Talk:CloudForge

Request By Nickb79 (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Talk:CloudForge

Edit Request to make accurate

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
  1. CloudForge is actually a "product" rather than a "vendor". The Vendor for CloudForge is CollabNet, Inc.
  2. CloudForge wasn't built on CollabNet. CollabNet isn't a platform nor product. CollabNet is a company/Vendor. This statement is accurate and correct:
CloudForge was built on CollabNet’s cloud hosting and integration platform, acquired from Codesion.com in October 2010.[1]

Request By Nickb79 (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Nick. I have marked your request with a "go ahead." However, we normally combine product and company articles. Knowing there is a separate article for the company, this article will almost assuredly be deleted anyway. I would encourage you to work on improving the Collabnet article. I will address the advert tag now over there now. If you like, I can provide detailed feedback on where the Collabnet article can be improved and that may get you started on a productive path. CorporateM (Talk) 15:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
I made the requested correction and incorporated the suggested sentence with reference. Thanks! --Mark viking (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thanks CorporateM for your timely review. If you could provide feedback on the CollabNet talk page, I am sure that would be appreciated.
I have also been browsing around other articles on Software Companies and it doesn't seem uncommon for companies to have separate product articles particularly where a product/company has been acquired and where this is history in it's own right. (If you are inclined, you might enjoy this comic that talks about the CVSDude/Codesion History.) Nickb79 (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
It is fine to have articles on both a product and a company as long as both independently satisfy notability guidelines for being based on multiple independent reliable sources. For small companies with a single dominant product, it happens that either the product or the company tend to get the bulk of the coverage and so a single article is best. As I understand it, CollabNet has had a number of products beyond the cloud offering (I seem to recall it sponsored Subversion for some time), so it may be that both articles could survive a notability challenge. It all depends on the sources. Thanks, --Mark viking (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ "CollabNet Acquires Subversion Cloud Hosting Provider Codesion, Adds TeamForge Agile Management to Codesion Platform". Retrieved 18 October 2010.

Updated Citations

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Here are some further secondary/neutral sources (non press releases) I would recommend to validate some claims in this article.

Google News also provides links to many, many more articles on CVSDude, Codesion and CloudForge here.

Note: I will leave the proper editing/format of these articles up to the editor. I am trying to make these citations clear for validation purposes.

For "was acquired by CollabNet in Brisbane, California, in 2010." & "acquired from Codesion.com in October 2010"

For "and renamed to Codesion.com in early 2010,"

For "The team relocated to Silicon Valley "

For "CloudForge was first released in beta on April 30, 2012"

Requested By Nickb79 (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the secondary references. And thanks for your integrity in declaring CoI issues and letting others review potential changes; such integrity at Wikipedia is unfortunately not so common these days. I have used most of these to replaced the previous refs to press releases. The Internetnews article is just a summary of the preceding Developer.com article, so I skipped it. The last two references are in effect widely read blogs. Such references can be considered reliable sources, but it depends. Nonetheless, these are much more reliable than the previous press releases and are fine for the purposes of verification. --Mark viking (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Very nice work Nick. One thing I notice is the sources (especially the high quality ones) appear to be on Codesion.com, rather than on CloudForge. I'm not sure I understand the details, but I wonder if it would be better to move the article to Codesion.com. CorporateM (Talk) 02:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on CloudForge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.