Talk:PhpBB/Archive 1

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.

The features listed are the expected by the users or are been confirmed?

I believe the majority of the listed features have already been implemented. Be sure to check out [1] and [2]. GPHemsley→◊ 02:52, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Is is appropriate to list other internet forum software in this article? The

I don't think it is necessary to list other forum software. This article is about phpBB, and the description of Internet forum links to the generic article about forum software. That is where the list is and should stay. GPHemsley 02:05, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

It's optimise, not optimize. Pit will have a fit if you change it again...

Wikipedia uses both British and American English spelling. Policy is to use whichever is used first in the article (ie that of the article creator). --Rory ☺ 13:23, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

Alright, forget it.... I plan on rewriting the "Future" section anyway. After that, we'll be using American English spelling throughout the entire article. I'm sure Pit knows and will follow the rules. GPHemsley 13:58, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Pit will be perfectly happy to rewrite the entire damn article as an excuse to spell it right, thanks.

phpBB is led by British teams, which makes a case for en_GB. [

“”

23:30, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC) ]

And as mentioned policy is to use author's version of english for spelling; I am the author and my version of english is en_GB :) Pti

Today (December 12, 2004) theres been a pretty big and widespread attack on those still running old 2.0 versions, mainly 2.06 and 2.08. Is it worth mentioning this, as it has taken huge amounts of sites offline. Kiand 08:43, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I haven't really seen many other articles announce things like that. It's like talking about a larger scale phishing attack in the Internet Explorer or Firefox articles. Then again, maybe it should be here. I'm mainly editing this to remove the double heading :P. -[Unknown] 09:57, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps just a link to an article on Santy would be more appropriate.

I don't think that it should be listed as the way it was. You don't see the microsoft article full of links to secuirty holes, and I don't expect it to be on this article. I've edited it as that, and that is my explination.

Restored. How can there be security holes in Microsoft? It's a software company. The

Mozilla Firefox discusses problems with Firefox. The Santy article was fine - that's another issue. As long as the page on Santy is valid, so is a link from phpBB. Khlo

19:35, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

While it is granted there are more spyware apps out there than pages for them, you only need to look towards Spyware: Known Spyware to see that many of them have a page here. Even if you still think its relevent, then my last line still stands, which is it needs explaining. A random link to a page under see also that doesn't seem to relate to the page shouldn't be there IMO.

Stream of conciousness..Arguments for adding a Santy reference:

* It's a worm that is often referred to in relation to phpBB, so obviously many consider it to be relevant knowledge. Wikipedia's goal is to aggegrate knowledge, and since Santy is so obviously related to phpBB and is a definite and non-trivial part of its history it deserves a mention.

* Removing the Santy link from this entry effectively makes Santy an orphan. If it's not linked here, maybe at least make a category with phpBB related entries or something of the sort?

* Just like it deserves a mention in the Internet Explorer entry that many users perceive IE as unsafe because of spyware, Santy deserves a mention here. You have to present the _entire_ picture.

* By removing the Santy link the Santy article is effectively orphaned

* If you have so many paragraphs talking about the phpBB features, is including one paragraph about past problems with phpBB not fair?

Disclaimer: I've got a long history of being critical of phpBB and some people may remember that. Frank Quist

Mentioning Santy shouldn't be a problem, but alluding to all the "security holes" would be unfair unless it was also qualified with several facts, such as the fact that over the time phpBB 2.0.x has been released, it has averaged less security updates than either IPB or vBull, and that any security problems are magnified due to the fact that phpBB is used on a much higher scale, often by much less qualified administrators, because of its price and ease of use. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 16:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Seems quite fair. Only thing I'd say is that less security updates does not necessarrily imply less security holes. I am not saying that this is the cause of the lack of security updates for phpBB, it might very well be more secure (I cannot say). It just isn't neccessarily a causal relation. It's probably hard to qualify these things in the article. Frank Quist 17:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

It can be objectively verified that phpBB 2.0's templating system is easy to use. It requires no coding knowledge and seperates the logic from the formatting in a more complete way than other systems, as a templating system by definition should. It has an extremely simple syntax (There are two concepts: variables and looping blocks. Variables are {namedlikeso}, blocks have a < !-- BEGIN blockname -- > and an < !-- END blockname -- >, and their variables are {blockname.namedlikeso}). If you have objective evidence that suggests the phpBB templating system is not easy to use, I would like to see it. If you do not, please stop removing things that are only 'opinion' in your own opinion.

Evidence: My grandma would go nuts if you told her that was "easy". POV. Come on, it's like me saying it's "great" or "easy" or "fun"... all POV words. -[Unknown] 04:44, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

But, if you *MUST* you might say "simple to use". That's a lot less POVy :P. -[Unknown] 04:45, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

The context is obvious ;) If we are talking about your grandma, we must also remove the rapid customisation (can't type too fast, I expect). And perhaps the statement about it being popular; sure, it is one of the top projects on sourceforge, but your grandma won't like it ;) Was the first release fully functional? No, it didn't have a feature for playing bridge! Is the support free? No, young man, don't you know there's no such thing as a free lunch?!

Obviously you have no experience with the "grandma argument". Please read the article on NPOV. This is not about context, this is about opinion. you may consider it easy to use, but others may not. In comparison, YaBB's template system is much easier to use. But that's still an opinion. Here's a good example of an NPOV edit for you. -[Unknown] 12:32, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

The grandma argument is always about context; the context being "everyone in the whole world", when the grandma argument applies. The context applicable to this is "people proficient in the use of a computer". Thankyou for bringing the extremely POV YaBB article to my attention, however.

It's a POV. To state as fact it is easy to use is clearly not NPOV. I've tried to make the article more NPOV. It reflects the views of some phpBB advocates but doesn't present it as fact. The easy to use and rapid customization is listed as what the template system is supposed to be. If you have any problems of that, continue the discussion here. Khlo 19:37, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This compromise is acceptable to me. I dispute your other edits.

I have removed the statement about it may be the most i18n bbs. How do you fine something as internationalized? IPB has at least 33 language packs, with many different versions and languages over many sites. Yet IPB has possibly 1 if you only consider the official site. There is no way to check these figures are correct, it is a presumption. Additionally, it does not sound very NPOV and sounds more like advertising than encyclopaedic material. The aim is not to sell phpBB but to inform the end user about phpBB. I use phpBB myself and like it; regardless, there is still no way to verify these statistics. As an aside, I personally do not think there should be a comma after "with modification" but I shall leave that as it is disputed. Khlo 15:42, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Translations available means what it sounds like; the number of locales available for the software, by any means. The figures can be checked on the sourceforge download page, where there are now 55 locales available. I have checked the number of language packs available for IPB, Phorum, vBulletin and SMF; none of these have 55 or more locales available. I am readding it, and when something is disputed I do not believe you should take action before it has been settled on the talk page. Pti

It seems a bit odd that it has been marked as 'incomplete'. Its not supposed to be complete in the sense that it lists only those who were on the team up to a point. Also, one must consider that a few of the older team members who left just disappeared, and have had no further contact with the rest of the team. AFAICS, its POV to say its 'incomplete', thus I'm removing it for that reason. I would be intrested for further discussion over this by the person who edited it though, as their reason might hold. NeoThermic 19:51, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the "incomplete" text once again. As per NeoThermic, as it is now _is_ "complete." It's the way it's supposed to be. Some "previous" team members are not on the contributers list for a reason, once again, as it should be. If someone is going to add it back, please, please, add your comments here and we can discuss it rationally before deciding on a final solution. AdamR 20:09, 20 April 2005 (UTC)

Hello 217.207.125.60, I've removed the link to the 'phpBB Book' because it is unoffical. If you feel the need to have this link there, please state your reasons here. Thanks, NeoThermic 04:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

The page was reverted from the last set of edits done by Talrias for the following reasons:

• 1) Wikipedia is international. The wikicities link, although in Dutch, is still a valid link.
• 2) phpBBhacks.com is not an offical site of phpBB and thus should not be linked from its article.
• 3) The links in the 'Links' section are chosen for information, not to link spam. Thus it is kindly appreciated if they were left alone.

If you have any comments on my reasons, please add them here before mindlessly editing out things you see as not fit for the article.

NeoThermic 22:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Answer to 1 - this is the ENGLISH wikipedia. Put the link to Wikicites on the nl: wikipedia; I'm taking it out. --Kiand 22:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hiya NeoThermic, as mentioned above by Kiand, I removed the Dutch Wikicities link as this is the English Wikipedia, and the Wikicities site is in Dutch. I also did not add the phpBBhacks.com link, it was added by 69.24.171.136 (talk · contribs). Bear in mind that links to "non-official" websites are not prohibited (I have no opinion on whether it should be included or not, just your rationale for removing it is invalid). With regards to your third point, each of these links is clearly accessible and linked to from phpbb.com's front page, and if not it's a second click away. Since phpbb.com's website is clearly-designed, having excessive links is not really necessary. I left what I thought were the key ones (the main site, the support part, the test development site and the page on Sourceforge), and removed the others. While a map of the phpBB team's locations is interesting, it's not a useful follow-on link from an encyclopedia, for example.

Take a look at the

manual of style concerning external links, where it says "Wikipedia is not a link collection [...]". The external links section of phpBB

was a significant percentage of the article, before my edits. I have restored my edits as I believe that the multitude of external links, all to the same website, where they are all 1 (in most cases) or 2 clicks away, is not that useful.

Also, please do not claim other editors are "mindlessly editing". Please assume good faith. Cheers, Talrias (t | e | c) 00:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I never said that you added the phpBBhacks.com link, my wording was slightly unclear over that. However, this link has been removed before (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PhpBB&diff=6862281&oldid=6696857 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PhpBB&diff=4255713&oldid=4254423 as examples). You also link to the assume good faith, yet you were rather hasty on reverting my reverting without continuing the discussion, which I feel is of bad faith. Now, if someone is considering using phpBB, what happens if they want to just have a gander at what styles or modifications phpBB has? A link on the wiki page directly to the styles/mods database can be a usefull thing for those wanting to look.

The dutch wikicities link I was wrong on apprently, and for that I am sorry. NeoThermic

It's not a problem - I am sorry I reverted. With regards to the phpBBhacks.com link removal precedent, I do note that the people removing it are phpBB team members saying "no unofficial external links" so again I don't really feel that you have valid reasoning for removing it. I'm not going to put it back if you remove it, since I haven't visited the site to see what it's like, but I disagree with the logic that it should not be there because it is an 'unofficial' link. For the styles/mods, it is clearly and prominently linked to from www.phpbb.com. I just don't think it's necessary to add all these links in. phpBB.com has a nice site, the different website sections are prominent, and if links to every section are added the links section will be the same size as rest of the article. I would not like to see that happening. Talrias (t | e | c) 08:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

With regards to the phpBBhacks.com link removal precedent, I do note that the people removing it are phpBB team members saying "no unofficial external links"

Actually excluding when I removed the link, no phpBB team member has done so. GPHemsley has never been a phpBB team member, and 80.4.224.4 isn't an IP of a phpBB team member. NeoThermic 10:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Regardless, removing the link because it is unofficial is not a valid reason. Talrias (t | e | c) 10:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I note plenty of pages (Ford, Microsoft) link to "non-official" sites related to them, so I've added phpbbhacks.com back in. It is also widely considered the largest non-official phpBB related mod community and I see no reason why articles should be limited to "official" links. Wikipedia is NOT an advertising medium for only "officially sanctioned" material. 203.173.59.111 09:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

First, please always sign your commens using four tides (~~~~). Secondly, you must remember NPOV. Saying that phpbbhacks.com is considerd the largest non-offical phpBB related mod community is pure POV. Thirdly, Wikipedia is NOT for advertising something with an invested commercial interest, which phpbbhacks.com has. NeoThermic 08:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

If you refute that phpbbhacks isn't the largest non-official phpBB modding community, please point out a larger one. Given that's not your reason for removing the link completely though, I'd like to know what phpbbhacks.com invested commercial interest is and why that's a problem. So far, this is the first time I've seen it mentioned as a reason for the link's lack of inclusion.

I believe you're referring to point 1 in "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files" re: WP:NOT (in your edit comment). Given phpBB is open source and (to my knowledge) encourages mods and editing, why would the mention of a very well-known site related to that, not be acceptable in the external links section? 203.173.59.111 09:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to point out a larger non-official phpBB modding community; that is not the way NPOV works. Just because something can't be disproved, doesn't mean its true, and definatly donesn't mean that its of a NPOV.

Of course phpBB encourages modding and editing, which is why all modifications on phpBB.com are validated, something that isn't done on phpbbhacks, and the last thing anyone wants in an article is a link to a site which can contain insecure modifications. On top of that, many people from the MOD Team at phpBB.com have submitted modifications to phpbbhacks.com only to have them edited without reason or warning before being published. Finally phpbbhacks.com isn't properly updated as one would hope. It took them a week from the release of 2.0.18 to notice and announce 2.0.18 on their site. Such a delay isn't acceptable in general standerds, why should such a site be linked from the wikipeida article?

You can also go one stage further. Fan sites of any measure normally link back to the site of which they support. Visit the phpbbhacks.com homepage. Your challenge is to find a link that points back to phpBB.com (I'll give you a hint, there's none). This is a site that is designed to take away all attention from phpBB.com, right down to re-posting any important announcements that phpBB makes into its own forum. If you didn't know phpBB.com was the offical site, it would be impossible to find that out from phpbbhacks.com

The invested commericial intrest at phpbbhacks is from its advertisments; it is also receiving direct pay from the pakt book about phpBB, of which phpBB.com wasn't involved in. Finally it hosts sites, of which it does for money. If that isn't a clear commerical intrest, then I don't know what is...

There are better sites to link to if we must insist on a third party link. While they may not be as large as you seem to think phpbbhacks.com is, they are frequently updated, actually bother about the content of which they have on their site and actually show that they support phpBB (by links back to it in various formats)

I can provide various proofs of the above claims if you so wish, but the point remains that phpbbhacks.com isn't a site that anyone would like to see linked on phpBB's wiki page. NeoThermic 10:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I just checked the phpbbhacks.com website. Their latest announcement which is linked to from their main page, apologises for the delay in posting AND links back to phpbb.com. In fact, each news post taken from phpbb.com includes an acknowledgement of phpbb.com via a link back. There doesn't appear to be any malicious intent to harm phpbb in that regard or take away from phpBB itself.

I'd also think you'd have to be fairly daft not to realise that phpbbhacks aren't the creators of phpbb. They make no such claim. Sure, they certainly don't go out of there way to link back to phpbb but what's the need to? One would expect that in order to find phpbb "hacks" one would know about phpBB in the first instance. Phpbbhacks are focussed on hacks for phpbb - not for supporting the core phpbb product. In fact the disclaimer at the bototm of their page states "We are in no way affiliated with the phpBB Group. phpBB is copyright to the phpBB Group". If phpBB want more links to them from the site, that is an issue between phpBB and phpbbhacks - not WikiPedia and whether or not the site should be mentioned in an article on phpBB.

Regarding the security of hacks, are you guaranteeing that all mods validated by phpBB are completely secure and contain absolutely no code vulnerabilities? If you are, I'd question your ability to provide such a guarantee and would even go so far as to call it misleading and possibly deceptive.

I'll accept that calling them the largest is a point of view (despite them being a large site and having more phpBB hacks than I can find anywhere else). However, that does not take away that the site does offer a large number of hacks and is well-known by people who use phpBB as a great source for hacks - and support for those hacks.

True, they're obviously making money out of it but that doesn't take away the fact that they are still a good resource for phpBB hacks and that all those hacks are downloadable for free. I don't see the harm in that. Not every web-site is offered (or can arrange) free hosting like (as I understand it) phpBB itself is. One would expect an awful lot of downloads to suck some pretty bad bandwidth - something which has to be paid for. Unless of course, you have access to their financial records and are willing to prove that someone is "lining their pockets" with millions of dollars and that phpbbhacks is nothing more than a sham. Even so, are all commercial enterprises to be disallowed links in WikiPedia then?

As for the book, I see it as no different then those "for dummies" books making money off of other people's products. After all, if phpBB wanted to write a book, they could've done so. I don't understand why phpBB are against something which promotes their product. Is it only because they're not getting money out of it themselves? If that's the case, they shouldn't be making software licensed under the GNU which clearly allows for that.

Regardless of whether they're making money out of it to support their bandwidth costs, or whether they don't link to phpBB enough, the fact still remains that they offer a large active community that supports hacked phpBB boards. More to the point, they offer mods and support for those mods that often, phpBB does not provide support for itself. Again, they are a well known link and while the developers of phpBB may not like it, users of phpBB who need the hacks provided are thankful for them and the support, and would like to see that reflected in the article here. 203.173.59.111 11:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

phpBB's hosting isn't free, it gets paied for like any other site normally has to do.

As for phpbbhack's delay, there is no excuse for putting users at risk. If you support a product by means of a fan page, it is part of your duty to keep it updated when your product you support is updated. A day late, sure, thats a mistake, but a week is 7 mistakes too many.

As for what validation will gaurentee: First, it gives approval that the code for the modification will work in the version of phpBB of which its validated against (normally this will always be the latest avalable at the time of validation). It also means that the secuirty of the mod is checked. While not everyone is perfect, validation on phpBB.com is done by two people, and things can and will get spotted. Hell, the phpBB group have gone out of their way to help mod authors secure their code in terms of alerting them to secuirty issues in code that isn't even submitted to the database yet. The phpBB group will also pull any mods that have secuirty holes found. I do not see any evidence of validation taking place on phpbbhacks.com

As for the reasons why the phpBB group are in some ways against the book is because they were not consulted over the book. Hell, rather than ask the phpBB founder to forward the book, they asked the founder of phpbbhacks.com to do so. For a book that wants to be a resource for phpBB, thats a rather large slap in the face.

phpBB.com has support for modifications. To say otherwise is severly deluded. The team members of phpBB.com may not give support for mods that are not their own, but that should strike you as obvious in the sense that they can't support code that they don't know enough about. Thus mod support is done by the mod author(s) and others who like to give support for modifications they use.

There are other reasons why, such as blatent abuse of copyright 1 (in this example, offering files which are under a no-redistribution license (the PSD files are not GPL)). Also, their mod template 2 states: This hack is released under the GPL License. but on the next line states: This hack can be freely used, but not distributed, without permission. As you're well aware, any work released under the GPL doesn't have limits on distribution. This is illegal. There is no excuse for it.

A article on, say, bittorrent technology isn't going to be allowed to link to a site that offers illegal downloads, so why should this page be any diffrent? NeoThermic 12:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Your statement regarding BitTorrent linking to warez sites is funny. I just ran a search for Civilization IV on several of the site's linked from the BitTorrent article. Surprisingly, I got results: "Civilization.IV-CLONECD", "Civilization IV [PC - DVD]". One site The Pirate Bay which I found links to seemingly illegal software on, also has a wiki article. :P

While I don't support warez, to make the claim that phpbbhacks.com is full of illegal files I think is going too far. Regarding your example of a "blatant abuse" of copyright in the one file you linked, those files are apparently "Re-creations of the original image files" (IE: not the original image files themselves). The license.txt file that comes with the package states "You may not re-distribute this package in any way, shape or form without prior agreement from phpBB Group (this includes linking directly to the package on this site)." - Are you saying they didn't get permission to re-distribute these files? Why though, is that an issue for WikiPedia? It is an issue between the phpBB Group and phpbbhacks.com and again, doesn't take away from the reality that phpbbhacks.com is a well-known and popular site for phpBB modifications.

The concerns regarding security are flawed. To suggest a site doesn't deserve a link because for some reason, the site was "too slow" in announcing a security update, is absurd. One could equally argue that we should remove all links to phpbb.com itself because they at times have been accused of failing to provide sufficiently fast updates on security holes discovered in phpBB. Are you really, quite seriously advocating that links provided to well-regarded resources in WikiPedia should be removed if they don't provide updates fast enough? Perhaps those links to Microsoft.com and Microsoft Update in the Microsoft article should be questioned...

If the phpBB Group feel the book is a slap in the face, that too is an issue between phpBB and phpbbhacks.com (though it raises the question of why authors of a book don't want to talk to the "creators" of the product). Just because you feel that way is no excuse to remove a link to a valuable resource. I feel you're letting your own ego get in the way. In fact, all the issues you've raised so far amount to nothing more than what appears to be a petty squabble between the phpBB Group and phpbbhacks.com - In fact, I tried searching to find out why someone might be so against phpbbhacks.com and came up with this. In there is mention that removing links to phpbbhacks.com is official phpBB Group policy (or at least, was at some stage) and it hints that there's much more at play - given you're on the phpBB Group, I begin to wonder about your motives. I'm sure there's a wiki article in that somewhere. 203.173.59.111 20:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC) (I guess I should create an account here one day).

I really don't think you understand law here. The Pirate Bay's servers are located in Sweden, which has very reduced copyright laws (to the point where most don't apply). While it is morally wrong for The Pirate Bay to offer "illegal" downloads, due to the location of the servers (and those who run it), it isn't illegal under its local laws. However, phpbbhacks.com's servers are located in the USA, of whic copyright very much applies. A quick check doesn't turn up any requests from Daz to redistrbute the subSilver SDK, and even if there was, that still doesn't discount the fact that phpbbhacks's illegal mod template.

You can also check the history of the PhpBB page; admins have reverted the addition of links, of which phpbbhacks.com was one of the added links. As that shows, even if you seem to have this wonderfull fascination with phpbbhacks, everyone else doesn't.

I've provided solid arguments here agains the inclusion of the link, and all you have done to each of my arguments is shrugged them off with comments such as I begin to wonder about your motives. Well, I question yours. Face up to the facts (i.e. the things that I've proved) that this isn't a good link to include, or counter with Fact. Until then the link does not get added to the pages reguardless of how you think it should. NeoThermic 08:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's all be nice everyone! Maybe it would be a good idea to get some third-party opinions on this issue. Talrias (t | e | c) 11:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I have checked the history of the phBB page. That's why there's so much talk in here about this darned link. Going back through the history of the page I see several occasions where people have added the link in - all of which is then undone later with a revert and the erroneous reason of "removing unofficial links" (though Pti makes one revert with the comment "wiki is not a link repository"). This is the first time you've come up with any reasons beyond that.

Regarding facts, a google search on "phpbb" brings up phpbbhacks.com as the second link. A search for "phpBB mods" also brings it up second (NOTE: I would've added the www.phpbbstyles.com link a while ago too, given that also is a popular phpBB site - if it weren't for this discussion). I know wikipedia is not a link repository. However, these sites are popular going by their forum users online, google's page rank, how many other sites link them and most importantly, how often they're linked to or referred to when someone is after help for phpBB. Popularity is the reason

SlashDot

gets an article, while my hokey web-sites don't.

To be honest, since when did the phpBB Group get to decide what should and shouldn't be linked in a Wikipedia article? As I said previously, your "solid arguments" don't hold much water. 1. Unofficial (more to the point, not approved by the phpBB Group); 2. Not updated quickly enough (in your opinion); 3. Potentially vulnerable code (again, in your opinion); 4. The fact they may be profiting from it (which you haven't provided any evidence of and even if they are, is that not allowed now?); Those are not "solid" arguments. Your only remaining argument is 5. Content which you claim is illegal.

An interesting point to make regarding illegal content is that not even the talk on the BitTorrent page has been able to come to a conclusion on that one. If they are violating your copyright, then as I stated, that is an issue which the phpBB Group need to resolve with phpbbhacks.com - not with Wikipedia. After all, are you really saying you'd quite happliy allow the phpbbhacks.com link back in if their servers were in Sweden? So the "fact" remains that phpbbhacks.com is a well-known site and that most people in the phpBB community are aware of it.

One would think an article about phpBB might have something more than a barren wasteland of external links, given how popular the software is and the number of people looking for hacks, styles and other resources beyond those provided by phpBB.com. I mean hell, the article on BitTorrent has more External Links then you can poke a stick at, yet this article doesn't even get one lousy link in support of the phpBB community beyond phpBB.com itself. Even the article on vBulletin has links to support beyond the official vBulletin web-site, many of those (if the footer text is to be believed) not affiliated with JelSoft - IE: Unofficial.

Edit: Talrius snuck in before I posted. I guess that's what you get for leaving your PC. Yes, another opinion would be good. 203.173.59.111 12:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The link should not describe the site as the largest unofficial modding site, because that is POV, but reverting the link because it's either "unofficial" or has "an invested commercial interest" isn't WP policy at all. (Which, by the way, is suspect in my mind - phpbbhacks.com may be owned by a commercial entity, but just because it has advertising doesn't make its purpose solely commercial - phpBB.com has numerous advertisements, but it's not "an invested commercial interest".) The link should stay because it's a good resource. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 09:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, all advertisments on phpBB.com go back into phpBB.com; it pays for the hosting, bandwidth, new server equiptment. None of it lines anyones' pockets in the slightest, not even by a penny. While phpbbhacks is 'a' resource, I wouldn't go as far to say its a good resource because that is POV again. I've outlined a general reason for not having the link above in responce to 203.173.59.111 NeoThermic 10:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)