Talk:Amadeus IT Group

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Spain  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Companies  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Computing  
WikiProject icon 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Speedy[edit]

I think this page was written by a company representative and is biased. For example, these statements look subjective:

Amadeus tagline, "Your technology partner", reflects the approach they take towards their customers. They focus on building and maintaining mutually beneficial long-term relationships.

Amadeus' greatest strength is its ability to form successful mutually-beneficial partnerships with its customers. By working effectively with those immersed in the business of travel and tourism, the company has been able to design winning solutions for travel booking and travel management.

I definitely agree. I'm tagging this page until it's solved. Oskilian 06:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
No doubt about it. In fact, at one point they even use the word "Our" when describing the company. Someone needs to clean this up. Shame on you Amadeus. 69.237.180.158 17:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The page has been updated according to the above comments. User:cgondar 15:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it hasn't. It's still blatently advertising copy - and it's badly written and edited. This page is a disgrace, and does nothing but tarnish Amadeus's (note the use of the apostrophe, which is something the writer doesn't) reputation.


This article reads directly like an advert, it'll either need a complete rewrite or deleted altogether. Rayward 15:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

marked this for speedy deleteRayward 15:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Replaced ad tag 22May08[edit]

I've put the ad tag back in, as it is nothing but an advertisment for Amadeus. The last edits were from a user on behalf of Amadeus. (At least they're honest). But not sure we even need an article on this, as the CRS page should cover most of the information on this page. Seriously trim and make NPOV - or delete article completly.--Dmol (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggest moving to page for CRS. (Central Reservation System)[edit]

I agree with previous posters in that this is nothing but a large ad for the Amadeus group. I think it should be totally removed and some of the information put in a page for Amadeus CRS, similar to Galileo CRS and Worldspan etc. I've tried to trim it down a bit, but even the title does not match what the article would become. Suggestions please.--Dmol 19:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason the name of the article is called Amadeus IT Group is because the group in question is called Amadeus IT Group, thank you for not calling it CRS... You really don't need to impose your ignorance to everybody

Removed ad tag.[edit]

I have trimmed this article down considerably, and I think it is enough to justify removing the advertisement tag. Most of the info had been pure promotional spam, and much of it has now been moved to the new page for Amadeus CRS where it belongs.--Dmol 14:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

moving[edit]

I moved the essential parts from the CRS to Amadeus CRS which should end up similar to Sabre CRS. This page Amadeus IT Group should look like Sabre Holdings, the holding company. Mion 02:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Ad information removed. Left here as basis for rewrite.[edit]

Today, through Amadeus, 90,274 travel agency locations and 29,663 airline sales offices around the world are able to make bookings with:

  • 490 airlines.
  • 77,000 hotel properties, 248 hotel chains
  • 22 car rental companies, serving over 36,000 locations
  • 106 rail providers
  • 200 tour operators
  • 82 insurance providers in 50 countries
  • Other travel provider groups (ferry, cruise)

Amadeus has subscribers in 217 markets (i.e. countries) worldwide; covering these different markets by delivering localized solutions for marketing, customer services and support through a network of over 65 Amadeus Commercial Organizations(ACOs). --Dmol (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand, these are only facts, not an ad. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, so I do not see why figures should not be part of it. With the exception of "over 65" which is nonsense, I see no ad there. Can you clarify? Vincent Lextrait (talk) 05:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I think there was a reasonable amount of time to debate the issue. As no reason was supplied, I restore the article to its original version, removing the "over" word from the original language. Vincent Lextrait (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit]

Please insert here any comment on possible remaining tracks of advertisement tone in the article. In the absence of substantiated comment for, say, one month, I propose to remove the tag. Vincent Lextrait (talk) 18:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of comment supporting the idea that the tone is commercial, I remove the tag. Vincent Lextrait (talk) 09:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe the article is still full of PR puff and justifies the advert tag. For example:

"Throughout the 1990's, Amadeus continued developing innovative and user-friendly products" - who says so?

"The company has come a long way since its launch in 1987 and its track record of strong growth speaks for itself."

"Today, Amadeus is not only the world’s leading travel distributor, but it is also living its mission to be the leading provider of IT solutions that enable success in the travel and tourism industry."

"Throughout the organisation, and in all the markets in which Amadeus operates around the world, the corporate values of Partnership, Team Spirit, Excellence and Leadership are identified by employees and embedded in business and management processes."

"this contract is widely referred to in the industry as the deal of the century"

"Amadeus is making further progress in the creation of a world-class IT services division"

"Seeking to provide its customers with the highest levels of product and service quality"

There are far too many adjectives. Rewriting the history to use past tense would help. I bet the person who wrote this article copied and pasted from the company's web site.

Paul Foxworthy (talk) 05:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you look well at the history, it is not "still" full of PR, but "again" full of PR. At the time I removed the ad flag, the language you refer to was not there (yet). I agree it needs to be fixed. Vincent Lextrait (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Within a week of you removing the tag, the article more than tripled in size. This article needs serious trimming, starting with those copious lists that are not encyclopedic. The tag should not be removed after a set time, but only removed when the article is back to what it should be.--Dmol (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
That is exactly what happened, I fixed the article, it was back to what it should be, then I set an additional one month delay, and as it had remained okay, I removed the tag. I do not understand what you find wrong with this. Vincent Lextrait (talk) 05:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I can see significant changes from an anonymous IP address. Maybe we need to be more vigilant and revert some changes. Paul Foxworthy (talk) 05:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

         I am the one who originally modified the article, basing myself on some Amadeus documentation. I am sorry I left in some PR in there by mistake, all the examples above have been legitimately removed. BUT it is no reason for cutting down the whole history chapter!!! It was full of facts, just because you don't have time to work on the article doesn't mean you need to tear down hours of work?!? Thank you for restoring ALL the facts that were in there instead of just spitting on people's compositions...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.30.139.131 (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC) 

[edit]

Please insert here any comment justifying to keep the advert tag. I have tried to remove all tracks of superlative wording in the article. To my knowledge there is nothing left. I'll wait for comments before removing the tag. Vincent Lextrait (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

In the absence of comment objecting this, I remove the tag. Vincent Lextrait (talk) 10:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit]

I am not going to repeat myself ad nauseum. I and at least three other editors agreed with the inclusion of the ad tag. See above.--Dmol (talk) 11:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree. Edits have been done since that discussion (see above), so a new discussion needs to take place. Vincent Lextrait (talk) 11:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Referencing[edit]

This article has no citations to independent third party reliable sources. The tone is promotional, there is no independent assessment of the subject. It does indeed read like an advert. Tag reinstated. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Would you please be a little more specific? An excerpt of an ad-like sentence would help for instance. Vincent Lextrait (talk) 09:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
OK
Amadeus IT Group specialises in travel technology solutions to facilitate the distribution and sale of airline, train, cruise ship, rental car, hotel and other travel services. The traditional core of its business is the Amadeus Global Distribution System (GDS); more recently the company has tried to reposition itself as an IT partner for the travel and tourism industries, offering e-commerce and IT services in addition to its distribution business.
Through Amadeus 94,000 travel agencies and 32,000 airline sales offices around the world make bookings with travel providers.
Around 8,300 people work for Amadeus worldwide in its principal locations and ACOs. The company is multi-cultural with about 95 nationalities working in Amadeus sites worldwide. Headquarters are located in Madrid, Spain.
Other major offices are in Sophia Antipolis, France, as well as in Doral, USA, Bangkok, Thailand and Erding, Germany. There are also IT services centres in London, UK and Sydney, Australia.
Amadeus customers include:

American Express Carlson Wagonlit BCD Travel Hogg Robinson Group TUI AG Expedia Thomas Cook etc. etc.

Suggest replace with:
Amadeus IT Group is an international transaction processing company with headquarters in Madrid and regional and company offices throughout the world. Services offered are primarily for the travel and tourism industries and customers include airlines, hotel chains and cruise ship operators.
Then if you can find any information from independent third party reliable sources add that.
Hope this helps. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. While I like your proposal, I think some information is still missing. I am looking at SAP AG article as a model (it looks arguably much better than the article we talk about). I believe that the introduction can be shortened if the company info in the right is properly filled in (e.g. the number of countries where employees reside). I propose to do that if nobody does it before me. I guess that the number of references should be kept at reasonable level, otherwise the article will be cluttered with them. Vincent Lextrait (talk) 12:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ad tag is justified.[edit]

At the risk of repeating myself and others, I’ll detail the following comments in reply to user Vincent Lextrait's request.

  • The entire tone of the article is promotional. It does not depend on any one sentence as you state.
  • The "Product overview and examples" section is a promotional list of 20 or so Amadeus products and services, with no other editing.
  • Several other editors have agreed with this concern over the last few years.
  • The ad tag does not have a time limit as you also insist. It should only be removed when the issue is resolved.
  • Likewise, the NPOV tag should not have been removed until resolved.
  • I have myself removed the ad tag previously, but almost immediately the information that concerned me and others was replaced.
  • I have previously moved the offending info to the talk pages where it could be used as a basis for further work, but within a short time it was moved back in to the article.
  • List detailing the number and identity of airlines, hotel properties, tour operators etc, should not be used and can only appear as promotional. Statistics detailing market share percentage, and the industries involved, would make more sense.
  • Likewise any reference to the number of countries it operates in.
  • There is no justification for a list of their clients. (A few major ones could be mentioned in a sentence though).
  • The copy editing is very poor and is largely a list of features which I assume is copied directly from company literature.
  • The introduction is poor, and does not describe the company as an opening sentence should.
  • I agree with the other comments, that there is a complete lack of independent third party sources. For a large company, they should not be hard to find.
  • There is and has been considerable consensus to change this article. Vincent Lextrait seems to be the lone voice against.
  • I can declare that I do not work (and have never worked) for any CRS / GDS company.

Unrelated to the above, the following edits should happen, but every time I start the edits are reverted by user Vincent Lextrait.

  • Headings immediately followed by another heading.
  • The “Various information” list which has been re-added once more. Trivia lists are discouraged on Wikipedia and the info (where relevant) should be incorporated into the main article.
  • Numerals instead of numbers written as words at the start of sentences.
  • Too many one or two sentence paragraphs.
  • The final paragraph regarding the CRS, which should be moved to the Amadeus CRS page.

I suggest trimming this article down to the first few paragraphs and the history section.--Dmol (talk) 11:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

As promotional tone is a very subjective matter, it is always welcome to debate, and explain. Wikipedia encourages debate when there is controversy, so this is why I invited you to the discussion, so far with no success. I am happy that you accept elaborating your point of view (which might very well be entirely right).
The lengthy list of products is, I agree, far too long, and a list of product areas would be sufficient, but I believe not its mere suppression.
The fact that other editors have agreed in the past is not relevant I believe, as editing has happened since that moment. I called for comments on the discussion page to check if people agreed that the article was now acceptable. In the absence of comment, as it is supposed to be on Wikipedia, I considered naturally that everybody agreed. Putting back the "ad" tag without contributing to the discussion is, I think, not the right thing to do.
I never said the tag had a time limit, I just apply Wikipedia (good) principles of discussion and consensus. The only way to know if the issue has been resolved is to ask the community, and that is exactly what I did. This situation has already arisen, and you did not object. What other process do you have in mind? It is the only one I am aware of.
I agree with your remark on list of customers and market share.
I find on the SAP AG page reference to a number of countries, so as it is not creating controversy on SAP, I do not feel it is a problem here.
Copy editing is truly poor, that is clearly granted.
I have started adding references. Other contributors are welcome!
I agree a good rewrite is needed, but "ad" tag and "rewrite needed" are two different things (and "references needed" is different too). I wanted to resolve the first one before the second.
I'll keep on working gradually on the article, and will come back to this discussion page when the result will be more satisfying. Vincent Lextrait (talk) 13:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Third Opinion[edit]

Hi, I found this article at WP:3O. I agree with the consensus, this article is written very much like an advertisement; WP:PEACOCKs and WP:WEASELs are running rampant. User:Dmol has some excellent points, and it seems that several other users (including myself) overwhelmingly agree. In particular, the opening sentence is ambiguous at best and sounds like something out of a brochure. this edit is a step in the right direction, but it still needs quite a bit of work beyond that.

Vincent Lextrait, judging by the amount of information you have added to the article (in particular your knowledge of its technical infrastructure), you are possibly affiliated with the company (maybe an IT professional, judging by your userpage). If that is the case, I encourage you to read WP:COI before making further edits. If your editing pattern continues (denying consensus, WP:OWN), you may be reported to WP:COIN. Mildly MadTC 15:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't think I have added significant information on the article, just reformatted it and inserted third party reference (no bias there I hope). To my knowledge, the technical information has been inserted by somebody else. Or are you referring to something I overlooked? Additionally, I have urged for consensus and debate, not denying it, if you look at the discussion page or the article history, that should be quite clear. Having been on Wikipedia for several years, I am quite aware of the basic principles (however not the precise wording of WP:COI). Vincent Lextrait (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
The following comment was copied from User Talk:Mildly Mad. Mildly MadTC 17:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
My apologies, I probably put up the WP:COI flag without enough research; your massive strings of recent edits led me to assume that you were the primary contributor to the article, and I now see that my initial assumption was incorrect. A more detailed look in to the history reveals that the article has in fact drastically improved over the last 200 edits or so. In fact, a re-write of the lede (to something like this suggestion) and removing the "Products" section would probably make the article good enough to remove the {{ad}} tag.
However, it's edits like these that sound like WP:OWN to me. I'm not sure why you think that editors are refusing to discuss the article with you; there's at least 5 occasions on the talk page where editors have attempted to justify (and rectify) the addition of the advertisement tag, but you simply disagreed with them and reverted their edits. The locus of the dispute seems to be with the lists of products and numbers about the company. Remember that Wikipedia is not a listing of statistics. In order to sound less like an advertisement, the article needs to do less telling and more describing. To use your example, the SAP AG article describes the specific objective of the company ("enterprise software applications"), and further down describes to the reader exactly what the company does by offering wikilinks and short descriptions of its applications (Enterprise resource planning, etc.) Mildly MadTC 17:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
No problem, I'll work at improving the article within the limited borderlines of WP:COI (not preventing me from editing, but anybody disagreeing with my edits, please tell me on the talk page, and I won't implement significant changes without first inserting a comment on the talk page before proceeding). So far, I consider that reformatting (without adding or subtracting info) is not significant. About refusal to discuss, look at timestamps. I am going to stick to getting the article similar in spirit to SAP AG. I believe it is well under way although there is obviously still a lot to do. Vincent Lextrait (talk) 17:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Indefinite semi-protection[edit]

I have made a request for indefinite semi-protection of the article. Let us see if it is granted. Vincent Lextrait (talk) 19:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, hope it gets protected. As it stands, we're getting major changes from anons who were not involved in the discussion here. The article needs a bit more tweaking to get back to top standard, but reverting to any one single previous edit will not do it.--Dmol (talk) 08:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
The request was declined, based on the fact that it was not a significantly recurring problem, but I am going to reiterate given that the phenomenon keeps on happening. Vincent Lextrait (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Changes are not suprising. The System One GDS was bought out by Amadeus in the late 90ties. Thus I have doubts that the System One code base was instrumental in the late 80ties to instantiate Amadeus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.39.235.111 (talk) 09:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)