|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
I would like to hnow better how the page should be to be published there isn't any metion to product and services but only contains industry expertises, locations and when it was founded and has been listed in there are similar companies'pages cointaing the same information such as Oracle or Tieto. could you please give me some advices? thanks
- Is there anything that makes your company notable as applies to wp:rs?Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's a start, but if you'd check out WP:RS, perhaps you could find some publications in reliable secondary sources that would help this article fend off deletion if it gets brought to AfD. Unfortunately, I can read Latin but not Italian, so I would be no help. --Smashvilletalk 15:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
the external links on the text have been removed, while i added a link to borsa italiana. could it work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonell 1983 (talk • contribs) 09:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
A google books search showed me that TXT e-solutions is mentioned in about 50 books. Some of these books mention TXT e-solutions as a partner in their R&D projects. I guess this would count for something.
... and own research have been published and cited in other sources. For example
- the article "From Research to Practice: How Does TXT Plan to Deploy Innovations in Sharing Development Knowledge"
- has been cited in "A Lightweight Approach for Knowledge Sharing in Distributed Software Teams".
Notability doesn't seem to be the real problem here. This article needs a lot of work, and should focuss more on the notable achievements of the company (and less about their own products). -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the following nav box from the article:
I can't imagine at the moment that the subjects listed here are notable enough to justify separate articles. If even one of them is, the first thing to do is to add these to this article. If further development proves me wrong, the nav box can always be put back.
I have removed the following history section for now:
- The further text here is removed because it appears to be a copyright violation. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
The problems here;
- It is still unclear where this information comes from.
- In it's current state it is an listing
- There is little real information in this listing
- Hi, I've taken the history information from the annual report '06 http://www.txtgroup.com/content/maincontent/4774/C_4_maincontent_4774_gr_content_mrkt_download_object.pdf
- but as you suggest i will try to rewrite it as a text and not as a list.
- Then it is a good thing I removed it from the article, and now I removed it here. That copy was a serious copyright violation. The last time I helped with an company article like this, this was the reason why the article was speedy deleted even after I improved the article. So now we are on the save side here.
- If you want to rewrite this section, that annual report is not enough a reliable source. You need other independent source about the history as well if you want to recreate that section. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 17:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- In the lead sentence a link is made to Information technology consulting, while initially the article just mentioned "consulting company" without a link to the consulting/consultant. Now normally in lead sentences some kind of link should be there. It is not acceptable not to link because no company is considered that unique here. The most appropriate link, I think, is to the IT consulting is.
- The removal of the terms "TXT Perform", "TXT Polymedia", "TXT Next division" (for now). These terms are deliberately removed because these terms are considered to not notable. There is a guideline for article like this to removal all terms, that doesn't comply with the notability guidelines. Terms can be removed for the same reason, why articles get removed.
- Removal of <ref name="TXT07"> tag restored. In this situation it is better to give a source of every sentence. If the tag isn't there. the text could be considered a copyvio after all.
- And last but not least. I added a reference-tag after the listing of the different offices. This might be overdone, but a listing without it could be considered original research or just advertising.
- Now concerning further development.
For example I just learned from a companies webpage, see here
- TXTPERFORM is TXT's Demand & Supply Chain Management suite specifically designed to help companies build a more agile and demand-driven network.
If you want to add this kind of explanations, better start with third party sources explaining about this product. Do use the company website or an other first party source like an annual report.
- I see. I've just made few changes about industries and main areas. (Antonell 1983 (talk) 10:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC))
- Most of it is fine I guess. But I noticed you changed the phrase "Business Intelligence and Business Process Modeling" into "Advanced software systems and services". If you do make this kind of changes, you should add the source, where you got the information from.
- If I look at the intention of this last change, I guess you (still) don't understand the main idea of Wikipedia articles. A Wikipedia article about a company never shows the current state of the company. That state is changing every day. The Wikipedia article is in fact (only) explaining how the company is beeing represented in reliable sources... This way of working is created here to avoid that Wikipedia is being used by companies to promote their (latest) products. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
number of employees
the number of employees went down from 600 in 2009 to 450 in 2011 because for the sale of TXT polymedia. so 150 employees passed from txt e-solutions to kit digital — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 07:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)