Talk:Odoo

Would recomend a general clarification

Odoo is Open Source and it's development has been led/controlled by Tiny/Odoo. Tiny/Odoo's "core modules" it supports in a Cloud SAAS setting. Tiny/Odoo provides support as a service either through the SAAS Online version or on a contract basis to self-hosted instances. Such support is not mandatory but at times is strongly urged by the company.

we can't promote their cloud system, but if there is a reputable source talking about their SaaS offering then we can perhaps mention it exists. The page is really about the software as a community project rather than the company that leads the project.Alanbelllibertus (talk) 07:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

What is meant by "last fully featured open source release"

I read this bit:

"The last fully featured open source release was 11.0.20180815 (LTS), available on KubeApps under AGPLv3.[2]"

Makes me wonder the basis of the claim re *fully featured* nature vs current community version etc.

Elvisbrandenburgkremmen (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Maybe the author means the first version where all product features were open source, but that is not true for v11, since that version already had an Enterprise edition with features that are not open source. So the statement is unclear and incorrect. I also find strange the reference to Kubeapps, that are totally unrelated to the Odoo ecosystem; it sounds like an advertisement. Dreispt (talk) 14:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Content removal

I see some significant content removal in this edit [1], I believe that mostly justified by WP:TRIVIA. IMHO most of the information is factual relevant to describe the project. Any suggestions for recovering most relevant parts?

Dreispt (talk) 13:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dreispt: This article's history has simply been a consummate assault upon the encyclopedia, except for what I left behind. The contributing admin has done a heroic job in patiently culling masses of egregious serial assaults upon the encyclopedia. And the original editor did a great job in radically transforming from newbie fandom status, seriously. No offense! I've been there! I'm not patronizing, because an encyclopedia is *really* hard, and he's been catching up quickly and humbly. I'm impressed.

The only way to recover *any* of it even in spirit would be if it was totally and radically transformed to be said not as technobabbling trivia, nor as a regurgitation of some web site, but rather to synthesize the most essential details given by multiple WP:RSes as to why it's uniquely notable amongst the world. So, no. A person should read all the guidelines that I'm linking here, many many times, and find a somehow similar but good article and see how they did it. It wasn't removed because WP:IDONTLIKEIT but because it didn't describe why it's WP:N notable, and thus encyclopedic. It is simply an exercise in what Wikipedia is and isn't -- easier said than done.

Wikipedia's job is not to describe something, as you know with WP:TRIVIA WP:WEBHOST WP:NOTDIR WP:FANCRUFT WP:LAUNDRY -- but to describe why it's notable. Such content in this article was already stretched very redundantly thin. After I made my edits, I reviewed the history and I was absolutely astonished at what vast reams of useless junk that had been previously culled. It was absolutely and gratuitously useless even in promotion of the subject. A person reading this article even as it is right now, would never ever ever learn anything about what the subject actually is, or why it's essential to the world.

Even now, as it stands by its raw text content alone, the article does not deserve to exist. It exists only by default. By the raw text content, it in no way whatsoever deserves to exist; but rather, it simply doesn't deserve to be deleted. It's a carefully curated (good job) collection of references, in text form. It's a promise of an article someday, and it's the basis for the reader to begin their own research. Like a WP:N placeholder, it simply states a case that someday, an article could be written here.

So forgive my verbosity but I am enumerating the basics, because they're difficult to learn at first, and because an encyclopedia is hard. I hope I have extended the admin's established work more broadly by describing what Wikipedia is and is WP:NOT, because that's all that's at stake here. I just heard that Odoo might possibly help manage an Amazon seller account, and I don't even know a single thing whatsoever about Odoo after having spent an hour exhaustively editing this article. :) Nothing. But I know where to start looking. — Smuckola(talk) 17:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm a little rusty but I did my share of edits [2] in the PT Wiki. I'm aware that it's not easy to ensure WP:NOT and neutrality, and I'm sure that much of the previous content was not up to the standards.

But I also believe that Odoo is a relevant and notable FLOSS project and community, and feel that it's possible to expand the article with better information.

Is there an article on a relevant FLOSS project you could recommend as we might use as a guideline or inspiration?

Dreispt (talk) 23:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

PS: To be totally transparent, I must disclaim that I'm the author of one of the books cited,

I did that research myself, and the articles on Adempiere and Openbravo, also well known OSS ERPs, could provide some guidance. I wonder if it's safe to do so as they are, or they too need to be trimmed to exclude irrelevant descriptions?

Dreispt (talk) 07:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I would certainly agree that it is hard! Comparing to articles like Wordpress or Joomla or PostgreSQL this one is much less informative and useful, however it is almost impossible to provide useful information without doing WP:OR. I would love to describe the architecture and how the modules are structured, or even list field types like PostgreSQL#Data_types but there simply won't be any newspapers talking about that ever and it is WP:LAUNDRY and WP:OR and WP:FANCRUFT. Even the version history table got removed as laundry and original research, but that kind of information currently exists on loads of other software articles. I think Wikipedia is tightening up a lot on content and articles and vast swathes of stuff about open source software that is perhaps under-reported in the mainstream media just won't make the cut when they are held to the standards. When I was going through the AFC process I was mainly concentrating on demonstrating to standards that the topic itself is WP:N and removing unsourced things from the article. We can't use self-published stuff by Odoo, (or apparently stuff from Github is self published or original research too) we can't use blogs, news articles are only going to be press release stuff about the corporation getting funding or case studies and the article is really about the software project and not the company that curates it. It is acceptable to use published paper books as reliable sources (as long as they are not authored by Fabian/Odoo I guess) so some information might be providable that way. There was a list of things you could use Odoo for but the problem with that it becomes a big list of modules and gets culled as laundry (it does logistics, accounting, lunch orders, fleet management, holidays, manufacturing, emails, portals, and it is a floor wax and a dessert topping). I am really not sure how an article can be written to be honest.Alanbelllibertus (talk) 11:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

It might be worth going through the sources already referenced in the lede with a view to WP:MINE the basis of an article, also WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:ABOUTSELF is not entirely verboten, once the notability of the topic itself has been established through multiple secondary and tertiary reliable sources it is OK to use primary information if it is not self-serving or exceptional claims, so some press releases or the Odoo documentation could contain facts that are OK to state. Alanbelllibertus (talk) 11:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Removal of release history table

Can someone help me understand the problem with the release history table? This has been removed and re-added and removed again, (this time by user:Smuckola and before by user:JzG) but this is a really common feature on encyclopaedic articles on other software such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WordPress#Release_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joomla#Version_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Office#Version_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAP_R/3#Releases in fact I am struggling to find any article on any software that doesn't include some kind of release history table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanbelllibertus (talk • contribs) 12:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable to have it. Syced (talk) 06:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Odoo/OpenERP used in Sierra Leone to create infrastructure for fighting Ebola

See the presentation at this year's 32C3: https://media.ccc.de/v/32c3-7561-how_open_source_software_second_hand_laptops_and_hackers_helped_stop_ebola_and_stopped_an_apocalypse

Notability and Sourcing

This article was flagged as having too many primary sources back in February. I see no evidence that has changed, and I'm pretty sure that using a company's own website and git repository as a reference is not acceptable. It seems that completely re-writing the page without using any sources that have "oodo.com" in them, or simply removing the entire web page may be called for. I welcome any thoughts on this before I make such a radical change, however. TI. Gracchus (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

it is possible to have WP:SELFSOURCE if it isn't an exceptional claim or unduly self-serving. Referencing version numbers, release dates and licenses used would fall into that category - but none of that establishes notability, the other things like the university courses/books/awards that are reliable sources or are referenced in reliable sources do the work of establishing notability. There are some claims in the lede supported by the company "about" page which need to be re-sourced or removed. Not convinced that a wiki article should contain pricing information under any circumstances, but I am not sure of policy on that.Alanbelllibertus (talk) 09:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The claim that Odoo is the most popular Open Source ERP system is supported by this website https://erp-systems.zone/ranking/method which I don't think is a reliable source or a remotely sane methodology. I don't dispute the popularity (it is the most prominent open source ERP by quite a number of measures) but I don't think that is a well sourced claim.Alanbelllibertus (talk) 09:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

we might be able to make a more well-sourced description by referencing these articles http://www.enterpriseappstoday.com/erp/what-is-odoo-open-source-erp.html https://www.cio.com/article/2380921/open-source-tools/open-source-tools-how-to-run-your-small-business-with-free-open-source-software.html Alanbelllibertus (talk) 09:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)