Talk:TeraCopy

Move request

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: article moved Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 08:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Teracopy → TeraCopy – Proper title is 'TeraCopy' not lazy version 'Teracopy' facepalm 202.46.138.86 (talk) 06:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Reception" section

I removed Reception section. Software review industry is not as well established and mature as that of movies or books. Quantifying "reception" based on a single review from 2007 is misleading at best. This is not related to Teracopy per se, it's just inappropriate in software context in general. 80.218.98.25 (talk) 12:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Restored. Softpedia has come up on Wikipedia: Reliable sources noticeboard and is considered acceptable. Your proposal that any source that publishes software reviews is by nature unacceptable is unreasonably sweeping. The solution to leaning excessively on one review would be to find more. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Here are a few online reviews. I imagine more can be found.

• Jacobi, Jon L. (16 February 2012). "TeraCopy Home". PCWorld. IDG Consumer & SMB.
• CNET staff (13 September 2012). "CNET Editors' review". CNET. CBS Interactive.
• Fitzpatrick, Jason (6 June 2009). "Hive Five Winner for Best Alternative File Copier: TeraCopy". Lifehacker. Gawker Media.

/ edg ☺ ☭ 16:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, reviews don't age well. They are now laughably old. Stevebroshar (talk) 03:14, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Citations

Shouldn't the long citations be converted to normal text (e.g. "TeraCopy is a lot faster than Windows Explorer on XP is, but only with proper defragmentation. On Vista, it moves a tad slower even if defragmentation of the disk has been performed.")? --Mortense (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)