Talk:Drupal/Archives/2008/December

This article is in horrible shape

I just read the article and it really needs work. Half of it is original research, and a lot of the references are unreliable sources. I removed a couple of those sources and some irrelevant information, but this article needs a lot of cleanup. Speaking of irrelevant information, half of this article explains Drupal's features. "Modules" and "themes" don't need to take up most of the article, merely mentioning that Drupal is extensible should be enough. I'll probably work on this article some more later. If anyone wants to help me, that would be great. — ^FatalError 06:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I am responding to the RFC. The Drupal article needs work but its authors seem to be well-intentioned. At times, it reads like an advert. I know a little about Drupal but not much. In reading the article (and the talk page), I got lost in the technical jargon on several occasions. I would be happy to work with a more experienced editor to try to clean up the article from a neutral point of view.--MickPurcell (talk) 13:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above statement. I know a lot about Drupal, and that doesnt mean I love reading techno jargon. Anyone would be detered from going ahead and installing Drupal and installing it on their servers. There is no basic mention of Drupals content management system. The authors go on and on about procedural and object oriented programming, or Drupals lack of it. I think a more generalised approach has to be taken, and readers should be provided more details of what Drupal is and what it does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shashankrlz (talk • contribs) 02:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It has been discussed previously, but I do not think a "procedural vs. object oriented" discussion is appropriate for a general purpose encyclopedic entry. While it may be an interesting (?) observation, it reveals a clear POV on the subject of computer languages. The entry does also not provide any context (is OO common in CMSs?) that would be of use to the casual reader. I will leave this here for discussion, and providing no one objects with good cause, I'm going to be BOLD and remove that criticism as POV and generally vague and unhelpful. --Replysixty (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

RFC

After spending some time looking through all the edits, I think most of what Novasource is adding has a strong POV, and the sources that are referenced are not what I consider notable source. The entire Criticism section suffers from having no real sources, I couldn't find to much myself in a quick search, but any good source that can be found criticizing Drupal would be great. If Novasource can write a NPOV criticism backed up by sources, then that has every right to stay in the article, but I don't think that has happened, and what Replysixty is trying to keep in the article is more accurate than Novasource's additions. Replysixty's replies to your substantiations seem reasonable. Boccobrock•T 21:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)