Talk:List of project management software

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] OpenProj

Somebody seems to remove my OpenProj entry every time...why?! What's your problem with this free software???

Please don't remove the OpenProj entry. It is open source and hosted by SourceForge. Furthermore, it seems to become a viable alternative to OpenWorkbench and it is completely written in Java which, in contrast to OpenWorkbench, makes it a platform independent application.

Thanks :) --88.64.3.168 17:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

* Hi, your entry has been removed because it has no article and the link appears like this: OpenProj (red). If this article is notable, please write an article for it before adding it to this page. If the article is not notable, it should not appear on Wikipedia. Please see the notability criteria for companies and software for better understanding of this policy and what notability is. Thanks -- Renesis (talk) 17:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
* I have written an article about OpenProj now, but it was removed also. Now I doubt whether someone does not want serious competition and just removes all entries which might describe valuable alternatives to a product mentioned on the list of project management software... :( --Jonny.dee 21:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I was sent the following message:

Please read Wikipedia:Notability before creating any more articles. That will save you wasting your time. Deb 21:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've read this and still I have no clue what I did wrong -- especially with the article I wrote. If software like KPlato, Open Workbench, Planner, and TaskJuggler is worth to be mentioned then OpenProj is even more worth to be mentioned. --Jonny.dee 21:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Removal of this page shows a quite inconsistant implemtentation of wiki policy. If OpenProject's page is going to be removed, then other project management software package's pages should also be removed. Dingfelder 23:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably, in their current state. It might be an interesting task to fix all of them up if you have some time. The primary problem is that most of them simply offer no verifiable claim of notability or completely lack references. It's really not hard to fix this. I would recommend to first fix the article (drop the puffy unsupported claims, or find some reliable sources to back them up), then simply ask the admin who deleted the article to restore it. Most will be happy to. If you need help with formatting cites, please let me know. Kuru talk 23:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this is pretty lame. I heard of the Wikipedians who are bent on removing good information, but I hadn't seen it until now. You can go on about Wiki-red-tape all you want, the bottom line is that the page is a list of project management software, and you're insisting that it stay incomplete. ---- 75.93.149.229 (talk) 22:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PSNext

Please don't remove PSNext. It is legitimate proprietary web-based project management software

Teamwork (a) doesn't have a wikipedia page, and (b) costs €600 per server with compulsory negotiation for more than 100 licenses, so doesn't really qualify for being in the Free Software section (even if they give away the old version of their program). Ojw 09:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I changed the occurrences of "Proprietary" to "Commercial". This sounds more accurate and less free-software jihadi. Jgw 15:45, 11 October 2006

"Proprietary" and "Commercial" are not synonyms when applied to software. As an example, follow the URL to "Project.net" on this page to see that the company identifies the software as "Commercial Open Source Software". --209.91.162.170 17:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Power Project

Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia, but unfortunately the commercial links you added to the page List of project management software were inappropriate -- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should not be used for advertising or a collection of external links. See also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and the notability guidelines for corporations. Thanks. -- Renesis (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the guideline is really vague. When you list commercial software here in this list by itself isn't already advertising? So do you mean as long as a software provider create a content page in wiki and describe the product. For example your link to MS project, and then create a link here to that content, that means it is not advertising?

According to your arguement and guidelines, I have deleted gantt project which is an external link. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.185.21.190 (talk) 01:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC).


—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.185.21.190 (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC).


Should Project Open be deleted as well since it is also an external link?

Hi Renesis.

I have no association with the given company, but the software is important.

Other software items are already listed.

Many links on Wikipedia refer to commercial products - indeed I often use it for precisely this reason.

Are you sure you are acting correctly?

Regards Johnbibby 09:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Johnbibby 09:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Bold text

[edit] Primavera Project Planner

I don't know why did you remove the Primavera Project Planner from the list, It's is one of the most common project planning applications right here in Egypt, It's even more famous than MS Project.--Premiero 03:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought so. Primavera Project Planner and SureTrak are the most famous project management software in construction business. Maybe computer-people don't even know that. That's why they list only computer-related project management software. --Manop - TH 19:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand the decision to remove Primavera from the list, too. Indeed this software is very important to project management of large projects. And this doesn't apply to Egypt only (I am from Germany). MS Project only matches the requirements of small projects. So this list appears in my opinion in a bad light, because it only lists software depending on the degree of its popularity but not depending on relevance for professionals.--Jntheis (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
At the time it was removed, there was not an article on the topic. There appears to be one now at Primavera P3, so feel free to add. Kuru talk 01:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] XL-EasyGantt

I don't know why you had removed XL-EasyGantt. How is it different from the rest of the other applications listed here? It was created with its own wiki content and was not an external link. Why do you consider it as advertising when the rest of the applications listed here are not?

[edit] Missing Legend?

Hi,

I don't understand the meaning of the labels 'PM' 'PPM' 'IT' etc..

Anyone?

Thanks, Ori 11:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a legend at the bottom of the page. Each icon is a link, too. -- Renesis (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adding group "Freeware"

Why not adding group "Freeware" with undergroups "OS" and "proprietary"? --Kaster 08:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help desk question

At the help desk post Our software was once in Wikipedia and now its not there, a user asks about 'Creative Manager Pro' and this article. Please feel free to provide an answer. -- Jreferee (Talk) 15:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cerebral Project(TM)

Someone seems to have removed the Cerebral Project(TM) from the list, too, claiming that the article was written as an advertisement. I have edited it twice personnally to remove anything that even looks like an advertisement. I even tried to follow the same style of another project management tool in the list and yet it was still removed. I am not sure who is controlling this but it seems that it is someone who is biased and does not to have certain packages/software to be listed!! Clicking through the existing list, I see the other packages more of an advertisement than the original Cerebral Project(TM) article!!!— 24.59.50.217 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 04:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC).

The nature of Wikipedia means that you can't make a convincing argument based on what other articles do or don't exist; because there's nothing stopping anyone from adding any article. Plenty of articles exist that probably shouldn't, conversly many articles don't exist that probably should. So just pointing out that a article exists doesn't prove that your article should also exist. This list is for entries here that are links to actual Wikipedia articles about notable project management software. External links, redlinks, substubs, non-notable sites are removed. Asadabutarif (talk · contribs) created the article (I'll asume thats you), and it was deleted as an advert. I've reviewed the deleted version and it is a blatently advertisement. Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article here.--Hu12 07:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, AsadAbu-Tarif is me. I thought the article "list of project management software" lists project management software packages and a comparison of their features. We added Cerebral Project(TM) as one of them and tried to list its features and weaknesses, which is inline with the objective of the article. It seems that someone is here to decide which software package is "notable" and which ones are not (like Cerebral Project, Open Project, and XL-EasyGantt, apparently). Anyway, adding Cerebral Project(TM) to the list is a blatant advertisement but all the others might or might not be. But Cerebral Project(TM) is the package that is not notable enough to be listed!! Makes sense and very objective assessment and cherry picking of what to remove! Anyway, I tried to edit it several times to make sure that we are being objective about what's good or bad in this package. But it seems the meer listing of this software package is considered a "blatant advertisement", even if the other software package listings do nothing else but that!! Thanks for your objectivity in picking which software package is good enough to be listed and which ones are not! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.50.217 (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If you have a close connection to some of the things you have written about, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid when:
  1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
    and you must always:
  4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.
Unfortunately your conflict of interest editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote Cerebral Project. Your contributions to wikipedia under Asadabutarif and IP 24.59.50.217, consist entirely of promoting Cerebral Project and is considered WP:Spam.See Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. You are, however, encouraged to add appropriate content to the encyclopedia.--Hu12 19:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Like many comments on this discussion list, it seems that your application of these policies is entirely haphazard. I don't deny being part of Cerebral Project and I would have not minded someone adding weaknesses of Cerebral Project(TM) to the article. But arguing here is of no value at this point. Keep the list limited to what you would like to include and exclude all the packages that you don't want. I would have thought that an artile titled "List of Project Management Software" would benefit from an as extensive a list as possible and leave it up to the reader to decide which ones seem advertisement and which ones provide useful evaluation/information about features. But that's only me! Frankly, if you don't want any "advertisement", then the whole "List of Project Management software" article must be removed because it serves no other purpose than promote certain packages —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.50.217 (talk) 03:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
If you had read the instruction text on the articles main page when you hit the edit buton you would have seen ... "IF YOU DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO THIS MESSAGE, YOUR EDIT WILL BE ROLLED BACK WITHOUT WARNING.....Only place entries here that are links to actual Wikipedia articles about notable project management software. External links, redlinks, substubs, non-notable sites or sites that are not project management software will be removed. If you have questions, use the talk page. Please try to keep entries in alphabetical order. Adding unnecessary links or text to any other section (such as the "References" section) will also be removed. Thanks. Please see "Wikipedia:Notability" for information on notability for Wikipedia" arguing about this articles inclusion criteria isnt time well spent, especialy when it clear whats expected from new additions.--Hu12 03:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I'm not arguing the policy, I'm arguing your selective application of the policy and your definition of "notable" project management software. So, please spare me the "policy said so" argument. I wasn't only arguing for Cerebral Project, but also for others that got excluded like Open Project and XL-Easy Gantt. Obviously, these ARE project management software packages, but apparently they are not notable in your opinion. As you said, arguing further is not time well spent. The policy states that only "notable" packages shall be listed and obviously you are entitled to decide which ones are notable. I just, and others if you care to read this discussion page, disagree with your judgement —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.50.217 (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"Notable" project management software packages are listed because they meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). The notability guidlines define whats notable. Just because a project management software package exist hardly makes it notable. Editors make the Notability policies here at Wikipedia, feel free to to try and change those policies if you like. Untill that time, those are the policies. Reading this discussion page Just illustrates why inclusion critera is so importatant. This is an encyclopedia--Hu12 05:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Even if Cerebral Project is not notable (which many others already in the list are not btw), Open Project must be. Again, the inconsistency of applying this policy is what is causing all this. Many on the do not have this secondary coverage the policy states. Open Project and Primavera are very popular packages with a wide install base and should be notable. Anyway, thanks for your reponses —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.223.18.102 (talk) 16:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing this Page Entirely

I believe the spirit of Wiki is to be open and neutral and not to be controlled by a few editors who play God in deciding what is notable and what is not. Listed in this page are many commercial products, some of which only have a skeleton wiki page and are left in this list for some reasons. I am curious as to what the Editors based on to decide what is notable? Do you conduct a research on the number of users using the PM products or is there a user voting system to decide what is to be retained in this list?

Since the existence of this page seems to be maintained based on some bias decisions and discrimination of other products, I propose to remove this page entirely as it does not make sense as there is no way this page can provide a fair and comprehensive lists of PM software.— LarryTonos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 19:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC).

This is your first post? If it isn't notable enough to have its own article, of what benifit to the encyclopedia is it to have it listed here? The spirit of Wikipedia does not include Self-promotion and product placement, in fact that is what wikipedia is WP:NOT. --Hu12 00:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

.. If you browse the list of PM software here, though they have their own wikipages, but some of them are just mere skeleton pages without substance. It is easy for anyone to create a wikipage for that product, and yet, how do you determine if one product has a wikipage that means it is notable? Like the previous person who commented, there were other products that have wikipages, but were deleted by Editors and on what basis do the Editors judge on these pages to delete them away? The criteria is not clear and it is this grey area that produced this unfair and bias listings arising doubts that the few people who control these pages maintain it for their own benefits and creating and anti-competition environment.— LarryTonos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 1 December 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia:NOTABILITY is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article. Notability requires objective evidence, such as having an Article. Wikipedia is WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is WP:NOT an internet guide, directory or a repository of one-click hosting links. Simply existing as a project management software site does not make it suitable for inclusion in an "encyclopedia". Actual Wikipedia articles about notable project management software sites are Welcome and should be included. (See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not).--Hu12 (talk) 06:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


Maybe it would really be helpful if you could help explain why Omniplan is notable as an example and how good an encyclopedia content it is when the Omniplan page has nothing in it but a link to the developer's website? Why is it here in the list while others were considered as unsuitable links even if they have their own wikipages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LarryTonos (talk • contribs) 20:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Removing this list is in my opinion not the right way to handle the problems with this article. We should not miss the chance to create a survey of the relevant software products. An encyclopedia is the right place for such a survey. Here is the best place to manage such a list objectively.

But this list lacks of expertise (knowledge of experts). E.g. the removal of PrimaVera is a clear indication for that fact. Large projects in construction business are planned using this software. It's a software for project management experts, not for the "average consumer" (like Ms Project is addressed to). This listing should not only show systems which are well known by a wide range of wikipedians. It has to list all current software known and used in the area of project management. Of course, such a list has to be updated continuously, but that must not be an obstacle!--Jntheis (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ProjectPier

As I see guide on home site ProjectPier, I see that task on ProjectPier may be assigned only to one user (here and here) and no depend on other task, so in this sense this tool equivalent to Trac tool.

ProjectPier has property be Project Menegment software, but Trac not. May by one alternative wrong? --Gavenko a (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What about Retrospectiva?

It is equivalent in functionality to Trac only written in Ruby on Rails. http://retrospectiva.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.70.249 (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rename of article

I believe that this article should be renamed to Comparison of project management software. It seems to be a better fit for the article, and it would be more in line with other similar articles. aliasd·U·T 05:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If I get no comment on this within a few days, I will just be bold (tm) aliasd·U·T 06:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. While the column for basic functionality has been added to this page, similar articles with comparison tables (Comparison of BitTorrent Software, Comparison of Canadian tax software, Comparison of FTP clients, etc., see Special:Prefixindex/Comparison_of for more), have many more columns for fine-grained comparison. I would strongly object to this page going that direction, because these packages are so diverse that such an endeavor would end up a gigantic mess. Please leave the title the way it is, as it is much more a list than a comparison table. -- Renesis (talk) 06:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I see your point, I would strongly object to this article becoming a mess too :) Although, I do think it is starting to become a comparison and I do believe it could rightly move towards becoming more of a comparison article without being a complete mess. aliasd·U·T 00:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Dissagree with that sort of change per Renesis. Its a list, not comparison. Looking through the article history as a whole perhaps this should be moved to Spam honeypot--Hu12 (talk) 04:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Heh, am happy that consensus has been reached for now. aliasd·U·T 01:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
That's the problem, I'm afraid it would be 10X worse as a "comparison" (inviting corporations to add feature columns that suit or highlight their particular product, etc.) -- Renesis (talk) 07:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion. Agree with consensus. Result is keep, although it is kind of sad that we are not expanding an article due to fears of advertising. aliasd·U·T 04:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't tested all the software represented in this list but am concerned that Project Scheduler from Scitor(now Sciforma) is not on the list. This is a superb product that has always been several steps ahead of Microsoft. I selected it when it beat MS-Project in a product comparison at either Infoworld or PC-Mag. I forget which. Can someone please fix this? Georgelf (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC) george

[edit] Legend is becoming useless

The addition of the color-coded PM, Collaboration, Issue Tracking, RM, and PPM columns to this list is becoming useless with every company adding every flag to their software. Soon it will be no better than not having it at all. Does anyone have any ideas on how to verify these flags so that we can clear out those that are exaggerating the functionality of their software? -- Renesis (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The RM box should be added to RPlan line in your chart. RPlan has strong Resource Management capability for requesting and approving resources which is integrated into the Schedule Management module.--Louislong (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BaseCamp

I would like to ask if BaseCamp is qualified to be listed as a "project management software".

I believe it's more like a service provided by a company. The basecamp official site is not selling software but hosting services. An example of a project management software that is proprietary is MS Project. I believe, BaseCamp should be reclassified and listed under "List of Sites that offer Project Management hosting". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.252.69 (talk) 06:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What you are referring to is pretty much every software application in the Web-based category. Many of them are provided as a service, but this doesn't mean they are not software. -- Renesis (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Define: proprietary web-based application

I have noticed that many entries listed under "Proprietary web-based applications" are actually services and not mere software.


The primary difference between an opensource project management software and a proprietary project management software are in the way their source can be availed and modified.

So just imagine a commercial version of SVN Trac or Project Pier and that would be an example of proprietary web-based project management software. It would be practically be the same as the opensource equivalent/s, the only difference is that the source code will not be open to the public.


Who knows, perhaps some of these commercial services might just be mere deployment/installation instances of a single software that has been customized or enhanced?


The list should be renamed from "Proprietary web-based applications" to "Proprietary web-based project management services".


Perhaps I can setup my own customized and enhanced projectpier or SVNTrac installation and deploy it as an online service with the address "EasyProjManagement.com" and then have that custom job listed here in this wikipedia entry. What do you think?


The definition of Software is different from the definition of Service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.252.69 (talk) 11:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You are right, the definition of "software" is different from the definition of "service". And here, we want to list software. As far as I know, there is unique software behind each product listed here (in other words, no custom installs served under a different domain name), even if it is brought to market as a "service". Basecamp can be considered both software and service -- Software as a service. I think the list is fine the way it is. -- Renesis (talk) 14:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

RPlan, from Actano, is not typically offered as a service, although it could be. It is loaded in a database at the customer site, and accessed by browser via the company intranet, or when allowed by that company's IT dept, via the internet. If some of the software in this category is not set up this way, then maybe the category of Web based applications should be split into two pieces.--Louislong (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] notability

This notable notion is really a vague one ... It could represent (and it seems it already does ) a way of promoting certain products/vendors (even if they offer open source products, they are still using it as a way of promoting commercial products, etc) I would suggest that you either accept all products that are related to this domain or none; either option will be a better alternative that the current one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.102.135.133 (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not all that vague in the context of this list; simply create another article related to the software that is verifiable by third part sources and is not written like ad-copy; and you can link to it from here. The threshold is astoundingly low. Kuru talk 00:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] redmine

I dont understant why Redmine is not shown on this page while Trac is. Is there any reason ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.157.2.91 (talk) 13:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Not that I can tell - as long as there's currently an article on the topic. Kuru talk 00:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)