Talk:eZ Publish

http://www.leportal.net dead

leportal.net ("edition pieserver") seems to be under reconstruction. I have hidden the link for now. Leffa 13:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Tidy-up

I just did a big tidy-up on the eZ Publish page. There is probably more than can be done, but here is something I removed:

• Paul Borgermans, Tony Wood, Paul Forsyth, Martin Bauer, Björn Dieding, Ben Pirt: Learning eZ Publish 3: Building Content Management Solutions, Packt Publishing 2004, ISBN 1904811019
• Balazs Halasy, eZ publish basics, eZ press 2006, ISBN 82-92797-00-9 (Description and contents)
• Martin Bauer: Managing Ez Publish Web Content Management Projects, Packt Publishing 2007, ISBN 13 978-1-847191-72-4 (Description and contents)

Those references need to be linked from relevant points in the article if they are to be kept, rather than being sources for the whole page. JamminBen (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Useless use of "citation needed"

I don't understand the constant use of "citation needed" that i see in this article, even for basic things. Is it required a citation for the fact eZ Publish is written in PHP? At this step, it would be required a "citation needed" even for a sentence that says Washington D.C. is the capital of the United States of America, or for a sentence that says that United States of America doesn't have an official language, or for a sentence that says Visual Basic.Net has been created by Microsoft. Talking of similar articles, I don't see any citation for the sentence that says, in example, that Drupal is written in PHP. I don't see the difference between this article, and the other talking of others CMS or PHP frameworks.

If I don't see any good reason to require a citation for the fact eZ Publish is written in PHP, I will remove the "citation needed". It's rather boring, and useless, to read "citation needed" for basic things like "this program is written in X language". Kiam (talk) 18:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I have been trying to edit the page so it sounds less like an advertisement and more encyclopedic. Providing sources would show that the content is accurate. We need to point to specific pages to verify statements.

Other articles are not necessarily correct. Without sources, someone could come along and say "eZ Publish is a shopping cart system", which is incorrect. Not requesting a source means this kind of thing will go unchecked. We don't have to verify absolutely every statement though; you may wish to look at WP:REF for more information.

I have edited the page so there are fewer "citation needed" tags. JamminBen (talk) 23:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Still, in the "Technology" paragraph there are too much "citation needed". The source of the citations would eventually be one, and in that source, the references would be in one page. I find rather useless to use a citation where both the article and the cited source say the same thing with the same (or equivalent) words.

I can understand a citation when a sentence expresses the result of a study (like in the case of a sentence like "Windows XP is the most used OS, and it is preferred against any Unix-like OSes"), but not when the sentence just says that an application runs on XXX platform. In that case I would expect a citation for every sentences which claim that iChat runs on Mac OS X. Kiam (talk) 08:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I find rather useless to use a citation where both the article and the cited source say the same thing with the same (or equivalent) words. - Be careful here. I am not sure exactly what the guidelines are for this, but I believe we should not be cutting and pasting content from other websites and putting it in Wikipedia articles. I agree that citations can be overused, but you can't justify leaving them out because the source says the equivalent of what Wikipedia says. If Wikipedia said something totally different, then where did that information come from?

Article content is derived from a variety of sources. We could describe a software product and include a link to the vendor's website to show that the article is accurate. I have seen lots of articles where there is a note at the top saying "this article does not cite any sources" - let's aim for middle ground between too many sources and none at all. JamminBen (talk) 09:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section

The criticism section contains one argument, and only one source which is three years old. Was this just added to make the page look less like an ad?

I vote for a removal. Madsy (talk) 11:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No need for vote, I went ahead and removed it. The reference didn't really have much to say about the subject anyway.

Also, I removed up a lot of the marketing drivel.Baeksu (talk) 05:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

NASA deleted

NASA dont use this CMS, in the official website talks about the CMS used, created by eTouch Systems called DAM, more info here: DAM NASA's CMS --scumbag [+] 17:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

EZ Platform

These two articles have a lot in common, maybe a merge is needed? Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on EZ Publish. 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/20070218233306/http://ez.no/products/licenses to http://ez.no/products/licenses

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) 20:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Deprod

Should this be taken to AfD I would hope the person doing so ensures WP:BEFORE has been very properly executed. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)