Talk:Code42: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 17:51, 28 August 2024

Code42 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: October 4, 2013. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Code42 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted on 3 November 2012 by reviewer Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs).

Companies Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Software: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Low-importance).

Minnesota Low‑importance

	Minnesota portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

CorporateM (talk · contribs) has been paid by Ethical Wiki on behalf of Code42. Their editing has included contributions to this article.

Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{GA|08:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)|topic=engtech|page=1|oldid=575697690}}
 {{Talk header|noarchives=yes|search=no}}
+{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|
-{{WikiProjectBannerShell|
- {{WikiProject Apple Inc.|class=GA|importance=low|auto=yes}}
+{{WikiProject Articles for creation|ts=20121103014150|reviewer=Northamerica1000}}
+{{WikiProject Companies|importance=low}}
- {{WikiProject Articles for creation|class=GA|ts=20121103014150|reviewer=Northamerica1000}}
- {{WikiProject Companies|class=GA|importance=low}}
+{{WikiProject Software|importance=low|computing-importance=low}}
- {{WikiProject Software|class=GA|importance=low}}
+{{WikiProject Minnesota|importance=Low}}
+}}
- {{WikiProject Minnesota|class=GA|importance=Low}}
+{{Connected contributor (paid)
+|checked=
+|User1=CorporateM|U1-employer=Ethical Wiki|U1-client=Code42|U1-EH=yes|U1-banned=no|U1-otherlinks=
 }}
-{{Connected contributor|CorporateM|declared=yes}}
 {{User:MiszaBot/config
 |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation|noredlinks=y}}
@@ Line 15: / Line 17: @@
 |minthreadsleft = 5
 |algo = old(90d)
-|archive = Talk:Code 42 Software/Archive %(counter)d
+|archive = Talk:Code42/Archive %(counter)d
 }}
 {{Archive box|auto=yes|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot I|age=90}}
-== Reviewed for Conflict ==
-Can't find anything blatantly advertising like or incorrect.  Comparing user counts via alexa and compete, it appears they are more relevant than many providers listed in wikipedia.
-I modeled this article based on the format and content used in the currently posted article about Backblaze. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backblaze
-Not sure what is missing in the CrashPlan article that makes it a candidate for removal. Please offer specific suggestions about what needs to be changed.
-Thank you.
-<small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Mariecrashplan|Mariecrashplan]] ([[User talk:Mariecrashplan|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mariecrashplan|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
-== Cleanup request ==
-{{t|request edit}}
-There was previously a separate article on the company's software Crashplan and in the merge things got a little mixed up. A lot of the content became redundant, poor grammar, etc. I would like to propose the following:
-* Delete the Reviews section. I don't think it makes sense to have it now that the article is focused on the company.
-* Delete the software infobox. It's crowding the article, which already has a company infobox. Also, most of the info in the box is repeated elsewhere.
-* Replace the Software and Features sections with a couple paragraphs (leaving the Reception section in). This section got muddled up in the merge and became over-sized and redundant. Just a couple paragraphs about the products should be all that's needed.
-{{collapse top|Proposed Crashplan section (to replace Software and services & Features)}}
-== Reception section ==
-The reception section definitely needs examples of negative reception from reliable sources. Otherwise, it's biased as it only gives weight to positive reception. - [[User:M0rphzone|M0rphzone]] ([[User talk:M0rphzone|talk]]) 08:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
-:The bias tag is probably well-placed.
-:It currently includes:
-:"In benchmark tests by Computerworld...the worst performer in archiving an entire system drive, which took almost five days.[13] A Wall Street Journal columnist also noted lengthy initial backups, followed by better-performing incremental ones.[6]...doesn't allow users to recognize mapped drives, a feature offered by competitors..."
-:It does genuinely get very positive reviews, which is why I encouraged that we take a shot at it. But I think some trimming is needed, such as: <s>WIRED reviewed CrashPlan+ and noted it was "reasonably priced" and the "different kinds of back-ups [are] likely attractive to the paranoid."[10]</s>
-:Some other sections need some light trimming as well, especially in the Business section the Software and Features section should be consolidated and drastically reduced.
-:[[User:CorporateM|CorporateM]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM|Talk]]) 13:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
-== References got mixed up during merge ==
-Looks like references got mixed up during the merge as both articles used conflicting naming scheme for the references. I did my best to straighten them out, but might be nice to have another set of eyes check incase I missed any. Used the pre-merge pages to figure out where to put the references. [[User:PaleAqua|PaleAqua]] ([[User talk:PaleAqua|talk]]) 21:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
-{{collapsebottom}}
-== Suggested article-move ==
-The company changed their name to "Code42" (no spaces). Suggest we move the article to just "[[Code42]]". [[User:CorporateM|CorporateM]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM|Talk]]) 17:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
-*I think it's doable. However, please bring the body text up-to-date with the new name first, and add a bit about the rebranding.&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 23:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
-::{{done}} I changed all the "Code 42"s to "Code42". I don't have any sources to justify adding the name-change in the article though. [[User:CorporateM|CorporateM]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM|Talk]]) 00:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
-:::I went ahead and moved the article after the Request Edit was 1.5 weeks old and [[user:Sphilbrick]] advised that I should go ahead and move it as a clerical edit. [[User:CorporateM|CorporateM]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM|Talk]]) 18:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
-== Mapped drives ==
-continuation of truncated edit summary:
-one of the citations doesn't seem to mention mapped drives, one is dead and one is ambiguous, but from crashplan support page cited for the workaround and the citation I've given it's clear that the issue is being unable to backup mapped drives, not backup to them. I think the statement about competitors being able to do that should probably be removed as it's not in any of the citations either, but I'll leave it for a bit in case anyone wants to add a citation. [[User:GoddersUK|GoddersUK]] ([[User talk:GoddersUK|talk]]) 16:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
-:* I removed [http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2375988,00.asp PC Magazine] from that sentence, which does in fact not mention mapped drives
-:* I added a [http://www.itworld.com/article/2767643/storage/online-backup-services.html working link] for the Macworld article, however it also does not mention mapped drives; suggest we remove it from that sentence
-:* The only [http://www.networkcomputing.com/storage/online-storage-buyers-guide/d/d-id/1089880?page_number=2 reference that actually does mention it] says "doesn't officially recognize "mapped" drives."
-:At the moment, I'm wondering if the subject should even be covered at all, given that it is only mentioned in passing by one source, however I thought I saw more about it somewhere. Let me do some more searches and see if I can find other sources. (Please note my COI disclosure) [[User:CorporateM|CorporateM]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM|Talk]]) 17:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
-::Thanks [[User:CorporateM|CorporateM]]. I didn't want to remove the citations in case I'd missed something, but a second pair of eyes reduces the likelihood of error :) Regarding the importance of this sentence: seconded, I don't know whether this issue is really worthy of being mentioned in WP (beyond in a tabulated feature comparison, etc). Most likely someone for whom this is a deal-breaking feature encountered the problem and decided the world must know so added it here. [[User:GoddersUK|GoddersUK]] ([[User talk:GoddersUK|talk]]) 08:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
-::Also I'll try and be slightly more specific in my talk page comments in future so other editors don't have to go reference hunting or whatever to understand what I'm talking about :) [[User:GoddersUK|GoddersUK]] ([[User talk:GoddersUK|talk]]) 09:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)