|WikiProject Computing / Software||(Rated Stub-class)|
Ambiguity in "rewrite"
The article currently says that they decided to rewrite osCommerce. That sounds a bit confusing -- did they work from the osCommerce code base and rewrite it, or did they start from scratch to make a clone? I assume the later given the license of Magento, but someone who knows for sure may want to clarify the wording Balleyne (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
may be it should be removed? I do not find the article, the link is redirect ot the main site of the journal
Try to be objective
- True, I agree. Which is why I twice added some criticism and removed the propaganda. Not necessarily because I consider Magento bad. The wiki police would kill the page in an instant if we try it.
I also think it would be unfair for a genral researcher if we don't lay the cards on the table. Magento doesn't have what to hide anyway. On a side note, I would appreciate if you can sign your name with something better that an IP addy. Try signing up! Kadima100 (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm removing the advertisement tag. I cleaned up much of the page and added some criticism and limitations. If anyone thinks that the tag should be there, please by all means add it. However, I'd greatly appreciate if you can write here why you think so. (You are entitled to your opinion.) Oh, and please sing your name. I nice to be identifiable. Kadima100 (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- I believe this article still reads like an advertisement, as it still is based entirely on the official website. It really needs third-party references for the information provided in order to establish notability as per WP:WEB. The features section especially reads as a mirror of the website. Are there any magazines or newspapers that have covered this subject that could be mentioned? —BradV 04:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- It was covered by cNet and others (as shown here). These sites don't contain much information. Magento is still young; it should take a while before it gets picked up by the mainstream press. I am leaving the tag until I can get some more references. As for the notability, if you can give some time I'll get you some links. Does cNet qualify? Kadima100 (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- I read it and found it to be a very standard wikipedia entry, it does not sound at all like an advertisement. The advertisement tag is certainly not appropriate for the current itteration. DavesPlanet (talk) 12:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I see a half dozen solid external references, this package now dominates the e-commerce market, and no discussion of the "marketing" tag in 3 years, I'm going to pull it. If you disagree then please discuss. DavesPlanet (talk) 12:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I have added referenced information to the Overview and History sections. Can the "needs references" tag be removed? Or are there suggestions for improvement so it meets the requirements?
- I'm not long here myself but I've gotten used to some conventions here. If you think it meets the guidelines shown here ( WP:WEB ) then go ahead, remove it. I appreciate the fact thet you created an account. It would be even better if you can sign your comment with four tildes (~). Kadima100 (talk) 01:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Helpfulness of Features Section
Simply put, the features section is not helpful. The description line at the top claims to list "some of the key features" of Magento, but it's really a brain dump of anything the software might do.
If the intent is to list key features, then just list key features and include a mention of the availability of a complete feature list on Magento's site. This will better serve people reading the article and prevent stale links in the Wikipedia entry (as Magento's features page even indicates the page may change without notice).
I'm just not sure a full feature list in a bad format is in line with Wikipedia standards or even helpful for people reading the article.
- I agree. If anyone can help narrow down the list it would greatly improve the page. Kadima100 (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ok I have cleaned up and genrealized feature list and directed to website instead. gioto (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Helpfulness of Article
This article has been stripped down so much that it is virtually useless. Most things that need to be said about Magento are positive, but because some uptight editors are so worried about being biased, this doesn't seem to be possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 10:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The "Limitations" Section
Seems awfully subjective, and uninformative. I think both the "features" and "limitations" sections should go. But at the very least, the "Limitations" section should be renamed "Criticism". Also, as there are no sources for either, their time is short unless someone stops me. Proxy User (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- I removed the limitations section for it's unbiased opinions and lack of references. I left the Features section as most of these commerce articles contain them and I feel it's necessary. --Sc0ttkclark (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone please provide good links to reliable, third-party sources? I AFD'd this because the article doesn't really seem to contain any. I found one, http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/925-The-PeC-Review-Magento-Is-the-Open-Source-Powerhouse-, that seems quite relevant (review of the software, not a promo site), that could/should be added somewhere. (And withdrew nom.) — Timneu22 · talk 16:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I think these guys should be added to this text. They are doing great work regarding Magento SEO and are 3rd vendor according to number of extensions for Magento. Here is the link to their site: (Redacted) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 12:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree, and that was clearly an attempt to get a backlink from wikipedia. Punkstar89 (talk) 13:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)