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".

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This article was extremely out of date, containing speculative rumors about vBulletin 4 under the "future development" section.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.75.181.102.223 (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)

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)