Talk:vBulletin

vBulletin 4 Release and Controversy

This section was deleted for the reason "Removed section: Discussion forum posts are not reliable 3rd party sources per Wiki standards. Section not written objectively. Material is granular and not relevant to article". -- CellarDoor2001

I have undone the removal. CellarDoor2001 works for InternetBrands [[1]] [[2]] [[3]]. Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view and should not act as a press release.

The section in question is a historical timeline with 14 references to verifiable announcements at vBulletin.com. Please refer to all the other references in the vBulletin article. They are all forum links to vBulletin.com. If forum posts are not usable, then the entire vBulletin article should be deleted.

If you feel that the material is too granular, I suggest cleanup. Release history with dates and published strategies are not only relevant but prevalent on software articles throughout Wikipedia. Examples Mac OS X Windows

This article was extremely out of date, containing speculative rumors about vBulletin 4 under the "future development" section. If a section needs work, I suggest improving rather than deleting. Feldon23 (talk) 14:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

This article has long suffered from being treated as a marketing entry to vBulletin both from fans of vBulletin and official employees as well, pre-acquisition by InternetBrands and after. There's much to be written about vBulletin, especially from a historical point of view that will unleash one of the most interesting stories of an Internet early pioneering product and company, for the greater good of knowledge and accurate, unbiased facts and information. SimsimTee 00:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SimsimTee (talk • contribs)

I actually signed the comment, the software might be buggy since I'm using both the new Beta Wikipedia and Firefox 3.6. SimsimTee 00:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This section discusses 'showstopper' bugs repeatedly. I followed the citations into the vbulletin forums and don't see any 'showstopper' information. Suggest updating the references to verified discussions of active showstoppers in the product--or at the point of time discussed in the timeline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.205.104 (talk) 22:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I pulled out the comments about this part: "The latest version of vBulletin has come under scrutiny for editing double-spaced sentences down to one space. This is likely done to save bandwidth, but is still a practice in terrible, improper English." This is not a factual statement. In fact, it has been a long practice in HTML not to observe every space unless a non-breakable space is inserted, due to the way pages are coded. Also, the phrase "terrible, improper English" is not at all unbiased or in keeping with Wiki rules. musicalmeg20 (talk) 01:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Link Spam - Ads

I removed the section where it lists a few sites using vBulletin boards. That is just a spam, a way to get a link to their sites from the Wikipeida. vBulletin has a list of sites using their product on their webpage. I replaced the links with a message to see vBulletin's homepage.

Wikipeida isn't a place for you to get a link to your website.

99.4.107.109 (talk) 07:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)eric

They are internal links on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.246.237 (talk) 06:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Notable Websites That Use vBulletin

A bit of an edit war has begun about how many websites should be listed in this section. One editor (who ironically has added a site to the list) is of the view that the list should be short, stating that a long list serves no purpose. The original editor (me) is of the view that a longer list is acceptable, especially if the list is comprised of noteworthy sites, such as those that already have wikiepdia pages. This convention of noteworthiness (rather than length of list) seems to be the standard in other parts of Wikipedia, such as lists of notable alumni from universities. If and when a list becomes too long, it is typically moved to its own page. My proposal is for the same treatment here: don't create some arbitrary length limit (apparently chosen by one editor), but let the list grow organically (or not) and create a new page later if necessary. LoveWikis (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming you are talking about me? Just for the record, at what point in my removal of many of the sites did I ever add a site? I think you are talking about 72.213.153.80 which was an anonymous edit. The first time I removed most of the sites. The second time I removed most but kept the ones who had the most. I also removed the ones with only an external link. Lists growing organically or not, in the end this is in fact a pointless list. To show the noteworthiness of the forum software itself, only a hand full are needed. If you feel like making a bigger list to showcase the sites that do use the software, then I would propose making the list a separate article right away and link it at the bottom in "See also", so that it can grow organically from there. Havok (T/C/e/c) 19:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It all goes back to this, seems useless and will only start another war. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:VBulletin#External_Links_Restored --76.190.187.91 (talk) 07:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say no list should be made. The fact is that its advertising regardless of how many hits or visitors they have. What you'd be saying is: "Ok, well, who cares about everyone that spent the $180 to buy this software, we'll just focus on the most popular ones." 207.7.162.118 (talk) 01:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I still think vbulletin-faq.com vbulletinsetup.com and vbhackers.com should be listed. They are vbulletin support sites, we're not asking to be listed to advertise, we are asking to be listed for those looking for vbulletin help outside the corporate sites -Brandon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.201.162.178 (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I see we don't even have the dmoz links anymore? what's up with that? do you think vb.com and vb.org are the only places to get support for vbulletin? This article has turned into a huge joke..

Personally, I fail to see any correlation between availability of support and suitability for inclusion in the article. Offering support for vBulletin does not mean a site is relevant to this article. At the end of the day, this article is not a user manual or a support guide.

Allowing one site on the grounds that it offers support means we cannot justify denying any other website which also does the same, as that would be a double standard. Inevitably we'd just get into the same mess this article caused mid-2006 - a soap opera which would achieve nothing except make us all look bad.

In my opinion, we're fine with the main website, vBulletin.org, and the DMOZ link. Encyclopedic value should be the criteria for any further additions, because there's no other fair method of keeping the external links list at a reasonable size. Mikouen (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Would the inclusion of vBSolutions approved third-party forums and or websites be allowed to be listed on the vBulletin Wikipedia page? Swipher (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Why in the world is "skyskrapercity" listed as an example of a vbulletin site, why not just use vbulletin.com or for that fact, any of the 1,000's of sites using vbulletin, what made this one so special? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.201.94.98 (talk) 20:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Brasil

In Wiki brasil don't have this article.

I'm KnuxD ! 201.92.159.88 (talk) 11:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Vbulletin 5 Connect release

Connect section added. More to follow as the product develops. I have left blank fieds in the table to be filled in, please do not remove.

Franke 1 (talk) 13:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on VBulletin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130303004433/http://gracelaw.com/NewsXF.html to http://gracelaw.com/NewsXF.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

2020 flaw

Steve Gibson of Security Now has a story of a (irresponsibly revealed) zero-day vulnerability in August 2020. That is in episode 779, 2020-08-11. Direct MP3 link.

To be covered?

--Mortense (talk) 09:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

A Cold Contextless Recitation of Minimal Facts

All meaningful information has been removed. All context, impact on the forum industry, and historical significance have been completely stripped away. This article might as well be deleted if it is going to remain in its current state.Feldon23 (talk) 16:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV and WP:NOR - MrOllie (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

80% of the article has been removed. Sourced information over a span of a decade. NPOV and NOR is WP editor code for "I'll delete anything I feel like." Feldon23 (talk) 01:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Merge discussion

As 80% of the content of the page has been removed, it is now essentially a stub. If it will continue this way, it should be merged with Comparison of Internet forum software.Feldon23 (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Comparison of Internet forum software is a list of things that have stand alone articles. If we turn this article into a redirect it would fail the comparison's inclusion criteria and would be removed from there. There's nothing wrong with short articles. - MrOllie (talk) 19:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

On 10 October 2018, User:Cornellier took it upon themselves to remove 21,313 characters from an exhaustively sourced and researched 25,000 character page without any explanation or justification on this Talk page other than an edit reason of "per flag rm primary sources". Removing 85% of a relatively static page on Wikipedia without any explanation or Talk entry is chaotic, destructive and violates the Wikipedia:Content removal policy and possibly Wikipedia:Overzealous_deletion ("When in doubt, don't delete" and "Improve not Remove"). The vast majority of the removed content was related to lawsuits and facts that reflect poorly on the company. How does the reader know that these changes have been made from purely WP:NPOV editorial viewpoint and not for the benefit of parent company Internet Brands? One of their employees User:CellarDoor2001 was repeatedly caught making whitewashing edits to this article and was eventually permanently banned from Wikipedia. These wholesale deletions seem highly suspicious and I believe you've waded into something you don't understand without any background into why the article contained what it did.Feldon23 (talk) 02:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

How does any of that mean the article should be merged? Also, are you suggesting that Cornellier has some kind of ulterior motive? You're casting aspersions about someone who has been working on Wikipedia for more than a decade. - MrOllie (talk) 02:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

At this point, the vBulletin page serves no purpose. The remaining dregs of information could just as easily be a single row in a table in the List of Forum Software article along with a paragraph summary and nothing would be lost. By the way, cherry picking 1 thing I said and ignoring the rest does not in any way answer my concerns about 2 Wikipedia policies being violated. If your goal here is to make Wikipedia look like an insular private club with editors answerable to no-one who can just do whatever they please, then you're doing a great job.Feldon23 (talk) 05:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not here to evaluate your attacks on other editors, there are other forums for that. I was just trying to determine if this is a serious merge proposal or a WP:POINT issue. - MrOllie (talk) 12:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Bring Back Removed Content

This article used to actually be useful for understanding the history and milestones of vBulletin. Since someone gutted the article, it now contains nothing of worth. Can we get some kind of agreement to bring back the removed items? If there are items that do not belong due to various reasons, such as not sourced, etc., they can be then removed one at a time with an entry in this Talk section explaining why. The fact that most of the article was removed with zero explanation is suspicious and not in the keeping with Wikipedia group editing ideals. I feel zero responsibility to respect the removal of most of an article with no explanation. Fanra (talk) 22:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)