Talk:Confluence (software): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:39, 25 January 2010

Computing: Software Stub‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

I guess it is a bot that added that note. I created this page because I had to see that product in my work and the page does not exist yet. Somebody has to start from somewhere. Note that I have no interest in that company. On [advertising: "Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion." Concerning the form I used the same pattern as MediaWiki. If somebody does not like this stub, you are welcome to improve it. Italicus1632 (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

Question: Does Atlassian Confluence sound like the right name for this article? Italicus1632 (talk) 22:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Moved it. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not Open Source

This article is in the "Open Source CMS" category but Confluence isn't actually Open Source (as is stated directly in the article text). This is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.147.57.6 (talk) 10:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison With Mediawiki

Does anyone know how this compares with Mediawiki? --Robinson weijman (talk) 15:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an article that describes the differences between Mediawiki and Confluence. Basically Confluence is optimized for collaboration within a business - It has things like a built-in Rich Text Editor, page hierarchies, support for LDAP and includes technical support among other things. (Barconati (talk) 05:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for that reply. You've summarised the advantages of Confluence - what advantages does MediaWiki have? --Robinson weijman (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki is free software. All the feature mentioned above are available as plugins/extensions. The reason people choose confluence is that it comes packaged with sane enterprise features, (sort of) integration with other systems, both atlassian and third party. And there is official tech support. You don't get restrictive license agreements with MediaWiki, but it would be tricky, and not-so-time-effective to enable the features that "just work" with confluence. But if you're just after a "feature comparison", then MediaWiki wins by a longshot. 81.92.64.5 (talk) 11:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest?

Why has this tag been added? I expected to see an explanation here. Otherwise, how can it ever be removed? --Robinson weijman (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The banner was added because User:Barconati, who is Bill Arconati, marketing manager at Confluence, has significantly edited the page. That qualifies as a conflict of interest according to our guidelines on the subject. I intend to edit the article to improve it so we can remove it, but have gotten behind with real world responsibilities. Steven Walling (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted - how did you work that out? Thanks for the information - I missed that earlier. All I saw was the tag. Surely this is only a problem if someone adds biased information though, right? --Robinson weijman (talk) 05:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the "10 Professional Packs" note under language attribute in the Infobox which seemed to fall under this category. --81.92.64.5 (talk) 11:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poor article

This is a poor article:

the neutrality issue has been flagged for eight months,
it says almost nothing about the product itself and
no review comments, comparisons with other products etc.

I know it is easy to criticise but I do not have the knowledge to improve it - I am interested as a reader. People with more Wikipedia experience: how can we improve this (other than adding a deletion tag to generate interest)? --Robinson weijman (talk) 08:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 : I removed the "10 Professional Packs" note under language attribute in the Infobox which seemed to fall under this category. --[[Special:Contributions/81.92.64.5|81.92.64.5]] ([[User talk:81.92.64.5|talk]]) 11:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
+== Poor article ==
+This is a poor article:
+* the neutrality issue has been flagged for eight months,
+* it says almost nothing about the product itself and
+* no review comments, comparisons with other products etc.
+I ''know'' it is easy to criticise but I do not have the knowledge to improve it - I am interested as a ''reader''.  '''People with more Wikipedia experience:''' how can we improve this (other than adding a deletion tag to generate interest)?  --[[User:Robinson weijman|Robinson weijman]] ([[User talk:Robinson weijman|talk]]) 08:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)