Talk:Salesforce

Article reads like an advertisement

This article still reads like an advertisment produced by Salesforce.com marketing. The first paragraph which should simply describe what this product is. Move the accolades to a section that includes criticism for a balanced lookTylerchill (talk) 22:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

This article reads like it was produced by a marketing firm (and it very likely was). It sounds more like a press release or the introduction to an annual report than a NPOV encyclopedia article. Therefore, I have added the advert tag. If you are knowledgeable enough about salesforce to edit this into a more formal, NPOV, and encyclopedic format (I am not), please do so. Kwertii 22:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The page edit history at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salesforce.com&action=history provides ample and obvious evidence that this page is the target of one or more ongoing Wikispam campaigns by marketing companies representing Salesforce and/or its addon app vendors. See e.g. the frequent anonymous insertion of blatantly POV accolades to the insertion of links like "". Marketing guys, you've been made. Wikipedia is not a billboard. Editors, be on guard. Kwertii 22:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ad cleanup

I've gotten rid of some advertising/marketese type stuff (apparently that's not the first time this has happened), but it could use some additional work on NPOV and less ad tone. I'll keep an eye on it as well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone keeps adding a link to Sofia Works. They are a UK Consulting Partner for Salesforce.com and I do not think they are notable enough to be linked to. I assume Salesforce.com have many partners and the article cannot list them all. --Sleepyhead 13:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read below an extract from the Wiki guidelines on adding external links. This site contains relevant information about salesforce.com, and will aparently be further enhanced to provide users with more information about the software.

"What should be linked

Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:External_Links) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.152.0.58 (talk) 10:45, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

It may have been changed (I can never figure out the history page), but as a user of SF, I think this looks pretty NPOV. There is no "this app is the best in the world and the other ones pale in comparison" type of things that I would consider NPOV. Citable sources are definitely needed, but at the risk of incensing others, I am going to remove the ad tag. Mechroneal 16:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello from salesforce.com

Hello folks, I manage social media at salesforce.com, and I officially represent them on Wikipedia. I am not new to Wikipedia, and I know, and will play by the rules. This article is sub-par, and I'd like to help in any way I can. In the immediate time frame, I can:

• clarify which partners are noteworthy and which are not
• provide guidelines on our brand names
• help correct factual inaccuracies with sources

In a slightly longer timeframe, I'd like to help improve the flow & content of this article.

- Kingsley2.com (talk) 00:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Kingsley, maybe you can succinctly explain what the salesforce.com product(s) is? I had to go to your website to get any idea at all. Even there, nearly every explanation of products and services is pitched using marketing language that is targeted for developers and programmers (along with the accompanying hype). Is there any way to get an explanation of what the product is (not the benefits of using it, etc.)? Stevenmitchell (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
• Steve, I could probably help with this topic. I used to work there and then had my own business helping small businesses and nonprofits use the product. I had to spend a lot of time explaining what features meant, and which ones were feasible at what cost. Will try to get to it this weekend because it's kinda fun to help out and I'm trying to get up to speed on the wiki markup. Oakye —Preceding undated comment added 23:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC).

Salesforce name in body of the article

I propose that the first reference to Salesforce.com stay, and change all following references in the body of the article to Salesforce only, without the ".com" (which is how it's more commonly referred to in conversation). Any disagreements? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crysb (talk • contribs) 13:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd say usage is 50/50 in conversation. I do agree that the article needs to stop going back & forth. Just my $.02 Midlakewinter (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

There actually is a difference. Salesforce.com is the company, and Salesforce (without .com) is the name of the web application. They do get mixed up sometimes, but that's the official difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.194.150 (talk) 02:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Outlook Integration (under Products and services)

Requesting comment on this language "This reinforces the view that Salesforce arbitrarily change features offered with no explanation." "The view" is particularly difficult to cite and seems POV to me. Additionally, this (if true) seems like a minor feature grievance and I'm not sure if it is relevant or valuable to article viewers. Is it proper to relocate to criticisms or remove this language? Midlakewinter (talk) 12:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be unsourced commentary, and from a cursory glance I didn't see any sourcing for the 'silent removal' comment either. Are there sources for either of these comments, or are they original research? In either case, the 'view' comment should most definitely be removed without an explicit source.

Unrelated to the RFC, the article seems to be a bit of a mess in general. I notice there was a comment in October last year above about the mix of Salesforce and Salesforce.com references. The company seems to refer to itself (as opposed to its products) on its website exclusively as 'salesforce.com' (with lowercase S where it doesn't appear at the beginning of a sentence), and this should be the way the company is referred to consistently throughout the article. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct re: salesforce.com. I hadn't noticed that. Will update for that & the 'view' comment. Thanks Midlakewinter (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Super Bowl XLV halftime show commercials

I recognized the Chatter commercials in the Super Bowl XLV halftime show and described their relations to the Black Eyed Peas and Will.i.am. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.8.42 (talk) 01:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Removing product info from Company entry

A lot of the entry's content is specific to salesforce.com's product and not the company itself. I would think it makes sense to vastly slim down that content. Using Hubspot#Products_and_services as a model. Any thoughts?Midlakewinter (talk) 22:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Where did the product information go? I came here looking for the article for the "product" that seems to be salesforce.com. There's clearly such a product, for example, SF has a manual for it here (28 megabyte, 3818 pages and so it may take a while to download). --Marc Kupper|talk 07:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

"Founded" Discrepancy

In the main text, it says "The Company was founded in March 1996..." yet in the box on the right it says 1999. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.31.4 (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I'd like to propose merging the Force.com article into Salesforce.com. Though Force.com is mentioned in the New York Times, this is not a sufficient reason to create a separate article about the product. The section on the product in Force.com is unsourced, so will benefit from the NYT article to verify it exists. Failing a merger, the Force.com article is ripe for a Articles for Deletion discussion IMO. Sionk (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree, I don't think Force.com merits an article, and as the talk page indicates, it has been of most interest to Salesforce.com staff who wisely have refrained from editing the page. Leutha (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

You both bring up good points and I agree that Force.com doesn't seem to be able to stand on its own. A merger with Salesforce.com would be a good move. Stesmo (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I think as long a a redirect from Force.com to Salesforce.com exits it would be beneficial. I used this content as a reference to verify Force.com was a website, platform related to Salesforce.com and that I wasn't being phished.