Talk:Comparison of accounting software
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Article Name, does it match the content of the article
Is this table supposed to be more informative than the List of accounting software? Currently I don't think that it is. Maybe there should be some sort of comparison, maybe by features? --Sleepyhead81 13:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- See Category:Lists of software and Category:Software comparison for some examples of other pages. The list page normally becomes "just a list" (prevents people trying to add all sorts of extraneous advertising, background information, descriptions, URLs, etc), and the comparison page normally tells you the URL, what platforms the software runs on, what it costs, who it's aimed at. who it's written by, etc.
- Obviously this page isn't complete yet, but see that category for what it should/will look like. Ojw 14:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- Followup on that -- if people just fill in the features column with anything they think relevant, then we can see what sorts of things would warrant their own column/table. I'm not an accountant, so haven't proscribed anything yet. Also, the intention is probably to remove everything except name/URL from the list of accounting software, and remove the duplicates (e.g. GnuCash is there at least twice)
-
- The list page seems to group by "intended audience" as well as by license, causing a lot of duplicates, whereas most other lists of software are only grouped by Free/freeware/proprietary. Ojw 21:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
What information is this article now giving. What are the comparison criteria. Does anyone care? I know there have been votes on comparison versus list. What did that achieve? --NilssonDenver 22:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] External link addition
I added a link to my Software Evaluation website because it offers assistance with the comparison of software and it is a free service that requires no registration or sign up. The matrix/spreadsheet concept used on the site can also be used by across all forms of software evaluation so it is a useful free resource that would be of interest to people using this page. Unfortunately someone chose to remove it. Perhaps it could be restored? [http://www.software-evaluation.co.uk]
- It was me who removed the link. The general policy in the wikipedia is to have only few external links that provide significant additional value. Since there are quite a few comparison pages, after adding your page others would ask not without reason for the same. So unless you can show that your page is THE page for software comparison, I don't see why yours in particular should be added. --S.K. 18:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Merge list of accounting software to comparison of accounting software
There was no consensus in the AfD:
- 9 delete
- 7 keep
- 4 merge & redirect
The merge & redirect option appeared fairly late and changed 2 delete and 2 keep votes. The Comparison has a majority of programs in the List & is far more useful. More people seem to not want to keep the list in the current form than who want to keep it. A merge seems to have no downsides other than that of effort. --Karnesky 22:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cleanup needed
Many of the software packages in this article are not compared at all (their columns are blank). A majority of the articles lack information website, target consumer range, and whether or not the package is free; is this information really notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia, or is it just linkspam? —donhalcon╤ 19:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- This is on my list of comparisons to cleanup, but help is welcome. The reason for the incompletion in most instances was a recent merge from list of accounting software. I think the whole website column should be cut anyway. Agree that the other columns need to have info added. Judging that the list, which was less notable than this comparison, survived an AfD: Yes, the comparison is notable. --Karnesky 20:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, and more importantly, what is the encyclopedic context of this article? Is it a sub-page of accounting software? If so, it should have a {{main}} tag. —donhalcon╤ 20:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- None of the Category:Software comparison articles are really sub-pages. They have been treated as encyclopedic as stand-alone entities. However, this aricle could benefit from the inclusion of a short introductory paragraph. --Karnesky 20:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- What is the last encyclopedia you read that contained stand-alone tables? I've never seen such a beast, except as appendices — and an appendix is generally associated with a particular article or set of articles. A short introduction may be sufficient to provide context, however. —donhalcon╤ 20:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- Firstly, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Secondly, many encyclopedias do contain "encyclopedic tables" (particularly summaries often found in almanacs, such as a table of countries with population and other demographic info). But let's see if an introductory paragraph will be good enough. --Karnesky 20:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- I could complete the sentence "Wikipedia is not paper..." in a number of amusing ways that highlight the absurdity I find in the whole paper/non-paper issue; I mean no ill will so I won't do that, but suffice it to say that availability of storage shouldn't correlate at all with quality of content. Anyway, the kinds of tables you're describing are exactly what I mean by content usually found in an appendix; if that's the sort of content this is intended to be then a short (but informative!) introduction will almost certainly suffice. —donhalcon╤ 20:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- Firstly, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Secondly, many encyclopedias do contain "encyclopedic tables" (particularly summaries often found in almanacs, such as a table of countries with population and other demographic info). But let's see if an introductory paragraph will be good enough. --Karnesky 20:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- What is the last encyclopedia you read that contained stand-alone tables? I've never seen such a beast, except as appendices — and an appendix is generally associated with a particular article or set of articles. A short introduction may be sufficient to provide context, however. —donhalcon╤ 20:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reformating of columns suggestion
Is the price of the product relevant? This may change overtime and if it is an international product which can be localised, local pricing will differ. What about rearranging headings to
Name, Level, Target Audience, Platform, Geographical markets, Notes
Name=Sage Line range
Level=Entry to Midmarket (Example Levels = Entry, Mid, High end)
Target Audience=General (example audiences: Doctors, Lawyers)
Platform=Windows (Example platforms: Linux, Mac, Unix, web based)
Geographical markets=UK and USA (Example geographical markets: Europe, Australia, Italy)
Notes=Opensource (Example notes: taken over by oracle in 2000, FRS compliant, Parent company is Microsoft)
Items such as double entry (why?), module types, other unique attributes to a product, will lead to never ending additions. It will be hard enough trying to keep up with the thousands of products out there and keeping their modules and other changes up to date. With a simple layout as indicated, it will be easier to read and keep updated. A clear process of what can and cannot be added to each column must also be clearly defined --NilssonDenver 21:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] dollibar
is dollibar also an acounting software? http://www.dolibarr.com/
[edit] Tiny ERP
is Tiny ERP an acounting software?
