Talk:Citrix Systems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Florida  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida.
If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
 ???  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 Technology  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 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.
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.


This article reads like a page on a company's marketing website, rather than a factual Wikipedia article. (talk) 03:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Would you be able to be more specific about which elements you feel are marketing rather than factual? I'd be keen to make any further edits to ensure this fits within the guidelines --Richard Botley (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The Old Days[edit]

I am a long term Citrix employee that would like to see the history of Citrix be captured as accurately as possible. I have dedicated much time on my blog to write about specific aspects of Citrix history but have been wary of putting the information into Wikipedia. Obviously I need someone that is fairly Citrix neutral and a better writer to make sure the right things happen.

Please review my blog entries relevant to Citrix history [2]. I'm sure that most are not relevant to submission to Wikipedia but I could not reliably tell you which ones are of the most interest.

Jeffrey.muir 11:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Citrix Ready[edit]

This section is obviously written by a salesperson or someone with similar marketing bias. It needs to be deleted or rewritten.Tolstoy143: Quos vult perdere dementat 18:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


Citrix products are now widely used in both public and private sectors, although they are often deployed as a tactical rather than a strategic choice (achieving specific objectives or solving a specific problem rather than as part of a systematic plan).

I disagree with this assertion. We see a very large number of clients who use Citrix as a strategic approach to software deployment and delivery. I would restate this as follows:

Citrix products are now widely used in both public and private sectors. A company might select Citrix for its short term tactical advantages, or for its long term strategic benefits. (Of course, this will vary from company to company depending on each specific company's needs.)

"A company might select Citrix for its short term tactical advantages, or for its long term strategic benefits." ........such as?Tolstoy143: Quos vult perdere dementat 18:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


I undertook a substantial rewrite of this article, partly to eliminate the narrative style of much of the article, and to clean up sloppy grammar. There is a lot of work that needs to be done, and there is a dearth of information about the early years of the company available on the web; their own website does not contain any reports or press releases prior to 2000, and the company history is limited to milestones such as acquisitions and product releases. The original creator of this article was apparently someone connected with the company early on, as there is a lot of "inside-player" information about the relationship between one of the founders and the board of directors, but there is no sourcing for any of the information, and it may need to be flagged as such. Horologium 18:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone is trying to sell shares[edit]

it sounds more like someone is trying to sell shares rather explain what the company is about what are they making ?? who uses there products ? those are the kind of question i want answered —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

External links[edit]

I'm reverting one EL edit because it: (a) replaced what appears to be an independent citrix employee community site with a link to the citrix domain (which is already linked), for a page that's linked right on the citrix home page; (b) broke the good link to; (c) added two commercial links that may be relevant but would need more than that to belong here. --Rich Janis (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be some discussion of which independent support sites should be listed here. As I see it, none of them is essential to the article, but most important is that the list not proliferate arbitrarily. Rich Janis (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
None of them being essential, according to a loose interpretation of one of the points at WP:EL, is a good reason for removing them. It says, "A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." This is a basic argument against all third-party community sites, since they fall under the category of Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links. The encyclopedia should link to the official site, or to ones that provide relevant encyclopedic information.
I think we should remove for these reasons, and also because it's closed. I'm not seeing the relevance of either – I don't see how the blog of these two Microsoft employees is relevant to the article, even if one of them does work for Citrix. Am I missing something here? It's just that last time I tried to clean up a load of external links I got told off for it (virtually all the links were eventually removed, though). says it's a Citrix partner, so per "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any", it sounds like we should link to them, though it seems to be a fairly useless and spammy sort of site (my personal opinion). Ideally, I reckon the only link that should stay in this case is the official web site. • Anakin (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

re: General[edit]

Citrix does not specialize in "thin clients". This statement is incorrect. Citrix does not even sell thin clients. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Heavy POV in Layoffs section[edit]

I'm fully removing GregorB's recently-contributed "Layoffs" section; it cites no sources and has a clearly non-neutral tone. If anyone can pick out the facts, find citations, and re-integrate them into the article, please do. The text of Gregor's contribution is below. -- Control.valve (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Due to mismanagement, Citrix has laid off 10% of its employees world-wide. The "global" figure deliberately under-represents the severity of the downsizing. Citrix has over the past 10 years, outsourced most of its jobs to India. During the great downsizing of 2009, Citrix did not cut one of it's Indian jobs, which pay less than 10% of the USA/UK positions. In actuality, Citrix eliminated 25% of its US and UK employees.

Ironically, the total salaries of all employees fired is a tiny fraction of the money Citrix spent acquiring each of the companies listed in the "Acquisitions" section of this Wikipedia page. Furthermore, the mass firings occurred a few months after CEO Mark Templeton bragged about his new Tesla Roadster, a car that costs more than most of his employees make in a year, by producing this YouTube video and sending an email to all employees about it. Thus leading Citrix employees to ask, "Hey Mark, how's that Roadster of yours? Still runs good?" Before the layoffs, Citrix executives repeatedly told employees during "all hands" meetings that Citrix was in good financial standing and could weather the storm. After the layoffs, remaining employees wondered how many other "white lies" executives told during those meetings.

Despite the layoffs, Citrix stock continues to nose dive as the company fails to keep up with its prime competitor, VMWare. Citrix recently scrapped its plans to implement a three-tiered database architecture for its platform in order to play catch up with VMWare. Citrix has a site license to the VMWare platform and often tests Citrix software within VMWare images.

Despite the massive layoffs, Citrix must port all of its code from private Microsoft APIs to public ones before their license agreement expires at the end of the year. Much of this work might now have to be done in India.

-- (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC) It seems to me that the author of this piece is probably part of the 10% and besides the fact that the text is non-neutral it might actually contain confidential information, for which this person (if indeed an ex-employee) can be prosecuted.

why we use citrix softwares[edit]

I want to know what is reason behind using the citrix softwares/systems

I want to what is the specialization in citrix

Thank & regards sanjay Gupta

why we use II[edit]

I too would like to know what the big deal is? This article totally fails to explain to me what if any use Citrix's gear is. Their aquisition of Xen I am fully across, but virtual machines are a whole subject domain unto themselves. As far as I can glean.....(1) they have some kind of improved desktop transmitter (ie. the stuff that X could do in 1980 or that you can more or less do with VNC)....(2) I have seen Citrix used in a workplace to 'lock down' a windows system - perhaps providing a decent security model by heavily modifying windows' own woefully inadquate one? I DONT KNOW. And this article hasn't helped me know. (talk) 13:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

What is "Citrix"?[edit]

What is a "Citrix" specialist? (Quite a bunch of job offers seem to include a term like that.) Does he mostly do, what a VMware specialist does: hypervisor? Or does he maybe mostly do thin client (terminal server?) stuff? The article seems not clear to me ... is it not the company, who puts the focus on their currently main area of business, but the public perception -> so is it alright not to be included in an article about the company? But then, where might it be OK, to be included in a wikipedia source of information? --Alien4 (talk) 07:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Working to improve this article[edit]

Hi there, I wanted to introduce myself to any editors watching this page: working on behalf of Citrix I'll be offering some suggestions here to help improve this article. My main focus will be getting the article in line with the guidelines at WikiProject Companies. In particular, I'm hoping to add up-to-date information on the corporate organization and making sure the Products section is written up into prose and updated. To be clear, I won't be making any direct edits to the article due to my financial conflict of interest, but instead will prepare drafts and share them for editors to review and take live, if they look ok.

To begin with, I'm working on a draft for a more developed History section, since this is currently quite short and sparse on information about the company's major developments. Also, I think that it might be best to roll the Microsoft relationship information into this section, rather than it having its own section. I welcome any comments or additional suggestions editors might have. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 15:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposing new draft for History[edit]

Hi again. As promised some months ago, I have returned with a proposed new draft for the History section of the article. As you might be able to tell from my absence here, this took a bit longer than expected to finish! The section is fairly lengthy, so I've placed it in my user space for editors to review:

Most of the current section content is retained, although I did reword a few things for clarity and to make sure they were accurate and true to the sources. To help the article flow and place things into their historical context, I incorporated the details from the Microsoft relationship section into the History section. Other than what was in that section, the years from 1995 to present were spotty (to say the least), so I've greatly expanded on that time period, including major events, acquisitions, and new products the company developed.

I appreciate any time editors can spend looking over my proposed draft. As stated previously, I'm hoping another editor can take this live if it looks ok. I'm open to any suggestions or changes to make it ready to move to the article. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 18:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Overall, I think the draft looks pretty good. I have just a couple of thoughts.
  • There are a couple of times the CITRIX blog is used as a source. Is it possible to find a newspaper, magazine, book, or other reliable, secondary source in those cases?
  • There are three links to disambiguation pages: Chevron, server, and telecom. It would be nice if they linked to the direct intended articles.
I'll do a bit more spot-checking of sources to content, but so far it's looking good.--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Carole! Thanks so much for taking a look at the draft! I'm looking again into finding alternate sources for the information that the blog is used to support, although I'd tried hard to only use the blog in cases where it was difficult to find a more reliable source and the information felt important to include. Meantime, I'll make sure to fix those disambig links, thanks for spotting those! And it's a good reminder to me to check each link in the draft once I upload to user space. I'll ping back here once I've updated the links and have any news on the sourcing. Thanks again, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
16912_Rhiannon, Thanks for checking in, looking forward to seeing the updates!--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi again Carole, an update here to let you know that I have:
  • Replaced / removed the two instances where the source Citrix Blogger was used. In one case, I was able to find a new source to support the info (the origins of the Citrix name) and in the other, I've tweaked the wording about WinView so that it can be supported solely by the other source I had there
  • Fixed the disambig links you mentioned above
  • Made a couple of other small tweaks to the wording / paragraph breaks to help improve flow
With regards to the one place where I'd used the Citrix blog to support the announcement of a partnership with Google, that was to support that the partnership began in 2010 (rather than 2014 per news articles I was finding). What I did there was phrased the sentence as "Citrix announced in 2010" (which is what the blog supports) and then included an independent news source from 2015 to support everything else about the deal. Since the source is supporting just the date and the other details are backed up by an independent source, what do you think about keeping this one instance? Thanks again for looking at this! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 16:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Great job,16912_Rhiannon! I've updated the History section in the article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! The History section looks really great now. I'll be back soon with some infobox updates, and then I'll have another section draft... Hope you can help with those, but no worries if you get busy elsewhere. Thanks again, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 17:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── And I realized right as I posted this, that I meant to ask: Carole, would you be able to remove the Microsoft relationship section? This material is now all included within the History. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 17:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good, 16912_Rhiannon regarding upcoming changes! I removed the Microsoft section.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again, Carole! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 22:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
My pleasure, 16912_Rhiannon, the article looks good!--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Updates for infobox[edit]

Just a quick note to see if someone would be able to update the article's infobox. As mentioned in previous messages here, I am suggesting edits on the behalf of Citrix and am avoiding making any changes to the article myself. I have the new financials from the end of 2014 below, which can be added to the infobox. They can all be sourced to the company's latest 10-K:

  • Revenue: Increase US$ 3,142.856 million (2014)
  • Operating income: Decrease US$ 302.311 million (2014)
  • Net income: Decrease US$ 251.723 million (2014)
  • Total assets: Increase US$ 5,512.007 (2014)
  • Total equity: Decrease US$ 2,173,645 (2014)

Citation for the above: <ref name=10K2014>{{cite web |url= |title=Citrix Form 10-K Annual Report |author= |date=31 December 2014 | |publisher=Citrix Systems Inc. |accessdate=30 March 2015}}</ref>

In addition, I'd like to request a few other updates to the infobox:

  • Add CFO David Henshall to Key people
    • This can be supported by the company's Bloomberg profile
    • Citation: <ref name=Bloomberg15>{{cite web |url= |title=Citrix Systems Inc |author= |date= |work=[[Bloomberg Business]] |publisher=Bloomberg |accessdate=30 March 2015}}</ref>
  • Add SaaS, DaaS, cloud, and networking to Products, based on the existing product list in the article (please note: I'm working on an updated draft for this section as a suggested replacement for the lengthy bullet point lists)
  • Update the photo to the company's larger Santa Clara HQ. I've uploaded the file here: File:Citrix Santa Clara HQ 2015.png

I'd also suggest removing 2012's numbers, for the sake of not having the infobox cluttered, but if other editors prefer then I'd be totally fine with leaving them. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead and make the edits you suggest. They are not controversial. I've marked your request as approved. Thank you! Wilipino (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Wilipino, and I'm sorry to be such a pain, but I follow the "bright line" (per Jimbo Wales' interview in The Signpost) and don't edit articles where I have a COI. Would you mind making this update using the prepped version below? Understood totally if you feel I should go ahead and do it, it's just that I've always avoided doing so before. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Citrix Systems Inc". Bloomberg Business. Bloomberg. Retrieved 30 March 2015. 
  2. ^ a b c d e "Citrix Form 10-K Annual Report". Citrix Systems Inc. 31 December 2014. Retrieved 30 March 2015. 
  3. ^ "Citrix Systems, Form 10-K, Annual Report, Filing Date Feb 19, 2015". 
@16912 Rhiannon and Wilipino: I went ahead and took care of it.--CaroleHenson (talk) 08:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks CaroleHenson! And I'm embarassed to ask, but can you adjust the revenue? I missed the "3" at the start of the figure when I pasted it over. It should be 3,142.856 million. Apologies! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 11:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 19:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposing new draft for Products[edit]

Hi again to anyone watching this page! Per my previous notes above, I'm here on behalf of Citrix to suggest some updates for this article. This time around, I'd like to focus on updates that can be made to the Products section. Below, I've linked to a draft I've prepared in my user space, which I believe improves what's currently in the article with more details and a new structure. I've revised the entire section to be in prose, rather than a bulleted list, and included a brief description of each of the company's offerings. For readability and organization, I've structured the section around the main areas that Citrix products are grouped. Here's a link to the draft:

You'll see that I'm proposing removing entirely the Discontinued products subsection, and haven't mentioned those products currently listed under this heading. I did this for two reasons. First, unlike product launches, which are often written about in the press, products tend to be discontinued quietly making it difficult to source such a section and keep it accurate and current. Second, none of the products seem particularly noteworthy, let alone notable. Only WinFrame has its own article (and this product is already discussed within the History section). Without any additional information or context, the listing of names of products that have been discontinued did not appear to have much value. Of course, if others have a different perspective, I'd be interested to hear and definitely open to including something.

As always, I look forward to feedback from other editors. If the draft looks ok, and others feel it is an improvement over the current Products section, I hope that an editor will move the draft live for me. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The draft looks good. Yes check.svg Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 13:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposing new Operations section[edit]

Hi there. I'm back again, this time to propose adding a whole new section titled Operations. As it stands, the current article's introduction gives a brief overview of the company's operational information, but these details do not currently appear anywhere in the body of the article. The section I'm suggesting discusses what the company does, how it is organized, and its locations, leadership, and financial information. Essentially, the standard operations information you'd expect to see in a company article.

In my userspace, I've posted a proposed draft for the section that covers the key operational details about Citrix. I'd appreciate it if others could take a look and, barring any feedback or changes, move it to the live article. You can review the draft here:

In addition to proposing the addition of this draft, I wanted to see what editors thought about the Layoffs section. I notice that there was a previous highly POV iteration of this section that was discussed before and was removed at the time, then the section was re-added more recently with new, more neutral text. The text itself now seems fine, though it is unusual to have a section focusing on this type of information in an article about a large company. Do others think it should be left as a standalone section or integrated into either the History or Operations sections? Interested to hear what folks feel would be best to do with this material.

Just in case anyone reading this is new to the page, as I mentioned in my notes above, I'm working on behalf of Citrix as a paid consultant. Due to this financial COI, I will not make any edits to the article, instead hoping to discuss changes here. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 17:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks neutral and informative to me, expect for the ending. I feel like the Forbes stuff is informative, but the way it is written currently seems like an advertisement. Tune the wording a bit and you are good. Good job with the references! Just a question though: can some of this information only be mentioned in the infobox, or do you find the duplication beneficial? Yes check.svg Done JC713 (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look at this, JC713! Re: the ending of the section, are you referring just to the final sentence: "In 2014, the company ranked 741 on the Fortune 1000 and 1,793 on Forbes Global 2000." Since I've written this in what I hoped was a very straightforward way, I'm struggling with how to make it sound less promotional. Any thoughts? Is it the word "ranked" that's the issue?
In terms of duplication with the infobox, so far as I'm aware the details can be in two places within the article and it's fairly common to have Corporate affairs or Operations sections that expand upon basic details in the infobox. Thanks again, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 15:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
After looking at it a few more times, I think it is actually fine. I think you are good to go! JC713 (talk) 19:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Awesome! Thanks, JC713. Due to my COI, I'd prefer not to edit the article directly (I follow the "bright line"): would you mind adding this new section into the article? I was thinking it could go below History. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Done! JC713 (talk) 00:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Thanks again, JC713! Would you be able to update the section heading by removing one level of = signs? As it is, Operations currently looks like a subsection of History rather than its own section.

Also curious to see if you'd had a chance to give any thought to my other question, about the Layoffs section. As I said above, I'm not necessarily opposed to the content of the section, just the placement. Do you see a reason that it should be its own section or do you think it makes more sense to incorporate it into either History or Operations? I'm going to bring it up again in my next message and invite others to weigh in as well. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── My bad! I misinterpreted your "place under history" request. I think Layoffs is more appropriate under history because it is like "on x day, Citrix announced y layoffs" more than talking about its operation in the company.JC713 (talk) 04:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Not a problem, JC713. I appreciate your help. Just one more thought: how would you feel about splitting up the Layoffs information chronologically, so that it's integrated into the History section rather appearing under its own subsection? I think all three details would fall somewhere in the Expansion subsection. There's no hard and fast rule on this, but I think it makes sense to put in the context of everything else happening at those times. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 17:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Whatever you think is good. When you figure out the positioning of the information, tell me and I can place it! JC713 (talk) 00:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, JC713! What I've done is updated the draft in my userspace with where I think the information should go. As I suspected above, all three layoffs are in the Expansion subsection, in the second, fourth, and last paragraphs. (You'll see I've shown the additions in green using the {{xt}} template.) Take a look and let me know what you think! Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 14:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Done! Thanks! JC713 (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposing new Corporate responsibility section[edit]

Hello, I'm back once more with another new draft for this article. This time, I'm looking at revising and expanding the existing Corporate philanthropy section. The current version has just two sentences and both are sourced to materials produced by Citrix. I've kept all the information in my draft, but rewritten it based on independent sources I found. My draft also includes more of the company's philanthropic activities, as well details about technology donations Citrix has made—though I've aimed to keep the section relatively short. I've also renamed the section Corporate responsibility, as it contains more than just philanthropic efforts. You can review the draft in my userspace here:

Noting as always, I'm working on behalf of Citrix, and so have a financial COI. I won't make any direct edits to the article, but rather hope another another editor will be able to make the changes. If there's any feedback, or adjustments needed, do let me know--I'm always happy to work with other editors on my proposed changes in order to get them ready to be placed in the live article. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

With thanks to JC713, this section has been reviewed and moved into the article in place of the Corporate philanthropy section. For full transparency, here is our discussion of the draft from my Talk page:

Hey Rihiannon, I read over your proposed Corporate Responsibility section and think it is fine. Just make sure it doesn't sound too much like an advertisement: "Citrix offers its employees". Maybe instead state "Citrix encourages its employees to participate in the community" or something like that. More neutral and less direct. JC713 (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, JC713! I've made some adjustments based on your feedback, would you mind taking another look and moving this into the live article if everything is ok? Thanks in advance, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 14:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey Rhiannon, I made some changes to the draft. Check them out to see if you like them! I made the wording flow a bit better and made it seem less like marketing (even though that is not the original intent). JC713 (talk) 15:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks great to me, thanks JC713! If you think it's ready to go, would you mind adding it into the article in place of the current Corporate philanthropy section? I think it could even appear lower down in the article than that section is currently, perhaps below the Products section. What do you think? Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 15:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

That positioning change definitely makes sense! I am glad you like my improvements :). Thanks for doing this and being a responsible Wikipedian (respecting COI)! JC713 (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
— User talk:16912 Rhiannon

Thanks to anyone else who looked at this request. I'll be back soon with a further (and hopefully final for now!) request for this article, a few small updates to the introduction. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 16:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Updating the introduction[edit]

Hi all. Now that the main sections of the entry have been updated, I'd like to bring attention to two smaller items. First, how do others feel about the Acquisitions table in the article? It's quite an exhaustive list and the majority of the companies do not have their own articles. Since all the major acquisitions the company has made are covered in the History section, it seems to make sense to remove it, but I'd like to hear from others to see if there's a good reason to keep it.

In addition to that section, I'd like to propose updating the introduction, per the following draft version:

As you can see, there aren't too many changes from what is currently in the article. I've added a summary of the company's history in the second paragraph and a sentence noting that Mark Templeton is the company's president and CEO.

I do want to point out that I've removed the information about Xen open-source products. While the company does sell products based on Xen, they have evolved significantly since the acquisition and the call out could be confusing without further explanation. I also removed "Following the acquisition of XenSource, Inc. in October 2007, Citrix started spearheading the Xen open-source hypervisor project", since that effort is now led by the Linux Foundation.

Looking forward to hearing what other editors think about the Acquisitions section and this suggested update for the introduction. Just as a quick note in case editors haven't seen my previous requests here, I'm working as a consultant to Citrix and making these suggestions on their behalf, so I do have a COI that should be taken into account. If these changes seem appropriate, I'd appreciate if someone could make them in the article. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I've re-opened this request, since it looks like there's no edits made and I haven't spotted any comments from Joseph2302. Joseph, let me know if I missed something or if you have any thoughts! Pinging CaroleHenson, Wilipino and JC713 who've reviewed requests here previously, do any of you have any thoughts on the Acquisitions section or on my updates for the introduction? Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 13:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I think the intro revision is quite informative!JC713 (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Brilliant, glad to hear it! If there's no objections from anyone, would you mind moving it into the live article, JC713? Also, any thoughts about the Acquisitions section? This information tends to be dealt with in so many different ways in company articles, so I'm curious as to whether folks think it's best to retain the table or if the details included in the History are adequate. Thanks again, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I think the Acquisitions section and chart should stay. I say that because if I was a user looking at Wikipedia for quick acquisition information about Citrix, I would not want to look through a block of words to find it. While it may make the page cleaner, I thinking remembering the reader's perspective is important. Cheers, JC713 (talk) 03:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks so much for adding in the intro text, JC713! Sorry I missed this til now. Totally understood on the Acquisitions section. I think what I'll do is take a close look through and make sure it's fully up-to-date. And perhaps there are some improvements we can make to make it even clearer. I'll have a think. Thanks again, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Updating and splitting off Acquisitions[edit]

Hi again to anyone watching this page, I'm back with some further thoughts on the Acquisitions section. Per discussion above with JC713, I went back to take a look at the acquisitions that Citrix Systems has made and worked to put together an updated, cleaned up version of the existing table. The updated table is modeled on others I've seen, including these featured list articles List of mergers and acquisitions by Google and List of mergers and acquisitions by Microsoft, and most closely models List of mergers and acquisitions by Yahoo! which seemed to be a nice concise style that works well.

The result is here in my user space: User:16912_Rhiannon/Citrix_Acquisitions

What I realized on updating this table is that 1. it is now even longer and would take up a lot of space in the article, 2. it seems very typical to split acquisition lists off into their own articles. (I found similar size companies to Citrix whose acquisitions have been split off, as well as the above huge corporations.) I'm wondering if it would be the right approach to take in this case? If it is, then I'd be happy to prep an introduction to go with this drafted table, or if it's best to keep in this article then, could someone use the updated table to replace the existing one? I'm really curious to hear what others think about this. As a note to anyone new to this page, I am working as a paid consultant to Citrix so will not make any edits to the article myself. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey Rhiannon, sorry for the late response, I have been traveling overseas over the past few weeks. I think drafting a new article is a better idea. I don't think many people would want to come to a Citrix page and see a giant table, but rather they want quick access to information. If they were curious about aquisitions, they can head to the seperate article. That is my opinion though. Great job on the table by the way! JC713 (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, JC713! Since you're in favor and there are no dissenting voices popping up, I'm working on introduction language and all the trappings to turn the table into a draft article. When that's done, what do you think would be simplest here: should I take it to WP:AfC or simply bring back here and invite folks to review and split off the section if everyone is comfortable with that? 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 18:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
AfC may work better. Sorry for the late response, I have been quite busy lately.JC713 (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Suggesting summary for Acquisitions[edit]

After submitting a new article for the list of Citrix acquisitions to AfC, the article is now live and I'm returning to see about updating the section in this article. Per WP:Summary Style, what normally happens is that a {{main}} template is added at the top of the section, and the content should present a short summary of what's in the main article. Using the introduction of the main article as a base, I've put together a suggestion for the Acquisitions section in this article:

JC713 or any other editors who may be watching this page, would this wording work to summarize the existing Acquisitions section? As mentioned in previous requests above, I am working as a paid consultant to Citrix and hope that editors can help review and make these changes if they're appropriate. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 12:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it sounds neutral. JC713 (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Pinging here to see if any other editors have had a chance to review this? I'd like to invite who looked over the drafted updated acquisitions table in my userspace, and also Onel5969 who reviewed the List of mergers and acquisitions by Citrix article, to see if they'd be interested to look over this and move it live if it looks good. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with JC713, I can't see anything with the edit which could be called into question as a POV or advertising issue. It's brief, sets the tone, and allows the long list to be referenced to its own article, which it should be per MOS:LIST and WP:STAND. Onel5969 TT me 14:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Correction and thoughts for Decline[edit]

Though typically, I'll try to only have one request here at a time, I wanted to see if it would be possible to address a couple of issues in the History section. Specifically, in the newly-added Decline section there's one correction required and I'd also like to open a discussion about the final sentence and the heading of the section.

  • First, the section notes that "Mark Templeton retired in July 2015". This is not correct. Templeton announced his upcoming retirement back in July, but various reliable sources state that he is remaining on in his role until a successor can be found. Can this be corrected?
  • Second, the final sentence of the section states "As of September, 2015, the company is making a final attempt to sell itself as a whole before it embarks on asset sales". The source for this detail is a Reuters piece that attributes this insight to anonymous sources; the company has not come out and said this is what is happening, neither is this something that is established beyond a shadow of a doubt otherwise. I'd like to ask editors what they think about adjusting this wording to be clearer about its attribution. For example, would something like the following work: "According to sources consulted by Reuters, the company is making an attempt to sell itself as a whole..."
  • Finally, the section heading of Decline seems a bit over-the-top or premature at this stage, especially given the mixed press about the company's finances etc (see for instance this WSJ piece that notes an increased revenue and earnings per share compared with a year ago). Would editors be open to an alternate heading for the section?

As mentioned in previous notes on this page, I do have a COI here as I am working as a paid consultant on Wikipedia for Citrix Systems. I won't make any changes in the article and welcome editors' thoughts on these requests. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)