Talk:Magento

NPOV violation
ISTM that this section:

> As a result of the breakup of eBay following Carl Icahn's raid

... *strongly* violates NPOV and is a value call, one that I personally would probably disagree with. If someone wants to defend it, it needs citations, which I would like to read. Liam Proven (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Ambiguity in "rewrite"
The article currently says that they decided to rewrite osCommerce. That sounds a bit confusing -- did they work from the osCommerce code base and rewrite it, or did they start from scratch to make a clone? I assume the later given the license of Magento, but someone who knows for sure may want to clarify the wording Balleyne (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This reference link is broken
may be it should be removed? I do not find the article, the link is redirect ot the main site of the journal

t3n:Open Source & Web Edition 10, 12/2007 - 02/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Takumi22 (talk Takumi22 (talk) • contribs) 20:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Try to be objective
Please try to be objective - filling this page with fluff and propoganda won't server magento or the community. 158.45.1.32 (talk) 05:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * True, I agree. Which is why I twice added some criticism and removed the propaganda. Not necessarily because I consider Magento bad. The wiki police would kill the page in an instant if we try it.

I also think it would be unfair for a genral researcher if we don't lay the cards on the table. Magento doesn't have what to hide anyway. On a side note, I would appreciate if you can sign your name with something better that an IP addy. Try signing up! Kadima100 (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Advertisement
I'm removing the advertisement tag. I cleaned up much of the page and added some criticism and limitations. If anyone thinks that the tag should be there, please by all means add it. However, I'd greatly appreciate if you can write here why you think so. (You are entitled to your opinion.) Oh, and please sing your name. I nice to be identifiable. Kadima100 (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe this article still reads like an advertisement, as it still is based entirely on the official website. It really needs third-party references for the information provided in order to establish notability as per WP:WEB. The features section especially reads as a mirror of the website. Are there any magazines or newspapers that have covered this subject that could be mentioned? — BradV 04:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It was covered by cNet and others (as shown here). These sites don't contain much information. Magento is still young; it should take a while before it gets picked up by the mainstream press. I am leaving the tag until I can get some more references. As for the notability, if you can give some time I'll get you some links. Does cNet qualify? Kadima100 (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I read it and found it to be a very standard wikipedia entry, it does not sound at all like an advertisement. The advertisement tag is certainly not appropriate for the current itteration. DavesPlanet (talk) 12:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see a half dozen solid external references, this package now dominates the e-commerce market, and no discussion of the "marketing" tag in 3 years, I'm going to pull it. If you disagree then please discuss. DavesPlanet (talk) 12:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Helpfulness of Features Section
Simply put, the features section is not helpful. The description line at the top claims to list "some of the key features" of Magento, but it's really a brain dump of anything the software might do.

If the intent is to list key features, then just list key features and include a mention of the availability of a complete feature list on Magento's site. This will better serve people reading the article and prevent stale links in the Wikipedia entry (as Magento's features page even indicates the page may change without notice).

I'm just not sure a full feature list in a bad format is in line with Wikipedia standards or even helpful for people reading the article.

Rszrama (talk) 15:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. If anyone can help narrow down the list it would greatly improve the page. Kadima100 (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok I have cleaned up and genrealized feature list and directed to website instead. gioto (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Helpfulness of Article
This article has been stripped down so much that it is virtually useless. Most things that need to be said about Magento are positive, but because some uptight editors are so worried about being biased, this doesn't seem to be possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.67.185 (talk) 10:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The "Limitations" Section
Seems awfully subjective, and uninformative. I think both the "features" and "limitations" sections should go. But at the very least, the "Limitations" section should be renamed "Criticism". Also, as there are no sources for either, their time is short unless someone stops me. Proxy User (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed the limitations section for it's unbiased opinions and lack of references. I left the Features section as most of these commerce articles contain them and I feel it's necessary. --Sc0ttkclark (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Good links?
Can anyone please provide good links to reliable, third-party sources? I AFD'd this because the article doesn't really seem to contain any. I found one, http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/925-The-PeC-Review-Magento-Is-the-Open-Source-Powerhouse-, that seems quite relevant (review of the software, not a promo site), that could/should be added somewhere. (And withdrew nom.) &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 16:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Mageworx's extensions
I think these guys should be added to this text. They are doing great work regarding Magento SEO and are 3rd vendor according to number of extensions for Magento. Here is the link to their site: (Redacted) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.125.48.172 (talk) 12:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree, and that was clearly an attempt to get a backlink from wikipedia. Punkstar89 (talk) 13:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Also disagree, would be more appropriate to put something in to 5000+ plugins available via there magento Connect market place Webwidget (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Clear attempty at marketing HenryHayes (talk) 13:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi Protect page
I havent been editing this article long but there seems to be a fair amount of ip users spamming the page, suggest the page gets semi protected, thoughts?

EE Version
Magento havent updated the official version page so have left it in as a reference but also added the release notes for the current latest version 1.14, will remove this once the official current version page updates. For date I used the date I recieved the email notification so that it is approx, again can be updated once the official page is updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webwidget (talk • contribs) 22:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Market share
The current article states "In April 2014, W3Techs estimated that Magento was used by 1.0% of all websites.[2]"

The citation links to http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/cm-magento/all/all which actually states

"Magento is used by 2.7% of all the websites whose content management system we know. This is 1.0% of all websites."

So, that's 2.7% of 1.0% ... which is an insignificant percentage. The very concept that Magento serves 1% of the worlds websites is not tenable.

I'll remove this quote ( rather than rewrite with the correct share ) unless anyone can come up with a reason not to. Angelstorm (talk) 11:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * What currently is on the page is indeed incorrect. W3Techs approximates that 2.7% of all websites use Magento, based on their sample group. So we could either change it to that, or remove it completely, as I don't know how reliable the source is. Lonaowna (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for the input. I'll leave this discussion open till the end of the week and then, assuming no dissent, remove the offending section.Cheers. Angelstorm (talk) 12:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Done. Rgds Angelstorm (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Split
I am proposing that this page is split into two parts for Magento 1 and Magento 2, as these are actually completely different pieces of software. The only thing they really share is the name. HenryHayes (talk) 13:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Split or disambiguate sections?
There are now three things that need to be disambiguated: Magento 1 (however we decide to call it), Magento Open Source, and Adobe Commerce. *There is no longer anything called simply Magento anymore, the name is deprecated.* It can be seen in the developer documentation that the two products referenced by that documentation are Adobe Commerce and Magento Open Source. I actually agree with the sentiment that Magento 1 should be a separate Wikipedia page due to the lack of technical similarities between Magento 1 and Magento Open Source / Adobe Commerce (referred to with the legacy term Magento 2), but I think that would confuse readers.

I can clean up and disambiguate these terms and other terms as the community sees fit. Adobe itself has been _mostly_ unclear in it's changing of terms, but I can find in my notes references to most name changes (I've been working with Magento for too long, and I've been documenting these changes as I'm a stickler for details).

As the real product being actively developed, I propose that the article be renamed "Adobe Commerce". It should be mentioned in the summary that Adobe Commerce (Formerly "Magento Commerce" and before that "Magento Enterprise Edition") is based on "Magento Open Source", which is the new name for the software that was formerly called "Magento", "Magento 2", and "Magento Community Edition" during various times.

I'll get to work on it in the coming weeks, please, if anybody has anything to add now's the time.

Dotancohen (talk) 07:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Proper nouns and sub section titles
Which of those words in the sub section titles are proper nouns?

For example, is "Magento Technology Partners" actually a proper noun?

(Ref WP:STYLE.)

--Mortense (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)