Talk:FilePro

message: Sorry, Ken; I didn't see that you'd put the trademark notice in.  Tradenames are by policy assumed to be trademarks, just as with other encyclopediae.--Baylink 22:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I came across this article from fPTech, which I think needs to be merged into here (as it contains next to no information at all). In that process, I've noticed that this page is in major need of cleanup (there's talk content in the actual article, for instance) – but don't worry, the Cleanup Taskforce is on the case! :) –Dvandersluis 21:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge and Major Cleanup needed

message: The article has "evolved" into a talk format.  It was originally a simple "what is filePro?" page.  At some point, an apparently-disgruntled developer added some rather heated opinions on the program, much of which was no longer relevent to the current version.  I did a bit of editing, perhaps overzealously, to correct it.  This went back and forth a couple of times, at which point I decided to leave the other person's posts as-is, and added "correction" sections, rather than simply remove the inaccurate and/or (in my opinion) inflamatory information.
I agree that a major rework is appropriate, to break it into logical sections, and simply eliminate inaccurate information.  Might I suggest, as a start:
* What is filePro?
* filePro features
* Pros/Cons
* filePro history
* Company history
I have no problem with this article being merged with fPTech, though is it possible to point fPTech to a specific section within filePro's article?
–Kenbrody 23:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Redirects that specify a particular section do not work (though if you go back to the redirect and then click the link it will take you to the correct section.  I believe this is a known limitation but I do nopt know if it is activley being addressed.) RJFJR 03:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes regarding current format

message: Would it be appropriate to add a "history" or "timeline" section to the entry?  I could add numerous entries, but I am not certain of the exact year for some things.
–Kenbrody 18:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have the information, I'd say why not? :) –Dvandersluis 18:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should "history" section be added? 

message: I've done cleanup work and closed the Cleanup Taskforce project for this article.  Please let me know if you feel it should be reopened. RJFJR 03:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup done

message: I'm not sure it is necessary to merge fPTech here.  Although that article is a stub instead of maiking it a redirect to here just leave it as is and have a link there.  On the other hand, I've left the merge tags until discuss is finished. RJFJR 03:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I once again suggest a merge, as the FPTech contains next to zero information (if not for the merge, I'd nominate it for AfD). –Dvandersluis 04:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Merge: Clearly, FPTech needs to be no more than a redirect. --Baylink 17:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: The first paragraph sounds like marketing talk and needs a rewrite.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:CA:BF10:9400:E553:DEE7:CDD3:4604 (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Current status