Talk:Puppet (company)

Untitled
Puppet Enterprise 2.0 was actually released in November, but announced in September. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.1.59 (talk) 07:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I propose that the article Puppet (software) is merged with this article. Puppet Labs only market and sell this product. The notability of the product and the company are indistinguishable from each other, and one article will suffice. --HighKing (talk) 02:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Nearly a week has gone by. I take it there's no objections and therefore nothing to discuss?  --HighKing (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a widely used piece of software that is packaged in many open source distributions, independently of the marketed commerical version. Why would it not have its own page? Most software packages in the same space have their own page, even if they are their respective companies' sole product (see Comparison of open source configuration management software for examples). 71.59.254.251 (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It comes down to policy, namely WP:N. Is the software notable, or the company that produces it?  I would guess that the company is notable only because it produces this well-known software - if that's the case, there should only be one article.  --HighKing (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * (Full disclosure: I work for Puppetlabs, but as a community developer - so I'm biased but in a geek-laden not-marketing kind of way). To be clear PuppetLabs doesn't just produce Puppet, they produce: MCollective, Razor, Facter, Dashboard, PuppetDB, PE (commercial puppet) and a few other pieces. Some of these products can be used independently of Puppet. So its not true they only produce Puppet, nor is this the only product they are notable for. That said, I believe there is only a page for Puppet on Wikipedia, but some of the other products could do with a minor page of their own perhaps as some (mcollective for example) can operate without Puppet. Anyway IMO I think having the commercial entity (Puppetlabs) separate from the Puppet product is not a bad thing, although the intent should be kept clear and right now I don't think this is clear. For example, the Puppetlabs page has lots of mentions about Puppet which should really just reference this article instead and be removed from the Puppetlabs page. I would argue you if keep the intent clear of each article and ensure separate concerns of Product and Company the articles would both be of a higher quality and avoid duplication and potential 'commercial interests'. I would argue that trying to merge product info into the Puppetlabs article would seem like overloading the wrong thing, like merging Windows information into the Microsoft article page, Puppet is an open source product and not all users need to know about Puppetlabs or deal with them commercial to be 'just a user'. I'm not 100% on the wiki policies or reasons behind them, but for other reasons I hope are stronger (not just disagreeing with WP:N which I usually agree with) I would think keeping them separate, but leaving the product information out of the Puppetlabs article would be the better course - either that or putting that one up for scrutiny if it cannot prove WP:N on its own from its product? My 2p anyway excuse me if I'm not wiki policy savvy - happy to continue the discussion HighKing, as its an interesting one. :-). Kennethbarber (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

My only affiliation is as an end-user of puppet, facter, mcollective, and other products from Puppet Labs. I do not believe that the two articles should be merged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.30.239.190 (talk) 02:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I think they are both notable. They both pass WP:GNG ("received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). Puppet the software is widely covered, and I think Puppet Labs has received sufficient business press to justify an article. However, if there is a merger, Puppet (software) should be the survivor (which is the opposite of the current template). Superm401 - Talk 05:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think these two pages should be merged; if I want to know something about the open source system Puppet I have a different focus than information about its main sponsoring company. *If* they are merged, the merge should happen exactly the other way round: The software is more important than the company. FWIW, I'm a puppet user and I am not affiliated with Puppet Labs. Joachim Schrod (talk) 18:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed. "Puppet" as a software is a fairly common computing search term, the company name is minor in comparison. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 12:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I'm a former employee from several years back with no financial interest in the company, and also a Puppet user and independent consultant. I don't think this proposal makes sense, and isn't consistent with the handling of other articles on technology companies that make a product with the same or similar name as the company. E.g. Chef the software and Chef the company; VMware the company and VMware vSphere, VMware Fusion, etc. As Ken Barber pointed out, it's not true that Puppet only makes a single product, even if all the products are related to automation. I'd to close this discussion in order to fix the article title, since Puppet Labs has been renamed as Puppet. See further comments below. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit request
Puppet Labs recently changed its name to Puppet (officially Puppet, Inc.) and has a new logo and website address (puppet.com). I work for Puppet and we want to avoid any conflict of interest editing, so I'm posting here to see if someone else can update the page. Here are some links with more information about the change: Puppet Enterprise has also changed a lot since the last time this page was substantially edited, and we have a showing our current location in Portland.
 * https://puppet.com/blog/gearing-up-for-another-decade-of-industry-leadership
 * http://www.eweek.com/developer/puppet-updates-platform-starts-new-interoperability-project.html
 * http://www.infoworld.com/article/3052885/data-center/puppet-expands-support-for-docker-kubernetes.html

Thank you, and please let me know if you have any questions. KristinaWeis (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Does anyone around here know the procedure for moving the article from Puppet Labs -> Puppet (company). I think we should aim for consistency with how the Chef articles are handled. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Puppet (software)
Since it's only notable contribution is Puppet (software), I don't think it warrants a separate article. AtlasDuane (talk) 13:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 06:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)