over phpbbhacks.com, so let's look at that. Firstly, when I open this site I am hit in the face with LOADS of nasty adverts. I'd estimate that at least 10% of my screen is taken up by adverts when opening that page. The external links guideline page says you should not add links to "sites with objectionable amounts of advertising". I'm not sure if it's quite up to objectionable levels, but it's definitely a major factor. Someone has mentioned above that phpbbhacks.com is redistrubting a file to which it does not have the copyright, if this is the case it is breaking copyright law (and not only should it not be linked to, but the copyright owner should request its removal). However, based on content, phpbbhacks.com seems to have plenty of useful stuff, organised and categorised in a sensible fashion. I haven't looked at any of the actual code but it seems to have plenty of scripts offered.

I must be blind. I must admit, phpbbhacks has a busy page, but all I see is GoogleAds (several, actually, but they are all text ads... Common on many sites these days. Indeed phpBB Group has ads...) I also see organized lists of dozens, perhaps hundreds of mods and templates. But who cares about phpbbhacks, see my comments below that address ATTITUDE. --Jake

I see one full flash banner advert when I first visit the page, the top half of another full flash banner advert, and the very top of another full flash banner advert, in addition to the GoogleAds you mentioned. Maybe you have flash adverts turned off in your browser. Talrias (t | e | c) 12:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

However, my general conclusion is that phpbbhacks.com should not be added. In the past it has been added by anonymous contributors with few other edits, which leads me to assume that their only interest is having links from Wikipedia to their website. Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. The website also has a rather large amount of advertising. Finally, it is breaking copyright law. I don't think Wikipedia should link to websites which break the law unless there are exceptional circumstances.

What do other people think? Talrias (t | e | c) 00:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I am in full agreement of this Edward nz 01:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Well said, Talrias. æle ✆ 02:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this needs some exploring. phpbb.com, according to Alexa, has a rank of 1,607. The site phpbbhacks.com has a rank of 9,902. Those are both pretty respectable numbers, so it seems doubtful that by adding the link the only intent is promotion. Further, WP:EL, under "What to link to | What should be linked to", says (amongst other things) "[s]ites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article". Obviously a bunch of hacks/mods would be inappropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article.

I am further disturbed by the notice in the article (that may or may not still be there, but it was an HTML comment) stating that only "official" links may be added. Wikipedia is not an extension of the phpBB Group, and for purposes of neutral point of view we should not "endorse" a certain class or brand of links.

Finally, I remain unconvinced that the site is breaking copyright law (at least breaking it in such a manner and in such an amount that Wikipedia should be concerned with it). As was said above, in the article for The Pirate Bay, there is, of course, a link to that site. I'd hardly call potential GPL violations (which, at least with the link that was provided further above, is patent nonsense; I will explain if asked) and an issue with the subSilver PSD's being redistributed huge legal hurdles. Wikipedia is not a court of law.

From what I've read of this so far, this seems like a veiled attempt at article ownership (again, especially disturbing is the "rule" that only "official" phpBB Group links may be used). I'd strongly urge people to look over WP:EL and WP:NPOV (which applies to the whole article, including external links) and reconsider whether or not they're being fair here. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

And to be absolutely clear here: I am not condoning an endless external links section, or link spam. I just think in this one case that there are issues that need to be resolved. The other links listed above may in fact be nothing more than spam, but this particular link doesn't seem to fit that criteria (their Alexa ranking is certainly doing fine without being listed here). —Locke Cole • t • c 07:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I added that comment because several people were adding their own example forums and non-notable add-on sites. I changed the notice to indicate that this is most likely temporary and will be changed once this discussion is resolved. æle ✆ 10:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not a legitimate reason to claim article ownership (in fact, there is no legitimate reason to claim article ownership). A better and more reasoned notice would have pointed contributors to WP:EL which does a good job at describing what should and should not be included as an external link. Saying "only official phpBB links" is simply false and inappropriate. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

You still haven't answered the question. Why aren't there any complaints over the vB article, seen as they don't have external links? I'm sure there are plenty of phpbbhacks like sites for that software, so by that logic there should be a couple of unoffical links in their inks section Anon 20:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right. It's just as wrong on that article, or any article, as it is on this one. Please instead focus on explaining why you believe article ownership is okay on Wikipedia? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Apparently the subSilver PSDs are not licensed under the GPL and may only be distributed along with phpBB. Hosting them individually is indeed copyright infringement. As I said in my original statement, we should only have a link to a copyright infringing site in exceptional circumstances. An article *about* such a site obviously fits that criteria. But this article isn't about phpbbhacks.com, it's about phpBB. I agree that phpbbhacks.com has merit but I think the combination of the large amount of adverts and the copyright infringement lead me to conclude it's not a good link to include. If phpbbhacks.com were to remove some of the adverts and the copyright infringing download then I would probably be in favour of having an external link to their site. Talrias (t | e | c) 12:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it may be copyright infringement (I haven't looked at what's included in the PSD's, but from the description it seems to be a customized version which lacks the phpBB logos). And again, Wikipedia is not a court of law, we do not omit links to external sources simply because they may be performing illegal acts. I wouldn't know about the adverts because I have AdBlock installed in Firefox, but from the sounds of it there's just an abundance of Google ads. If I feel brave, I'll turn off adblocking and take a look. :P —Locke Cole • t • c 23:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to do that! Because I'm nice, I took a series of screenshots, and numbered the ads for everyone's viewing pleasure. I personally believe that 14 ads is too many (And that's not counding the links down the menu bar), so what's everyone else's thoughts? Anon 20:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the vast majority of those are Google ads, with a few other small text ads thrown in for good measure (I don't consider the "network" thing on the left side to be an ad since the site is, afterall, part of a larger network of sites). —Locke Cole • t • c 05:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, so there are Google ads involved. However that dosen't change the fact that there are huge numbers of ads, while other sites such as phpbb.com manage to get by on no more than 2 lots of google ads, and some small text ads. How does that work? Anon 21:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on, don't avoid the issue

The issue is not some specific site, it is the clear policy of certain people here to reject any content that is “UNOFFICIAL”. It appears over and over again in the discussion here, no “UNOFFICIAL” links, books or resources, ALL links books or resources, regardless of content, if it does not come from the “official” phpBB Group site, is rejected.

Now that the issue has been brought up for mediation, you try to change your tune a little by saying that some of the links and resources that have been added and removed simply don’t meet standards. But would you have us believe that in the entire world of the Internet, that vast on-line resource, that there are NO links, books, resources at all except those at the "official" phpBB Group web site that pass muster? None out of the millions and millions of websites? There are NO substantial links of any kind out there? I think that idea is silly.

And what of the WELL KNOWN criticisms of certain security issues and code issues associated with phpBB? Even the Internet Explorer entry has a small "criticism" section. You may say that no such valid criticism exists, but there are in fact a measurable body of people that disagree.

And besides you two or three who form the phpBB Group junta here, have made it clear that it doesn’t matter what the resource, unless it’s "officially" from the phpBB Group, it will be removed. That’s just wrong. You might as well just remove all the content here except for a link to the phpBB Group web site. The fact of the matter is that this Wikipedia entry is being maintained as a de facto extension of the phpBB Group. This type of management of a Wikipedia resource is clearly inappropriate.

I like phpBB. I have several popular boards that use it. But this type of thing at Wikipedia is just embarrassing.

-- Jake

As above, why no critisim at the vBulletin talk page, after all, they have no 'unoffical' links Edward nz 07:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not the link should be added is now only part of the issue; if you had stopped reverting the disputed change back in, discussion would have been well underway now, and we might have come to a consensus. Revert warring is not the way to solve problems. As to the lack of a criticisms section, be bold and add it! This part of the article simply has not been worked on.

And I would advise you to stop assuming bad faith with your comments that everyone who does not support the inclusion of the phpbbhacks.com link is part of a "phpBB Group junta". æle ✆ 11:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Forget phpBBhacks.com. As I said above, the issue to me is your policy of reverting ANYTHING that is not "official". This is well documented in both action and comments. Your junta would like everyone to believe that in the entire Internet, there are NO sites or other resources that are worthy of adding to the Wikipedia entry other than the phpBB Group approved content.

Prohibiting external links without discussion on the talk page stopped link spam at vBulletin, and several people agreed that it would be the best course of action. I'm simply trying to apply what I've learned there to the current situation. The problem is that you are blocking any rational discussion with your allegations that I — and the others who have reverted the inclusion of unofficial links — have affiliations with the phpBB Group, a violation of both Assume good faith and No personal attacks:

Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views - regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme. ^[1]

Lame, just lame. You know very well the question of conflict of interest is relevant. It is exactly the same issue of someone editing their own bio. The issue of phpBB Group "insiders" controlling the content of this article is very relevant to NPOV.131.30.121.23 21:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Alleging that one has affiliations when there is no evidence for these insinuations is even worse. æle ✆ 21:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

In addition, you wish to present a one-sided (phpBB Group Party Line) view that there is no need for a "criticism" section, because there are no valid issues that have bubbled to the surface over security or code issues related to phpBB, when factually this simply isn't so. It shows your bias. It prevents usfull and important information that a person contemplating the use of phpBB should be aware of. WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF?

I said "As to the lack of a criticisms section, be bold and add it!" Does this sound like "there is no need for a criticism section" to you? æle ✆ 21:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

You seem to think focusing on phpBBhacks.com will allow you to prevail in your POV that it is acceptable for the phpBB Group to have de facto control over the content of the Wikipedia entry for phpBB, but your refusal to include phpBBhacks is only the symptom of the problem that you feel phpBB Group should be able to exert editorial control over the wiki entry. This is inappropriate.

The issue is not that the link is "unofficial". I am suggesting that unofficial links should not be added without discussion on the talk page because we would have too many revert wars just like this one! And again, I am not connected with the phpBB Group. Quit your unfounded allegations. æle ✆ 21:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Edward nz asks why no "criticism" section at the vBulletin talk page. That's a good question, but is irrelevant in the discussion here, we are not talking about vBulletin, we are talking about phpBB.

I think this issue would go away if outside (outside of the "official" phpBB Group) resources where "allowed", as well as discussion of well known and widely discussed security / code base issues where briefly touched on in a short and concise "criticism" section. Hmmmm.... Just like in many many other Wikipedia entries!

To reiterate: 1) the issue is not whether or not external links are allowed, it is your refusal to assume good faith and discuss the value of having such links without making attacks on other contributors; 2) I never said that there doesn't need to be a criticism section, so quit misquoting me. æle ✆ 21:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I am suggesting that the having members of the phpBB Group exert more or less exclusive editorial control over this article is inappropriate. I know you’re trying to spin my comments into something personal, but since I don’t even know you, that’s a bit silly, eh? Let’s keep it "on topic".

The fact is, having members of the phpBB Group exerting exclusive editorial control over this article is no different than someone editing their own Wikipedia bio, and in this case the de facto policy to exclude all “unofficial” content shows clear bias and lack of NPOV.

It also short changes Wikipedia visitors who would benefit from being aware of certain issues that the phpBB Group would like people to believe do not exist (or at least minimize them), as well as providing links to well established sites with valuable resources and community. 131.30.121.23 21:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

--Jake

Edward nz didn't ask why there was no criticism section over at the vBulletin talk page. Please read what was asked, as it’s very relevant to the issue at hand.

Edward made a point that over at the vBulliten wikipedia article, the links section has been limited to official links only. There is no problem with that, as you can see on vBulliten's talk page. So why is restricting the links on the phpBB article an issue?

This discussion is not about the vBulliten article, it is about the phpBB article.131.30.121.23 19:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

So? That says nothing. The point here is that the vBulletin article is perfectly allowed to have only offical links, and yet we are not. Pray tell, how dows that work? Edward nz 22:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on, that's childish... "If everyone else jumped off a cliff, would you follow them?" It is irrelevent what they are doing with the vB article or any other. 131.30.121.23 21:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Strawman attacks don't work well in arguments. I'm asking why the vB article is perfectly allowed to only have offical links. You have not answered me this Anon 20:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not a strawman. Your agument is logical fallacy. Specifically, two wrongs don't make a right. Just because it's "allowed" in the vB article (wrong #1) doesn't make it right to "allow" it here (wrong #2). —Locke Cole • t • c 07:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you point out exactly where it says we must have external links? Even if they do break the Wikipedia guidelines on what not to link to? I realise that the objectional advertising part is subjective, however when there are 14 link units (Give or take), with at least 3 of them being graphical, most people would think that excessive. I have no problem with external links, esecially ones that add something to the phpBB community. It is just this site I have a problem with, because I don't like linking to sites that in my eye go against the Wikipedia guidelines Anon 08:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

As for the criticism section, sure you're more than welcome to add one, but do note, anything you say needs to be cited. You can't just say that phpBB is insecure without trying to cite your reasons. (Where as I could cite a few links which say that phpBB is secure, YMMV).

And indeed a counter-point to security criticism would be entirely appropriate. What is not appropriate is excluding discussion entirely. While you say NOW that I can simply add a criticism section, this has been discussed here and rejected for political reasons. You know very well any discussion of security issues would be edited into oblivion.

This was not rejected, see above. æle ✆ 21:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I predict that there will be no wording that will be acceptable to the "official" content only folks. I will write this short paragraph with as much NPOV as I can, and I will submit it. But I warn you, if there is subterfuge in an attempt to prevent known issues from being touched on, I'll request moderation again.

And, I still feel that some attempt should be made to include references to resources other than "official" phpBB Group content. I just don't understand how you can say that none exists that passes muster.

I think its pretty clear this article is maintained with a heavy heavy hand, and I think the bias is pretty clear that the phpBB Group influences the content here.67.42.85.2 06:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Much (but maybe not all) of the security issues have to do with exploits that are not directly related to phpBB itself (except in that poor design leaves open large doors). But they are relevant none-the-less as the exploits specifically targeted phpBB. But there are other issues as well, and people should have an expectation that such major issues that have well established connections to the phpBB code base would at least be briefly touched on.

What we have, instead, is a sanitized Wikipedia entry that exists exclusively by the approval of the phpBB Group junta and so by proxy the phpBB Group.131.30.121.23 19:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Finally, I would note that you'll need to sign your posts properly, using the four tides (~~~~) at the end of your posts. That is basic wikipeidia etiquette, and would make this discussion a bit easier to read. NeoThermic 17:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I've only basically read the issue. Since wikipedia is a compendium of knowledge, that is the guideline of whether a link can be added or not. Does the link extend the knowledge or not is the question. Can you find the link under an external directory. Perhaps, the correct action is to remove most of the links and just point to the external directory. If a summary can be written to why the link contains knowledge, or relavent citations, and the summary can be incorporated into the article, then it is acceptable. Otherwise, wikipedia is not a link farm, and that applies to official and non-official links. — Dzonatas 16:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is my assessment of the argument; JUNTA JUNTA JUNTA VBULLETIN JUNTA JUNTA JUNTA JUNTA. Productive, clearly. Pti 18:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

"Does the link extend the knowledge or not is the question." Links to valuable related resources should also be included. As one of the major advantages of using phpBB is the large community of users who build and provide to the rest of the community usfull mods, templates, and other add-ons, it seems natural that a link to well established repositories of these types of things would be included without much controversy.

But what we see here is such a site that the phpBB Group junta that controls this article sees as a competitor for phpBB community, and they want it to appear as if such “unofficial” content is suspect and should be avoided. In truth, they fear competition in much the same way as proprietary software makers often do. 131.30.121.23 22:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Please take some time away from endlessly whining about the phpBB junta to read Wikipedia:External_links. What should not be linked to:

External sites can possibly violate copyright. Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. Whether such a link is contributory infringement is currently being debated in the courts, but in any case, linking to a site that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on us (see Wikipedia:Copyrights and in particular Contributors' rights and obligations).

phpBBHacks violates copyrights, e.g. on the subSilver SDK.

Sites with objectionable amounts of advertising

Demonstrated admirably above.

It is possible there are sites relevant to this article which should be linked. phpBBHacks is unquestionably not one of these, and the lack of a link to it from the phpBB article is most certainly no great loss to readers.

Pti 22:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Quit the drama about the phpBB "junta". This is no basis for constructive criticism. Anyone who knows their early phpBB < 2 history well knows that I've had my criticisms of the community and their evangelism for phpBB. I have not seen that occurring in any extensive way here. Useless talk about a junta helps the entry's quality in no constructive way. If it seems that criticism keeps getting removed, as you predict, we'll check that when it happens, and wikipedia has procedures to help protect against that. The removal of one link is no evidence of such behaviour though. Can you at least wait until there's something systematically wrong before yelling 'FIRE!!!'?

Two sidenotes: 'Official links only' is (as demonstrated by Pti in his counterargument against the phpBBhacks link) not official wikipedia policy AFAIK. The reasons for the removal of the link sound like they have merit with wikipedia policy. The 'official links only' rule on the contrary would not directly be following wikipedia guidelines. Sidenote two: if you are afraid of edit wars when putting criticism in the article, why not make a draft on the talk page? Have a couple of people edit it, ask some people to provide counterarguments, and cite. Frank Quist 23:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh no! There's nothing funny going on here! It's just that over the ENTIRE Interweb there are simply NO other web resources that meet the standards to be included here! Bullshit. 04:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

And, the phpBB Group has spoken, there will be no "unofficial" links and no "critical" content in this article. 131.30.121.23 16:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Both of the statements you make are exactly the opposite of what I profess, and the poster above me also professed neither standpoint. If you do not want to be ignored (don't feed the trolls) then you could better come up with something constructive. Frank Quist 20:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm perfectly sure there are good sites that can go here. However links that break 2 of the guidelines Pti explained about are not good to link to

There has been much talk of this copyright issue. Please detail that? Are you sure it exists? What are you talking about IN SPACIFIC? Thank you... 67.42.85.2 06:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)