Talk:TeamForge

message: Now that this is specifically about the now-proprietary app and not the website, I've moved all the old talk over to Talk:SourceForge.net where it fits better. Chris Cunningham 20:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved talk 

message: Is this quote:
the noble intent of SF.net to keep everything open
really considered NPOV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.169.158.89 (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2007
: Nope, it's rubbish. Removed. Chris Cunningham 14:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote 

message: Text of this page maps as a direct lifting of http://www.vasoftware.com/sourceforge/difs.php, which appears to be a copyright violation.--BenWilson 14:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like we're just talking about the "Product comparison" section of the wikipedia page added on 2007-03-07; I concur. Removed. DMacks 14:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, I was sufficiently vague. :-) BenWilson 18:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright? 

message: Does anyoneknow when SF.net start ? I can't find that information... 
82.240.37.7 13:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age ? 

message: This page should be a disambiguation page.  The term "SourceForge" can mean several things:
1) The company that used to be VA Linux, then became VA Software, and has recently become SourceForge, Inc.
2) SourceForge Enterprise Edition, a product that SourceForge, Inc. sold to Collab recently.
3) SourceForge.net, the website.
I think that having SourceForge assume #2 is misleading.
Thanks!
Ross (SourceForge.net Community Manager)
Rossturk 21:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, Ross.  Since nobody has objected to your suggestion in the last 6 months, I'll rename SourceForge to SourceForge Enterprise Edition (since that is what they call it at Collab) and make SourceForge into a disambiguation page. JonWinge (talk) 09:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

text: OK, the move to SourceForge Enterprise Edition is done and I wrote a simple disambiguation page at SourceForge.  I have never done this before on Wikipedia, so I hope I did it right :). JonWinge (talk) 10:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should be a disambiguation 

message: *Hi, I tried contributing some further information on SourceForge but was trimmed, er chopped off. Now i re-read this article and it is kinda dry don't you think? - Red1 D Oon 03:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the stuff you added is more appropriate on the SourceForge.net article, this one deals mainly with the software project management software. Ciotog 03:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes! Didn't notice that subtle flow to SourceForge.net. Ok i will try to re-assert back later. Cheers! - Red1 D Oon 04:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't notice the subtle flow because (in my opinion) it doesn't make sense.  People searching for "SourceForge" could be searching for three things: 1) SourceForge.net, 2) SourceForge, Inc, 3) SourceForge Enterprise Edition.  I think it's odd that the page for SourceForge points, at this moment, to #3 on that list - this article is essentially about SourceForge Enterprise Edition.  It's odd because most people who see the word SourceForge think about SourceForge.net and are probably very confused by this article.  I work for SF.net, though, so I'm willing to admit that my world view is biased :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossturk (talk • contribs) 17:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Is Content Too Dry?

message: I'm proposing redirecting SourceForge to SourceForge.net; see here for discussion. Since the enterprise article used to live at SourceForge I thought I'd post this notice here as well. Andareed (talk) 03:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move proposal