Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NodeBB

Battle rages on. I've mostly given up trying to make a case for nodeBB as someone points out arbitrary rules or guidelines that fit their PoV and few of the participants fathom how modern software evolves. Perhaps they are right and nodeBB should get more coverage before it can get an article, but I'm going to suggest deletion of that horrid comparison article either way. I never look up software on WP, but the stuff that's there should be less misleading.

I started making an argument for nodeBB based on the various rules and guidelines but after reading the fifth wall of text I simply gave up. As the WP user 69.204.153.39 points out, the guidelines and whatnot are fairly bad. The others do have a point in that this is not the place to discuss changing the rules.

I can't help feeling that this is a catch 22. There are really no major blogs or sites dedicated to forums and the likes to use as a source. I searched for just that a month ago. Forums are probably regarded as outdated in the modern web but there are a lot of them out there. It seems strange that everything web is being modernised, but for forums people are happy to go with good'ol LAMP. phpBB3 is fairly new but it looks and feels like something ten years old.

Ah, well. Fun while it lasted. I hope you guys can get som good coverage and keep on fighting for the good cause. It's worth it.

(Apologies in advance as my first post here is about such a boring topic as Tapatalk. And the semi necro)

@tfraley touches the main problem; It's not that nodeBB doesn't work for your users or isn't better than TT - the users expect TT to work. They have used it for years as their goto app on mobile devices. Some might buy the claim that nodeBB works better natively, but quite a few are creatures of habit. Change is hard and some of us are looking to radically change the forum experience, which can be all the change users can handle at the time.

I'm looking to move from a boring but stable phpBB forum to something newer. In my search for a platform I stumbled upon nodeBB. I have to give you guys credit - this leaps and bounds ahead of all the boring PHP-based forums I have looked at. I'm still restricted by what users expect. I'm not sure I can sell missing TT support simply because it is an expected service right now.

In other words, the problem isn't technical, it's user expectance/experience. Users that don't agree that the latest and greatest is necessarily the best user experience.

@Danny-McWilliams said:

I know PHP has its flaws, as does SQL (hence non-sql databases have long been gaining in popularity) and I'm sure NodeJS probably does too (I'm no expert on it), but his opinion lacks any objective comparison. It's worth taking time to read opinion on the matter but you won't ever satisfy this guy if you make the switch, ever, even if everything is better tenfold.

I wouldn't group PHP and SQL together like that. PHP is a clusterfuck. I code it professionally from time to time and I dislike it a lot. I have coded some 20+ languages and while Perl can give you a proper headache, it's not as broken as PHP. SQL is a language and for what it aim to do, it's perfectly fine. It's RDBMS that are going out of style, not SQL per se. Relational databases do some things great and quite a few things not so great. RDBMS' have also dominated the industry for years. Thankfully the industry is now churning out products that do a task properly instead of trying to shoehorn any task into a specific product (I'm looking at you, Oracle!).

If you want to look up a cool database, check out http://neo4j.com/ I really want to convert a RDBMS based system to Neo4j to test it out. I should really test Mongo as well.

@julian No, but strangely enough it works with a reload of the error page.

Now that I have had a cup of coffee and some synapses started working again, I checked the dev console. I get a net::ERR_BLOCKED:BY_CLIENT.

Either way - problem is on my end and no posting before coffee! Apologies for the false alarm.

@Danny-McWilliams common sense does not apply to Wiki contributors!

Joke aside, there are rules and guidelines the nay sayers are basing their stance on, and saying use "common sense" is a logical fallacy. That said, it is rather frustrating that these people seem more concerned with denying nodeBB than filtering out bad articles and seeing the bigger picture.

I've looked at previous AfD and right now the prospects for nodeBB on WP looks grim. It's not a simple matter of having more votes for keeping. I've seen other articles get deleted for double the keep votes. That may be the outcome.

That will end with the same result as long as the sources found for nodeBB are the same; like I said, the main objection were notability. No word wizardry will fix that.

People should help spread the word and get coverage for nodeBB. That will help the cause.

While I see why the article could be deleted for valid reasons, most of the discussion in the AfD (look at me tossing WP lingo around!) was cherrypicking. Poor language or poor phrasing shouldn't result in deletion, it should result in editing or requests for citations. Most of the noise was because of sources and no matter how much one cited WP:NSOFT, people ignored it. WP now has so many various guidelines, rules and essays delving into facets that cherrypicking whatever fits your stance is bound to be a problem. I tried to argue that a more specific essay - one that is specific for software - is in contrast with the more general guideline, but not no avail.

I have little actual interest in nodeBB. I'm not even running it. I still think that this little exercise showed some interesting tendencies in the WP community. It's seemingly "cool" to stomp in on an AfD, toss off a one-liner to seem clever and then furiously defend the initial stance when confronted with it. Given the forrest of rules and guidelines, this is quite doable. Sow doubt is seemingly a valid technique no matter if you can back it up. I take offence by that. If WP demands sources to be found and said sources is lined up according to the rules (for instance searching Google News), any dismissal of said sources needs to be backed up. Unsupported claims that the source is so-and-so is just noise.

I love WP but I don't really like the subculture of some wikipedians.

@Danny-McWilliams said:

I know PHP has its flaws, as does SQL (hence non-sql databases have long been gaining in popularity) and I'm sure NodeJS probably does too (I'm no expert on it), but his opinion lacks any objective comparison. It's worth taking time to read opinion on the matter but you won't ever satisfy this guy if you make the switch, ever, even if everything is better tenfold.

I wouldn't group PHP and SQL together like that. PHP is a clusterfuck. I code it professionally from time to time and I dislike it a lot. I have coded some 20+ languages and while Perl can give you a proper headache, it's not as broken as PHP. SQL is a language and for what it aim to do, it's perfectly fine. It's RDBMS that are going out of style, not SQL per se. Relational databases do some things great and quite a few things not so great. RDBMS' have also dominated the industry for years. Thankfully the industry is now churning out products that do a task properly instead of trying to shoehorn any task into a specific product (I'm looking at you, Oracle!).

If you want to look up a cool database, check out http://neo4j.com/ I really want to convert a RDBMS based system to Neo4j to test it out. I should really test Mongo as well.

@Yannick said:

@TiaZzz said:

If there is an "edit war", there need to be at least 2 persons involved. @YannickFran was one of them himself and actually started the "war" with this sentence to his deletion: "(Bye again!)". @YannickFran is wrong if he thinks that this is going to make us think that his contribution is legit. I myself thought that he just didn't like nodeBB and deleted it therefor. In general I understand that it wasn't okay to start this edit war, but the sentence to the first deletion was a bit misleading in my opinion.

That "Bye again" refered to the many deletions of NodeBB prior to that revision to the article. The article itself clearly states that added entries should have a page, not to mention that the revision list of that article is full of WTAF's which should have given an additional clue. Further, I've mentioned more then once to read the guidelines to add new entries to the article and refered to WP:WTAF. In fact, take a look at the "mother of all clean-ups", this cleanup included the deletion of NodeBB yet 4 days later it was there again (and it got deleted thereafter once more). One would think that 3 times (it might be more in fact, I didn't check the whole history) would be enough.

The quote isn't by me. I make no claim for "us" as I will explain later on.

@TiaZzz said:

Now can we move on instead of this deletion war? I'm not part of this community. I just reacted after finding nodeBB long after looking at the comparison and having missed it there.

Yet here you are, and before this whole debacle began. Editors don't like it when you lie in discussions like that. Especially as this topic was mentioned in the opening of the argument as one of the reasons for deletion.

Here I am. I still stand by my claim. If you look at my profile you'll see that I joined not long ago and my posts are fairly random. I have users on other forums as well and I don't identify with them either. I don't develop nodeBB nor do I run it.; that may change as I plan to test nodeBB but now I just window shop, so to speak. All I wrote is true and my motivation for getting nodeBB included still stands. I have a WP user as well and I don't claim to be a part of the WP community. Registered user means "may or may not be part of the community", it's as simple as that.

I agree that the phrases you selected from the article are poorly worded. I still think that deletion is a knee-jerk reaction when editing could have avoided the sales pitch. I "fought" in the talk section because I don't think WP editors did a very good job researching. I did the the suggested steps in WP:NSOFT, looked up and cited sources from Google News, cited the suggested lenience for sources for FOSS, explained how nodeBB stands out in the crowd and most of it was promptly ignored. Sure, WP:NSOFT is just an essay but it aim to help in situations just like the AfD for nodeBB:

This advice is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline, and it may not provide valid criteria for an AfD nomination. However, it may be consulted for assistance during an AfD discussion or when considering creating a standalone article.

If WP:NSOFT can't be used in an AfD like it suggests, it should be removed.

That will end with the same result as long as the sources found for nodeBB are the same; like I said, the main objection were notability. No word wizardry will fix that.

People should help spread the word and get coverage for nodeBB. That will help the cause.

While I see why the article could be deleted for valid reasons, most of the discussion in the AfD (look at me tossing WP lingo around!) was cherrypicking. Poor language or poor phrasing shouldn't result in deletion, it should result in editing or requests for citations. Most of the noise was because of sources and no matter how much one cited WP:NSOFT, people ignored it. WP now has so many various guidelines, rules and essays delving into facets that cherrypicking whatever fits your stance is bound to be a problem. I tried to argue that a more specific essay - one that is specific for software - is in contrast with the more general guideline, but not no avail.

I have little actual interest in nodeBB. I'm not even running it. I still think that this little exercise showed some interesting tendencies in the WP community. It's seemingly "cool" to stomp in on an AfD, toss off a one-liner to seem clever and then furiously defend the initial stance when confronted with it. Given the forrest of rules and guidelines, this is quite doable. Sow doubt is seemingly a valid technique no matter if you can back it up. I take offence by that. If WP demands sources to be found and said sources is lined up according to the rules (for instance searching Google News), any dismissal of said sources needs to be backed up. Unsupported claims that the source is so-and-so is just noise.

I love WP but I don't really like the subculture of some wikipedians.

@baris said:

• XCom 1&2

Oh! So many games forgotten. The original Xcom games were amazing. I just remembered Dark Sun as well. So many great games...

Aaaaand gone.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NodeBB

As expected really. nodeBB is still in the comparison list though but I wouldn't be surprised if any of the usual suspects move to have nodeBB removed.

• Doom series - so many hours went into this when it came out. We dragged our computers around to do mini-LAN parties and made maps. Doom 2 was the killer in he series but the original Doom had a lot of great maps.
• Quake series - talk about a breakthrough in the FPS genre. I stuck with only playing with my keyboard for a long time but now my mates and I had to relearn FPSes. The three first proper games were all great. Q1 broke the rules. Q2 brought excellent single-player. Q3 set the golden standard for deathmatch.
• Super Mario Bros I wore out NES gamepads. SMB2 was really just a rebrand but it was fun for a game starved kid like myself. SMB3 was one of the best and most advanced games for the NES. Hell, I have a Wii and WiiU just to have recent Mario games.
• Witcher 2 I started playing the first Witcher game when Witcher 2 came out because I like continuity. W1 was pretty good. Gameplay was so-and-so but the story was excellent. Finished that off and was gobsmacked by W2. I've played most important RPGs since there were computerised RPGs (ASCII Ultima - check!) and nothing holds a candle to W2. Icewind Dale, Ultima (and Underworld), Elder Scrolls series and so on. Nothing managed to deliver a story that packed such a punch. I thought I had seen the most impressive games and newer graphics, easier content and shorter game time was the new norm. W2 really changed that. I could write a long essay on how good it was.

Last spot is undecided:

• Last Ninja Played the various releases soooo much. Still the best music ever made for a video game. I get goosebumps when I hear it. C64 was a shite console but some great games were made for it.
• World of Warcraft Sunk quite a lot of my adult gaming time into this. It's not so much WoW but the guild you get into. Downing bosses and having 39 and later on 24 similar idiots with you is pretty great.
• Dune 2 The original Dune was an odd RPG/strategy game, but Dune 2 made a genre. Was great!
• Homeworld Again being godsmacked. HW was fairly awful in MP but the story and the mood you had in SP just made you keep playing. I flunked an exam at the uni because of it IIRC.

There are probably others and I should have made a long list of honourable mentions but the list is long enough as it is.

@Danny-McWilliams common sense does not apply to Wiki contributors!

Joke aside, there are rules and guidelines the nay sayers are basing their stance on, and saying use "common sense" is a logical fallacy. That said, it is rather frustrating that these people seem more concerned with denying nodeBB than filtering out bad articles and seeing the bigger picture.

I've looked at previous AfD and right now the prospects for nodeBB on WP looks grim. It's not a simple matter of having more votes for keeping. I've seen other articles get deleted for double the keep votes. That may be the outcome.

@lulzdev Yeah, but "notable" is a tar pit in itself. The rigorous rules state something like "used in education, mentioned in books" and so forth. I was also thinking a claim like this could be made, but it's probably the rules that are stagnant and then the spergs wanting the article deleted are technically right.

In the big picture nodeBB doesn't need an article. Lots of software doesn't have it. It's probably easier to make changes to the comparison article (like suggest deletion) where this all started. It's a hell of a lot easier than argue that WPs rules should be changed.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NodeBB

Battle rages on. I've mostly given up trying to make a case for nodeBB as someone points out arbitrary rules or guidelines that fit their PoV and few of the participants fathom how modern software evolves. Perhaps they are right and nodeBB should get more coverage before it can get an article, but I'm going to suggest deletion of that horrid comparison article either way. I never look up software on WP, but the stuff that's there should be less misleading.

I started making an argument for nodeBB based on the various rules and guidelines but after reading the fifth wall of text I simply gave up. As the WP user 69.204.153.39 points out, the guidelines and whatnot are fairly bad. The others do have a point in that this is not the place to discuss changing the rules.

I can't help feeling that this is a catch 22. There are really no major blogs or sites dedicated to forums and the likes to use as a source. I searched for just that a month ago. Forums are probably regarded as outdated in the modern web but there are a lot of them out there. It seems strange that everything web is being modernised, but for forums people are happy to go with good'ol LAMP. phpBB3 is fairly new but it looks and feels like something ten years old.

Ah, well. Fun while it lasted. I hope you guys can get som good coverage and keep on fighting for the good cause. It's worth it.