Talk:Code42

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariecrashplan (talk • contribs)

Cleanup request

{{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.

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. - 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: WIRED reviewed CrashPlan+ and noted it was "reasonably priced" and the "different kinds of back-ups [are] likely attractive to the paranoid."[10] 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. 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. PaleAqua (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggested article-move

The company changed their name to "Code42" (no spaces). Suggest we move the article to just "Code42". 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. — 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. 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. 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. GoddersUK (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• I removed PC Magazine from that sentence, which does in fact not mention mapped drives
• I added a working link for the Macworld article, however it also does not mention mapped drives; suggest we remove it from that sentence
• The only 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) CorporateM (Talk) 17:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks 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. GoddersUK (talk) 08:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)