This article was nominated for deletion on 8 August 2016. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing: Software Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Software.

Just finished doing a round of cleanup here but It's looking like it might be unsalvageable in terms of being mainly PR content. Wondering if others could try their hand and/or give an opinion. GreenSixSided (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delete it.

This is blatant self-promotion. Almost all the sources are the company itself. Having edits by a users like "PimconautB" and "Ckemptner-pimcore" also looks like they are editing the page themselves. Betabug (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. AntoinefromPimcore (talk · contribs) has been paid by Pimcore GmbH on their behalf. Their editing has included contributions to this article.

Disclosing per WP:PAID. I am an employee of Pimcore GmbH (Partner Marketing Manager). I will only propose changes via this Talk page and will not edit the article directly. AntoinefromPimcore (talk) 08:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello, I am a paid contributor employed by Pimcore GmbH, with a disclosure on my user page. Per WP:COI I am not editing the article directly and am proposing the following three sourced corrections here for an independent editor to review. 1. Outdated interface description Current text: "The user interface is based on the Sencha Ext-JS-6 development framework." This is outdated. Pimcore introduced a new administration interface, Pimcore Studio, with Pimcore 11, which became the default interface in Pimcore 12. It is built on React and TypeScript. As of platform version 2026.1, the legacy ExtJS-based interface ("Admin Classic") has been fully removed. Proposed replacement: "The primary administration interface, Pimcore Studio, was introduced with Pimcore 11 and became the default in Pimcore 12. It is built on React and TypeScript. The legacy ExtJS-based interface (Admin Classic) was deprecated and, as of platform version 2026.1, fully removed." Source: Pimcore Development Documentation – Studio UI I recognize this source is Pimcore's own documentation. If any editor knows of an independent secondary source covering this UI transition, adding it alongside would strengthen the citation; I did not want to hold back an otherwise straightforward factual correction while looking for one. 2. Neutralizing loaded language around the 2025 licence change Current text: "In 2025 Pimcore abandoned their Open-Source platform for version 12 of their software and changed their license to the proprietary "POCL" license." The word "abandoned" is loaded language (WP:NPOV). The underlying fact, that Pimcore's Community Edition moved from GPLv3 to the proprietary Pimcore Open Core License (POCL), is accurate and should stay in the article; I am only proposing to neutralize the phrasing, not to remove or soften the substance. Proposed replacement: "In 2025, Pimcore transitioned the Community Edition from the GNU General Public License v3 (GPLv3) to the proprietary Pimcore Open Core License (POCL)." The following sentence about the Open Core claim and the OpenDXP fork should remain unchanged, as it is independently sourced and relevant. 3. Duplicate sentence The following sentence currently appears twice in the article, once near the top and once further down: "Pimcore follows the specifications and definitions of the PHP Framework Interop Group (PSR 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7). The company has been a member of this PHP standardisation body since August 2016." Proposing removal of the second occurrence as a minor duplication cleanup. Thanks for reviewing. Happy to provide further sourcing or clarification for any of the three points. AntoinefromPimcore (talk) 08:43, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Not done: your request appears to have been generated by a large language model. Day Creature (talk) 04:59, 11 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for pointing out @Day Creature.

Please find below an updated request. Please keep in mind that I'm new to Wikipedia and don't have much experience in requesting/executing many edits.

Hi all,

I work for Pimcore GmbH and I'm posting under COI, disclosed on my user page. Not touching the article directly, just flagging three things here for someone independent to check over.

1. the interface description is just outdated at this point. It still says the UI is "based on the Sencha Ext-JS-6 development framework" but that's been superseded - Pimcore Studio came in with v11 and took over as the default in v12, React/TypeScript based, and the old ExtJS admin ("Admin Classic") got fully removed as of platform 2026.1. Proposed text:

"The primary administration interface, Pimcore Studio, was introduced with Pimcore 11 and became the default in Pimcore 12. It is built on React and TypeScript. The legacy ExtJS-based interface (Admin Classic) was deprecated and, as of platform version 2026.1, fully removed."

Only source I've got for this is our own docs (https://docs.pimcore.com/platform/next/Studio_UI/) - happy if someone wants to pair it with an independent source later, didn't want to hold off the correction while I go looking for one.

2. this one's more about wording than facts: "In 2025 Pimcore abandoned their Open-Source platform for version 12 of their software and changed their license to the proprietary 'POCL' license." "Abandoned" isn't neutral (WP:NPOV). The underlying fact is right though, Community Edition did go from GPLv3 to POCL, so I'm not asking to remove that, just reword it:

"In 2025, Pimcore transitioned the Community Edition from the GNU General Public License v3 (GPLv3) to the proprietary Pimcore Open Core License (POCL)."

3. there's a duplicated sentence. "Pimcore follows the specifications and definitions of the PHP Framework Interop Group (PSR 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7). The company has been a member of this PHP standardisation body since August 2016." shows up twice, near the top and again further down. Second one's just redundant, can go. AntoinefromPimcore (talk) 12:07, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply