Talk:Basecamp (software)

Links

I removed links to activecollab and goplan. Particularly goplan was obviously added as advertisement, and there are many Basecamp clones out there. Being inspired by (or an close copy of) successful software does not make one noteworthy and especially does not warrant an inclusion on the softwares wiki page.

If anything, a new section could be added discussing the spawning of clones and similar ruby on rails applications, but I would advise against this as it can easily be advertising in disguise (goplan).

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.19.245.250 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I can see why people have added those links, but if you compare it say to Microsoft Word, there aren't external links to Corel Wordperfect there. --J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 07:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added an internal link to ProjectPier. Links to other Wikipedia articles often help me see a context in detail much faster than the list pages. To meaningfully read the articles of lists and comparison tables, I personally need to see and understand something of the concrete objects being compared. BTW: I have used Basecamp in a complex project, and found it awkward. So I am looking for a way to add more collaboration and project management features on top of Mediawiki. -gEdwards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.29.209 (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted your link; the list of project management software makes it unnecessary to single one out. Binksternet (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N concerns

A contributor recently flagged this article for attention under WP:N. This software is notable as the foundation for "Ruby on Rails" which is a well-known web application development framework.

I don't have time to add references and citations to establish notability, but here's a link in case someone else can get to it before I do, or before this article gets deleted. [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dreftymac (talk • contribs).

I agree. Basecamp is the reason Ruby on Rails exists, and the press coverage of it is extensive -- it's been featured in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, PC World magazine, TIME, Business 2.0 and more. Also, it has received high acclaim from the former Product Manager for Microsoft Project "I worked in the project management software industry for nearly fifteen years and Basecamp is the first product I have seen that is truly project management for everyone. Nice to see someone finally figured it out" - Jim Dunnigan. I think some people are unjustly jealous of 37signals' success.
I have added the citation for the extraction of Ruby on Rails from work on Basecamp; I copied the citation used on the Ruby on Rails article.
--J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 09:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

whybasecampsux.org

After a recent edit glossed over criticism of Basecamp and deleted the www.whybasecampsux.org attack site link, I wrote an additional new criticism paragraph dedicated to this attack site. It exists; it needs to be acknowledged. Does anybody know which frustrated user is the attack site's author? Binksternet (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Existence is not a criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Noteworthyness is. You need to demonstrate that the site is noteworthy Macgruder (talk) 04:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The mentioned website was closed some time ago and the URL redirects now to http://pm-sherpa.com/, which lists alternatives to Basecamp. NancyJeanGF (talk) 23:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Praise and Criticism Section

The section was non encyclopedic with no citations.

The fact that a criticism site exists is irrelevant to an encyclopedia. The site in question has not established itself as a noteworthy site. Anyone can set up a criticism site/blog but that doesn't mean it automatically warrants inclusion inside Wikipedia. I'm no great fan of BC, but until cited references can be found to preferably a review it's easier to remove the section for the moment. Macgruder (talk) 04:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but whybasecampsux.com extensively documents its criticisms including exact quotes from Jason Fried. Let the criticism stand please, fanboys. Ronsard (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence 'Sadly, Basecamp does not offer an integrated calendar which makes scheduling meetings and other time sensitive events difficult.' doesn't sound very NPOV to me... JohanK (talk) 09:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

The article's title describes a new piece of software from Garmin ( GPS manufacturer ) as accurately as it describes the subject of this Wikipedia article/page. I think we should either change the name to something like Bascamp (Project management software), or give this article two larger sections that break out into the details for the particular basecamp somebody is looking for.

It could be argued that Garmin's BaseCamp software is not yet "noteworthy" enough to merit an article, but, as the software is replacing MapSource ( track/route planning, photo geo-tagging, etc ), the day will come sooner than later when this needs its own article. And it might as well be as easy as possible to make that happen.

--70.91.201.209 (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Basecamp (software). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130225091835/http://dev.mysql.com/tech-resources/interviews/david-heinemeier-hansson-rails.html to http://dev.mysql.com/tech-resources/interviews/david-heinemeier-hansson-rails.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]