Administrator
Administrator
They just deleted the page completly now. Actually it seems that nearly all pages of all tools from the photo gallery comparison page are marked not having "references to reliable sources".
Actually I don't care. Probably not worth the work. Web software except maybe the big ones like WP will get into newspapers or magazines so we will never be able to satisfy them. Fact is it is not that much written about Zenphoto.
Actually I don't care. Probably not worth the work. Web software except maybe the big ones like WP will get into newspapers or magazines so we will never be able to satisfy them. Fact is it is not that much written about Zenphoto.
Member
I just noticed that. Now we now that we need some buzz to be listed...
On a more practical note, I have saved the text which will make a good introduction to the user manual. So all is not lost, far from it!
On a more practical note, I have saved the text which will make a good introduction to the user manual. So all is not lost, far from it!
Member
It must have been deleted again! Furthermore, it was removed from here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_photo_gallery_software
quote from diff:
"removing Zenphoto - deleted at AFD as promotional / non-NPOV"
Promotional? non-NPOV? the table is there to simply state facts!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_photo_gallery_software
quote from diff:
"removing Zenphoto - deleted at AFD as promotional / non-NPOV"
Promotional? non-NPOV? the table is there to simply state facts!
Administrator
Well, while I can understand that the direct article was deleted as it listed maybe a little too much features
However, I really cannot understand this. What does Wikipedia expect here? Zenphoto is surely one of the most used gallery focussed CMS out there. At least some others seem to be deleted as well (and some articles have also a note about missing references).
@Michel: Since you have an account maybe you could investigate that?
However, I really cannot understand this. What does Wikipedia expect here? Zenphoto is surely one of the most used gallery focussed CMS out there. At least some others seem to be deleted as well (and some articles have also a note about missing references).
@Michel: Since you have an account maybe you could investigate that?
Member
I tried my best the other time three months ago, when Rusl rang the bell, and it didn't work.
The first article – the one that was deleted 1-2 years ago – had very little content and looked more like an ad. Once it was undeleted, I did my best to improve the content, make it as factual as possible, but once an article has been flagged, it needs to be perfect to get back online.
Basically, what seems to be needed are "independent sources". My interpretation is that it has to be talked about in places like C-net, MacWorld, Linux Magazine, etc.
Although Zenphoto is a very good product (I'm admitting a bias here) and easier to customize than many other ones (I know, I have tried to customize a few galleries), it hasn't been referenced on too many websites and has very few external "independent" references. The few we were able to find were highlighting the limitations of versions 0.9 or 1.0. Besides, we don't promote automatic installs means we are not high on the list of galleries promoted by popular web hosts.
Besides, on a personal note, I'm a very minor contributor to Wikipedia. Outside of the Zenphoto article on Wikipedia, I have mostly corrected a few factual mistakes in articles, mostly related to Québec and more often in French. Therefore, I'm not a "notable contributor" on Wikipedia.
I don't think there is any point – for me at least – to request undeletion of the article unless we have significantly new stuff to go with it:
– Independent sources (this currently seems to be their main concern: whether it's good or bad, if it's published, it's worth it). Last time, sbillard, acrylian and myself found all we could, from memory, personal sources and Google, but the list was weak.
– A major contributor. If by any chance one of the forum members has written many well-recognized articles on Wikipedia, they will have more clout than I have and their request for undeletion and subsequent article will have more clout than mine.
– Closer relations with a few major web hosts... although I'm not sure the advantages outweigh the drawbacks.
There is also no point in trying to write a "new" page called Zenphoto, as the Wiki software will automatically link it to the deleted one.
As for the page Comparison of photo gallery software, I have noticed that within a couple of weeks, it reflects what is on Wikipedia. So if someone successfully reinstates the Zenphoto page, it will appear in the [i]Comparison[/i] page.
***********************
P.S. I still have the text file of the Wikipedia page as I had updated it. I will use it as part of my lambda user guide, but if someone is able to successfully reactivate the Wikipedia page, I am more than willing to email the file I have.
***********************
P.S. You could look at the "discussion" at [i]Articles for deletion[/i] here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zenphoto
The first article – the one that was deleted 1-2 years ago – had very little content and looked more like an ad. Once it was undeleted, I did my best to improve the content, make it as factual as possible, but once an article has been flagged, it needs to be perfect to get back online.
Basically, what seems to be needed are "independent sources". My interpretation is that it has to be talked about in places like C-net, MacWorld, Linux Magazine, etc.
Although Zenphoto is a very good product (I'm admitting a bias here) and easier to customize than many other ones (I know, I have tried to customize a few galleries), it hasn't been referenced on too many websites and has very few external "independent" references. The few we were able to find were highlighting the limitations of versions 0.9 or 1.0. Besides, we don't promote automatic installs means we are not high on the list of galleries promoted by popular web hosts.
Besides, on a personal note, I'm a very minor contributor to Wikipedia. Outside of the Zenphoto article on Wikipedia, I have mostly corrected a few factual mistakes in articles, mostly related to Québec and more often in French. Therefore, I'm not a "notable contributor" on Wikipedia.
I don't think there is any point – for me at least – to request undeletion of the article unless we have significantly new stuff to go with it:
– Independent sources (this currently seems to be their main concern: whether it's good or bad, if it's published, it's worth it). Last time, sbillard, acrylian and myself found all we could, from memory, personal sources and Google, but the list was weak.
– A major contributor. If by any chance one of the forum members has written many well-recognized articles on Wikipedia, they will have more clout than I have and their request for undeletion and subsequent article will have more clout than mine.
– Closer relations with a few major web hosts... although I'm not sure the advantages outweigh the drawbacks.
There is also no point in trying to write a "new" page called Zenphoto, as the Wiki software will automatically link it to the deleted one.
As for the page Comparison of photo gallery software, I have noticed that within a couple of weeks, it reflects what is on Wikipedia. So if someone successfully reinstates the Zenphoto page, it will appear in the [i]Comparison[/i] page.
***********************
P.S. I still have the text file of the Wikipedia page as I had updated it. I will use it as part of my lambda user guide, but if someone is able to successfully reactivate the Wikipedia page, I am more than willing to email the file I have.
***********************
P.S. You could look at the "discussion" at [i]Articles for deletion[/i] here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zenphoto
Administrator
Thanks for the detailed answer, Michel. I think we should not really care about the wikipedia stuff. (I wondered if we should post about that though).
Indeed there are very few references to us (all still are collected on a article "Articles about Zenphoto" on the user guide btw). I monitor the web for new stuff. But who can compete with WP and others on that anyway..:-) But it seems that goes for most others which are also marked.
Seems people just use Zenphoto instead of writing about it...you can interpret this as a good sign...
Indeed there are very few references to us (all still are collected on a article "Articles about Zenphoto" on the user guide btw). I monitor the web for new stuff. But who can compete with WP and others on that anyway..:-) But it seems that goes for most others which are also marked.
Seems people just use Zenphoto instead of writing about it...you can interpret this as a good sign...
Member
Quote:I think we should not really care about the wikipedia stuff.actually, i think you should.
a lot of people consider wikipedia the more reliable version of google, which to some is already the holy grail of information. not being included in a comparison list on wikipedia means the project doesnt exist, no matter how big and happy the user community is. if the article isnt there.. well, not ideal, but the lists are where new users come from if they are looking for a semi-unbiased source.
just sayin'..
Administrator
Well, not much we can do about this apparently. Wikipedia seems to have some internal "fights" about how to treat what. And it seems that things like Zenphoto lacking reliable source is a victim of that.
Although Wikipedia is a quite good resource it is a common knowledge that you never should rely only on it alone. It is good on well known and popular topics but not always on more niche ones (which Zenphoto surely is one).
btw, most people seem to think Google is the internet and there we are good setup..:-)
UPdate: Seems we are at least back on the comparison page (unless my browser cache is playing tricks on me).
Although Wikipedia is a quite good resource it is a common knowledge that you never should rely only on it alone. It is good on well known and popular topics but not always on more niche ones (which Zenphoto surely is one).
btw, most people seem to think Google is the internet and there we are good setup..:-)
UPdate: Seems we are at least back on the comparison page (unless my browser cache is playing tricks on me).
Member
It is absolutely essential that Zenphoto is at least listed in the comparison page. We should always contribute our knowledge to the wiki to make it better. If we don't care about the wiki, the wiki becomes shit. It is obvious that at least five of us agree that Zenphoto has the right to be on Wikipedia, so I will do everything in my power to keep it there.
- if it gets taken off again, I will use my account to reverse it.
- if it gets taken off again, I will politely ask grubernd to reverse it.
- if it gets taken off again, I will log off and sacrifice my "IP address" to reverse it.
- etc.
It is really trivial to reverse changes to Wikimedia pages... there is no excuse not to do so.
- if it gets taken off again, I will use my account to reverse it.
- if it gets taken off again, I will politely ask grubernd to reverse it.
- if it gets taken off again, I will log off and sacrifice my "IP address" to reverse it.
- etc.
It is really trivial to reverse changes to Wikimedia pages... there is no excuse not to do so.
Member
Member
Here is a Zenphoto article draft. Maybe somebody else could help complete it? This time I'll try to keep an updated version on Github in case it gets deleted again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Zenphoto
https://github.com/pwnage101/Zenphoto-Wiki/blob/master/zenphoto.txt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Zenphoto
https://github.com/pwnage101/Zenphoto-Wiki/blob/master/zenphoto.txt
Member
I'll let you play with it. I had saved the Wikipedia raw text file I had prepared back in May, when the deleted page was reactivated... and before it was deleted again. At that time, most of the description was accurate and okayed by the main developers.
So I updated most of the links for v.1.4.3 and merged the content I had with yours. You will see that I have kept your first line with a REMOVE work in front of it.
I therefore suggest you work from what is now on the Wikipedia page, correct typos (my mother tongue is French) and make the style more "Wikipedia proof". And update whatever you make of it on Github (or keep a raw text file at home).
Good luck!
P.S.
1. Ideally, we need more external references.
2, The "es:Wikipedia link" at the end probably should appear on its own line or in a different fashion.
So I updated most of the links for v.1.4.3 and merged the content I had with yours. You will see that I have kept your first line with a REMOVE work in front of it.
I therefore suggest you work from what is now on the Wikipedia page, correct typos (my mother tongue is French) and make the style more "Wikipedia proof". And update whatever you make of it on Github (or keep a raw text file at home).
Good luck!
P.S.
1. Ideally, we need more external references.
2, The "es:Wikipedia link" at the end probably should appear on its own line or in a different fashion.
Member
Member
Member
I corrected those. Feel free to delete stuff if you think there are too many details or if you think it might look "too promotional".
Administrator
Member
opinion: i now understand why the original article was marked as "too commercial" (or whatever the wording). cut it down, especially the features. better to have a neutral stub than a full list, that is better at home on the actual zenphoto site.
as acrylian mentioned, "zenphoto just works, so people dont fuss about it" - maybe some bloggers have written nice tutorials for beginners.
(and no, i dont have a wikipedia account)
as acrylian mentioned, "zenphoto just works, so people dont fuss about it" - maybe some bloggers have written nice tutorials for beginners.
(and no, i dont have a wikipedia account)
Administrator