Jump to content

Talk:BMC Software

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wattssw (talk | contribs) at 18:39, 13 September 2018 (→‎Removing sections from page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revising introduction and history

Hello, I am continuing the efforts of my colleague Tamicasey, to make the article about our company more accurate and up-to-date. (The IP edit a few minutes was me, as well as the one from my account.) Like Tami, I am aware of the concerns around conflict of interest, so I am being careful to use high quality sources and avoid promotional language, and I am especially interested in feedback on my work. Karenarlenereynolds (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I recently updated the lead section, which followed up my colleague Tami deleting an unnecessarily detailed (and outdated) list of products.
I would like to continue working to bring the article up to date, and into closer compliance with Wikipedia’s standards; from the looks of this talk page and the article, it has been about 6 years since anybody put a focused effort into this article, and a great deal has happened in that time. Still, as an employee of the company, I would like feedback from uninvolved editors, and to discuss edits prior to posting them if anybody is available to do so. Those who worked on the article years ago, in case you are still around: Postoak, Ronz, Tomwsulcer, Biofase, Amezuki, Lahnfeear -Karenarlenereynolds (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"It aims to help companies of various sizes deploy digital services rapidly and reliably" is not encyclopedic language, and contains no factual information. All companies - every single one - aim to "help" their customers and try to do so quickly and reliably. When in doubt, avoid any subjective qualifier - sticking to the bare facts is almost always the better approach. If you haven't done so already, please make sure to read Wikipedia's current WP:COI guideline, as there have been some significant changes in the last months and years. (I have fixed the previous indentation for better readability.) GermanJoe (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
GermanJoe, thank you for your review, and for tidying up my formatting -- couldn't figure out what I did wrong, but I get it now. I understand the need to avoid marketing language -- and, you should see the version I rejected before posting this! Yes, I have followed the terms of use update and understand the COI guideline; my aim here is to help improve the article according to Wikipedia's content standards, which is only possible with the involvement of experienced Wikipedia editors.
In hindsight, I can see how the words "rapidly and reliably" may not belong. But what I'm trying to do is help the reader understand what BMC does. Helping companies deploy digital services is descriptive, no? And, I think the source you removed is a pretty good one, isn't it? Is there a better way to phrase this, that improves the article without coming across as marketing-speak? Like just removing the words "rapidly and reliably" perhaps? -71.198.135.132 (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's agree to disagree on "helping customers" - it's typical marketing language used in company leaflets and press releases. But aside from the problematic phrasing, the company's main activities are already sufficiently covered ("assist businesses in moving to digital operations", DEM, various platforms, SaaS). Another descriptive sentence is simply redundant. The lead section should only contain a brief summary of the topic's most notable aspects. Additional facts and more detailed information are generally provided in the main text, in this case in "Products and services". GermanJoe (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
GermanJoe No, I understand your point, I just couldn't come up with a more neutral phrase for what it is BMC tries to do. I'm not trying to emphasize that we help, just express what it is we try to help with. But it's ok to leave that out. For the moment, I'd like to tidy up some of the references, just formatting tweaks. I would still like to make some more substantive improvements to the article; I would like to address the primary reference issue that has been flagged since 2009, and get the article to a more readable state overall -- there are long sections that list details without any indication of how they connect. For instance, is there a reason so many acquisitions from the mid-2000s are listed, sentence by sentence, with some citing nothing more than a press release? It's hard for me to see how that kind of detail belongs in an encyclopedia. See my next edit, which will concern just three of the press releases used as source material. Ultimately, I would like to help bring this article to a point where it complies better with Wikipedia policy, and is easier to absorb what BMC has been in the past, and what it is today. I will make more specific suggestions here shortly. -Karenarlenereynolds (talk) 20:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on BMC Software. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First paragraph problem and proposed solution

The first paragraph contains a problem, which I introduced by mistake in an earlier edit. BMC's offerings are not primarily SAAS (though that is an increasingly important part of our business model). Though the article linked mentioned SAAS, the characterization I introduced in the text I added was incorrect.

Taking into account the point GermanJoe made above, I have drafted a new version of the first paragraph, removing words like "help," "rapidly," and "reliably" with "works with" and "effectively." I believe this is a reasonable reflection of the independent sources, but am open to suggestion. I have introduced a new citation to a recent Forbes piece, and reintroduced the European Business Review citation from my earlier edit. -Karenarlenereynolds (talk) 22:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

The company identifies its strategy as "digital enterprise management;" it works with companies of various sizes to deploy digital services effectively, serving both existing and new infrastructure.[1] Its business model, which previously consisted mostly of on-premise solutions but increasingly incorporates Software as a service (SAAS), and is addressing the "digital transformation" trend.[2][3]

References

  1. ^ Wadlow, Tom (August 2016). "12 questions for BMC on the 4th industrial revolution". Europe Business Review. p. 27.
  2. ^ Lopez, Maribel (October 15, 2016). "Disrupt or Die: BMC's Tips On Thriving Through Digitization". Forbes.
  3. ^ Gillin, Paul (September 30, 2015). "BMC's Beauchamp says digital transformation is on course". Silicon Angle.
I have rephrased the SaaS part a bit to tweak the emphasis per your suggestion. As a relatively uncontroversial statement it doesn't really need additional sources, the current references should suffice. However, a specific mention of effectivity is redundant, all companies hopefully try to operate effectively. And "digital transformation trend" is just another marketing buzzword, which adds no factual information in this context. As a general tip, I recommend to use Template:request edit on top of your message when you suggest further changes in articles, where you may have a conflict of interest. This template will add your suggestion to a queue of requests, and invite other currently uninvolved editors to have a look. I am glad to help with changes, but it's always better to have more editors participating in such discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 05:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the coi-editing needs better oversight, and edit requests made instead.
Glancing at the content, the "Directors and staff", "Partnerships", and "Assets" sections should be rewritten from better sources, if retained at all. Currently they look like warmed-over pr. --Ronz (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you GermanJoe for that edit. For what it's worth, the main reason I have tried to bring up new independent sources is because the company has undergone substantial change in recent years. Obviously going from public to private is a very unusual transition, and as you might imagine that is accompanied by major shifts in strategy and business model. While I am not tied to these specific sources, over time, any successful effort to described the company's evolution will need to incorporate more recent sources that currently exist in the article.
I agree with Ronz that there is far too much detail in this article, largely based on press releases. I don’t know whether or not those press releases were introduced by BMC staff, as most of them predate my employment; but my wish is to have an article that meets Wikipedia's standards for sourcing. I hope my recent edits, which more clearly identified some footnotes as press releases, can help in any effort to trim extraneous content. -Karenarlenereynolds (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New president

Header added for readability. GermanJoe (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GermanJoe and Ronz, we have a new president and CEO. It seems like a straightforward/factual change, so I noted this in the article myself. -Karenarlenereynolds (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have formatted the layout a bit, Template:infobox company includes more information about the infobox and its parameters. GermanJoe (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks GermanJoe! -Karenarlenereynolds (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing some poorly sourced details to trim

GermanJoe and Ronz, I think we are all in agreement that many of the sections contain too much unsourced detail, or detail that is sourced only to self-published sources or SEC reports. Looking through the article history, it appears that most of the content was added by long-time Wikipedians, so in dealing with this older material, I don't think it actually results from COI editors. But regardless of that, here is a suggestion for a starting point:

We looked through the History (1990s and 2000s) section, and I think there are a few themes that could be addressed. Overall, there are a lot of extensive quotes; to better match Wikipedia style, I would think most of those should be removed and paraphrased in a few words.

The entire 2nd paragraph of "1900s" might be deleted, or most of it; it characterizes a pattern that does not seem to be sourced, and the sources the paragraph does contain (which don't really support the text anyway) are all self-published.

The Boole's Command Post paragraph paragraph seems far longer than it needs to be. (Specifically, is it helpful to speculate on the differences between a $877 million vs. a 1 billion purchase price? That range seems small enough that, almost 20 years after the fact, I'm wondering who would care.)

The 2nd paragraph in "2000s" goes into detail about ASP that may belong at the ASP article, but seems extra here.

On a separate note, I notice there are short articles on BMC Control-M and Remedy Corp. Should those maybe be merged into this one?

If helpful, I can make the suggestions more specific, but I want to check with you guys first. -Karenarlenereynolds (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Karenarlenereynolds:, if you would like to rework some paragraphs or even whole sections, you could prepare a new specific version of this part in your userspace. Such text can be added/replaced by uninvolved editors following the guideline at WP:COIATTRIBUTE. It seems clear that the current text is a bit too detailed, but without background knowledge of the company's history it's difficult to tell where trimming would be most beneficial (without loosing a succinct comprehensive overview of the company's development). About merging: the current text is already quite long and detailed, so merging more info into it might further decrease readability of the whole article - but again, without a specific concept it's hard to tell. Anyway, you can find some general advice about merging at WP:Merging if you would like to formally propose a merger. Hope that more general advice helps a bit. GermanJoe (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the tips, GermanJoe. I've put a proposed replacement for the 1990s section at User:Karenarlenereynolds/sandbox - and I pasted the existing text first, so it should be easy for you to see the changes in my proposed new version. On merging, you make good points. The articles I mentioned are pretty short, and have very few independent sources, so they could probably be even shorter. But I'll think about what you said and won't rush into anything. -Karenarlenereynolds (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the further improvements you made in my sandbox to the 1990s section. I have reviewed everything you did and agree with it all, you caught some worthwhile stuff for removal. But I'm sure you don't need my consent! You do not seem to be disagreeing with any of my changes, just going further down the road of tidying up issues that have existed for years. This seems encouraging. The University of Houston part may have some relevance, which is why I didn't delete it, but it will take some digging for sources to demonstrate it, so I'm fine with deleting it at least for now, while I do a little further research. As far as I'm concerned the draft can be moved back into the article now. Whether or not it's perfect, I think we're both agreed that it's better than the current version, correct? -Karenarlenereynolds (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done - the new version is certainly more succinct, and it reduces the overuse of quotations as well as some non-neutral phrasings. Thank you for preparing this revised version. GermanJoe (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good, thank you! I am now starting on the 2000s section at User:Karenarlenereynolds/BMC 2000s sandbox (as you suggested, not in my main sandbox). I will let you know when I'm done. -Karenarlenereynolds (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Specific suggestions for 2000s section, and some general suggestions

GermanJoe and Ronz, I have made some further suggestions for trimming and summarizing the 2000s section here: User:Karenarlenereynolds/BMC 2000s sandbox. Some of the acquisitions are sourced only to BMC press releases; if you think it would be better to remove those ones entirely, that's fine with me. Please feel free to edit my sandbox directly, or to copy it back to the article if you feel it is an improvement over what is already here.

In addition, several sections would make more sense as subsections of "History," and/or have redundant info. I suggest:

  • make 1990s and 2000s sub-sections
  • merge "Acquisition & Privatization" into "History"
  • delete the "Directors and staff" section, merging any details that are not already contained in the other sections
  • delete "Location" (again, merging anything significant that is not already in the others
  • delete "Partnerships" which is very specific to 2009 for no apparent reason

If these general ideas are agreeable, let me know and I will get more specific. I don't know if I can make these changes as easily in a sandbox since they will involve multiple sections, but I will find a way to suggest them.

Once we have finished tidying up the historical sections, I would like to make some suggestions for bringing "Products and services" up to date, and perhaps expanding the lead section, of course using independent sourcing and subject to the approval of uninvolved Wikipedians. -Karenarlenereynolds (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Removing sections from page

I am a BMC Software employee. Karenarlenereynolds and Tamicasey no longer work at BMC. I will be continuing the previous effort to clean-up this page by trimming and deleting unnecessary sections. To continue from the previous comments, I believe these sections should be remove completely:

  • Location
  • Directors and staff
  • Partnerships
  • Assets

In each of these instances, as well as most of the History section, I believe there is undue weight added, see: WP:WEIGHT

Additionally, old data in the Infobox from 2012 should be removed.

For reference, analysts typically consider ServiceNow BMC's #1 competitor. Wattssw (talk) 18:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BMC_Software&oldid=859386393"