Talk:List of ERP software packages

New Page ?
The entire collection of Enterprise resource planning articles are stubs with very poor inter-linking. I started this to salvage something whacked from the main article, that I had originally started because of questions on the ERP Talk Page by people who evidently did not know WHAT is an ERP. There obviously is a wide range of opinion of what belongs in these articles, and failure to distinguish the significance of commercial vs. open source when listing advantages and disadvantages. User:AlMac|(talk) 10:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

SQL Ledger
Why is SQL Ledger listed here? Can an accounting software be considered an ERP system?
 * I am far from familiar with ERP packages other than those I have worked with. I do know, from the ERP forums that some companies purchase full ERP suites and then only implement a tiny fraction of what they can do.  I also know that some ERP have gaping holes in them, lacking capabilities that other people consider essential parts of any ERP. User:AlMac|(talk) 00:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No. --Sleepyhead 13:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I have found the information from Wikipedia on ERPs informative and useful. Thanks

ERP or Enterprise Resource Planning

erply
Can I suggest that you look to add ERPLY (http://www.erply.com/uk/about/id-314) if you feel it relevent? From their site: " Erply is one of the 6 winners of Seedcamp 2009, the most prestigious European competition for internet startups. " I am not affiliated in any way - just keep coming across them.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.220.238 (talk) 10:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Nope. This company is not notable and they don't have a Wikipedia article already. Every week we remove another non-notable ERP company from this list that someone has added. (P.S. Please add new comments to be bottom of the page.) —Prhartcom   (talk)  15:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

tinyerp
we need to add tinyerp. http://www.tinyerp.org/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kendirangu (talk • contribs) 10:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

TinyERP is now called OpenERP and you can find it here: http://www.openerp.com  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.198.92.164 (talk) 06:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge?
I'm not sure it makes sense to merge List of ERP software packages and List of ERP vendors, since the latter deals with companies that may produce a variety of other products, and contains a good deal of revenue-related data that is essentially irrelevant when discussing the software packages themselves. If anybody has some suggestions as to how such a merge might be accomplished, or additional reasons why it might be a good/bad idea, please share them. --UC Bill (talk) 18:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * FOR Merge . : Instead of creating multiple topics, it is better to consolidate all ERP related topic under existing wiki title "Enterprise Resource Planning". This make sense for easy searching for & reading by user.


 * FOR Merge . : The distinction is vague. Makes sense to have it as one article Sanjiv swarup (talk) 14:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * FOR Merge . : I too think a merge would be good as it reduces the potential for data redundancy/neglect as there would only be one page to update instead of two. 16:49, 20 July 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.222.161 (talk)


 * AGAINST Merge . : I think this is not relevant to merge those two pages. Vendors are not the same that ERP packages. One Vendor can produce more than one ERP package and one ERP package can be produced by many vendors. For instance SAP produce different packages, and Open ERP is produced by many contributors. But I d think we should remove ERP packages from the ERP vendor list.

jhonore (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC).


 * FOR. Seems unanimous. Let the merge begin?  --Zojj (T,C) 16:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

what about the online packages like ..
what about the online packages like .. salesforce, windows live, edeskOnline ? Sanjiv swarup (talk) 09:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Spam or no spam
Hi, guys! Please tell me how you differ spam from no spam. E.g., at 01:08, 19 August 2008 Mr. Themfromspace removed 4 added names of ERP systems:
 * CBOSSmis from CBOSS (this one was added by me),
 * The Next Level from Megasys Ltd,
 * SyteLine from Infor Global Solutions
 * WebNotes ERP from WebNotes Technologies

Please tell me what were the reasons and criteria. 217.74.47.2 (talk) 11:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)michgrig
 * "Mr" Themfromspace here: I removed those links since they did not lead to a Wikipedia article of their own, they were either red or redirected to the article of the company that makes them.  I did this to establish a standard of notability for the items on the list to prevent items from seeming more notable or popular than they really are. Themfromspace (talk) 17:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Link to Momentum goes to the Physics concept and needs to link to a software package —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.147.236.194 (talk) 13:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the requirement for a wikipedia article just to include a product. I added two open source products, one of which is widely cited in reviews of open source ERPs. Using such a filter just turns the list into only projects who have enough members that someone has spare time to write up a wikipedia article on it, that basically pushes you to only include products that have commercial sponsors and extra staff.

I also removed 1 or 2 items that have no accounting system, from what I understand, at least handling accounting is a bare minimum ERP requirement. Somebody undid those changes, with no real reason for doing so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.107.120 (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Adding Software Packages?
I am familiar with an ERP package that is both noteworthy and innovative (the first ever to use WPF technology in an ERP system, touted by their local Microsoft vendor for development in .Net etc), top selling in their local market to SMBs and in the top three of ERP vendors in other markets, written up in several magazines... But not included in this list. They don't have a wikipedia article of their own as they don't want to break the rules on COI. The list seems to include links to many Wikpedia articles that seem like advertising and are flagged as such. As they want to play by the rules, how can they get included? ThinkERP (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Better list
I think a better list would be helpful. I'm thinking about making a table with the following columns: Company, product, target, platform, installs, since (date of inception), notes. There are 200+ companies in a highly competitive market. I can do my best to make it unbiased... however other entities may try to bias it later. Any advice to mitigate future attempts? --Zojj (T,C) 16:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Will be very nice if you can create such table! One small advice: At the table, I think we should only allow links to internal wikipedia articles, and not to external websites. This will avoid future spam.--Jordiferrer (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Concur, this article has had a real spam problem in the past. Only internal links, except obviously for references for the material you're wanting to add.  You may find it quite difficult to independently verify some of the information you're suggestion; installs, for example, will be very hard to verify unless you can find some industry sources (gartner, etc).  Inception, platform, etc should all be fine as they're fairly straightforward and can be sourced from the vendor.  Kuru   (talk)  01:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Re the spam or no spam discussion above... I found this list here.  I was planning on adding most of those (some are since defunct) to the new table.  This would add a lot of red links, or non links.  I personally don't mind red links; I believe they help wikipedia grow.  But I also don't want to add them all, and later the community decide to delete them. Thoughts? --Zojj (T,C) 15:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I also agree that we can list and keep the relevant ERP products which do not yet have an article, so they will be shown in red. Another huge source of ERP products, in different categories is the following one: Technology Evaluation Centers . On your table you can add a column to differentiate ERP for "Discrete manufacturing, for "Process manufacturing", for "Engineer-to-order", etc --Jordiferrer (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can divine a definition for 'relevent', that would help. This isn't a directory service; if you can set up some criteria for notability or inclusion on the list, that would be helpful.  The easiest criteria is to simply limit to established products with articles, per WP:WTAF (not policy).  If you need help writing articles, please set up some suggestions here, and we can set about writing referenced, reliable material for whatever you think is missing.   Kuru   (talk)  02:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Many of the companies have only 100-1000 customers... Would any of them would be considered notable? Lets figure out the criteria now before making the list.  One criteria for removal can be if the 'company' answers the phone with 'hello'. xD --Zojj (T,C) 17:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe we should include all the products which have an article, as long as the article is properly written, with references, and no advertising style. Many products do not disclose the number of customers, so we can not use it as a criteria. --Jordiferrer (talk) 09:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I found a wiki list here. --Zojj tc 15:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Multiple entries for single companies
I note that Infor Global Solutions now have 9 products listed here. The products do not have articles of their own and should therefore not be listed separately. It is making the list more cumbersome. I would suggest that there should be one entry here for Infor Global Solutions ERP. This is also true for the Sage Group, J D Edwards, Ramco and Lawson who all have multiple entries linking to one company. Would anyone have objections to this? Vrenator (talk) 10:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ordinarily I would agree to this sensible-sounding improvment to a list. However, the title of this list is "software packages", not companies. And how would you propose to condense those nine entries, comma-separate them on one line?  That doesn't sound right.  We'd better keep this list the way it is.   —Prhartcom   (talk)  16:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Consider removal of OpenPro as 'Free and Open Source'
There does not appear to be a valid way of obtaining OpenPro as a "free" open source, as they have a distinct page for pricing with no link to obtaining the software (for acedemic or whatever use) - http://www.openpro.com/products_prices.html

From my read of it OpenPro runs on opensource technology (Linux) so it CAN run on free software (though most people buy a version from Red Hat or others for support). It doesn't appear the ERP software itself is free. Steve K

97.75.204.141 (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me as if Odoo is not free, either. You have to pay $15 per month per "app." Their "apps" are what others would call "modules," i.e., vital parts of the software. https://www.odoo.com/pricing - kchnwtch — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kchnwtch (talk • contribs) 21:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Some proposed changes
Arunav.net (talk) 05:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Enterox Enterprise Suite
 * The article's inclusion criteria is stated clearly when you edit the page. "Attention editors

To be included in this list, the product must be notable, which means it must have an article written first. Redlinks or entries not linked to an article will be removed." Kuru   (talk)  12:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Remove OpenBravo from list
As per their blog (see here: https://www.openbravo.com/blog/openbravo-to-end-community-edition-open-source-projects-2020/ ) OpenBravo is no longer available as community version. So it's no longer free nor open source, but an entirely commercial product since the end of 2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.54.49.220 (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)