Talk:Oracle Financial Services Software

Lack of neutrality

This page seems like an advertisement page, especially in the section with the list of products, each one paired to its logo. --Cantalamessa 12:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The logo is used to make the page more attractive. Afterall, the idea is to provide info about the company and its services. -- Rajith Mohan :) ^{(Talk to me...)} 14:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the Infosys page, the difference is great: there is no profusion of TM's and bold terms, like it happens to be here. There is no external source or reference, apart from the company website, guaranteeing for the importance or solidity of this firm (Infosys article has it). Infosys has just two logos, which are not related to their products but rather to some development program or cooperation. Eventually, there is no need to specify the address: I can find it on the website. --Cantalamessa 12:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Cantalamessa, Thanks for your points.

We can change the layout.

Cheers, -- Rajith Mohan :) ^{(Talk to me...)} 12:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

After nearly one month, this paper is always similar to an advertisement page. --Cantalamessa 22:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree it reads like a advertisement, but what the heck. One thing I feel could be important is to mention Microbanker, one of their core application. I thinks its missed out as it was rebranded after Oracle purchase —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wk muriithi (talk • contribs)

The article is changed now, and doesnt looks like an ad page. -- Rajith Mohan ^{(Talk to me...)} :-) 08:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This is your opinion :-) Cantalamessa 21:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It really looks like an advertisement. There is no way that 95% of it could have been written by a company outsider (unless they wrote it by quoting company ads or company press releases). Admit it, Rajith Mohan, you work for the company and have a bunch of their stock options, don't you? —Wookipedian 00:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops. I just noticed the smiley face at the end of Rajith Mohan's remarks. Does that mean that Rajith Mohan admits that the page is an advertisement and his last comment was irony? —Wookipedian 00:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

No dear Wookipedian, I dont hold any share in i-flex. I reframed the article and included appropriate inline references also to avoid the page looks like an ad. If it still seems so to you, then come forward and put your contributions too for upgrading the article to the standard as per your expectations.. Why the refraining ??!!!!

-- Rajith Mohan ^{(Talk to me...)} :-) 13:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, but at least you could change the words, look here and here. --Cantalamessa 15:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand how Rajith Mohan could think I am "refraining" from toning down the adverspeak in the article. I have made more edits to the article than anyone else lately, and approximately all of them have been for that purpose. It is true that there are still many problems in the article that I have not corrected, but I'm not getting paid for this and I have other things to do with my time. I simply think practically anyone who reads this article and ponders the question of whether or not it sounds like a company press release filled with self-praise would reach the same conclusion about its lack of objectivity. I do not think that the act of making that observation obligates me to devote a lot of time and energy to correcting the problems. -Wookipedian 17:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I work for the company in question and I can definitely say that Rajith Mohan works at here, at the time of writing. It is hard to say how this affects any status quo in the discussion though. But I would definitely prefer to read something that hasnt come out of marketing's mouth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.144.62.194 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 6 October 2006

Thanks. I hadn't noticed that after suggesting that Mohan must work there and have a lot of stock options, he only denied the part about having stock. So here's a message to the company management: Give Rajith a stock bonus. He deserves it. Don't be cheap.  :-) -Wookipedian 18:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Good work. Good comment and ready made answer from the same person. :) -- Rajith Mohan ^{(Talk to me...)} :-) 22:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Give me a break. I know how to use the Address Book and I know your work in my office (at the Tech Park). And let me tell you something that might hurt - your sock puppetry doesnt work everywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.22.91.116 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 7 October 2006

Just for the record, I am not the same person that wrote those Anon IP-address edits. And just for the record, as far as I can see, Rajith has still not actually denied working for i-Flex. -Wookipedian 21:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I see the news about the lawsuit has been dropped. Has there been a settlement, or is this just whitewashing the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.24.41.131 (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Removing POV tag

Looks like good progress is being made in cleaning the article. I am removing the POV tag. Lets keep up the good work. Rigmahroll 17:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for deletion

I agree with the users here that the article looks like advertising (and may also be generated by the company concerned) but I think we should throw it open to the wider wikipedia community. I've proposed the article for deletion to enlarge the debate. --Saganaki- 07:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi all,

Rather than delete it, we can certainly clean it up. The only reasonable use of logo is for the company itself. The product names, logos and descriptions are unnecessary in an encyclopedia. They need to be removed. What would help is the addition of a history section. We should come to a consensus and work on cleaning this page up. I have been helping cleaning up the Infosys page and would like to do the same here. Rigmahroll 01:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The proposal for deletion was funny.. instead of trying to improve the article. :) The article should be deleted only if it is very much irrelevent to be included in the encylopedia. And this article does not fit in to that reason.

So, change the tag to {{cleanup|October 14, 2006}}. -- Rajith Mohan ^{(Talk to me...)} :-) 05:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Prod removed

I contest the proposed deletion of this article. Major reasons being that this is a well-known company in India listed on both the NSE and BSE. It has huge revenues. Google news returns media coverage by independent media. Also, the takeover of i-flex by Oracle was a notable event. Thus, this article meets notability criteria. The article could do with some cleanup, but that is not a valid reason to prod. If you still want to nominate this article for deletion, you can throw it open for discussion by sending it to AfD. Follow these steps to start the discussion. - Aksi_great (talk) 06:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Good debate. I'm for editing then. One, thing - should the product awards be removed? Magazines (and even ones owned by Pearson-FT) award thousands of these things every year, sometimes on the basis of advertisement buying? I'd also suggest that the seperate Flexcube article smacks of advertising and that this page should be merged with I-flex. Cheers --Saganaki- 12:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and clean-up the article. WP:CORP#Criteria_for_products_and_services will help you decide whether Flexcube deserves an article on its own or not. - Aksi_great (talk) 14:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, based on WP:CORP#Recommendations for products and services, I suggest that the Flexcube page to be merged into iFlex ("Information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company is so large that this would make the article unwieldy"). Any thoughts? --Saganaki- 14:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I too think that the Flexcube article can be merged with iflex page. -- Rajith Mohan ^{(Talk to me...)} :-) 14:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Good job!

I am very impressed with the way this article is taking shape. Great work by the editors involved with this article. Keep it up! - Aksi_great (talk) 17:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, sorry this is off-topic, but another user has put me on to the fact that BEA Systems could do with some work. It has a lot of separate product pages eg AquaLogic that should be merged with the main article same as we did here. I'm putting this here as I think BEA plays in the same space as i-flex so people here would know the topic. It's more work than I can handle at the moment though as I'm getting another article peer reviewed. Cheers--Saganaki- 06:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

No. of employees

I see that, since some revisions ago, the number of employees has grown from 7000 to 7500 and 8000, all done anonimously. Is it a company insider trying to pollute this article again with advertising, or is this due to a real increase in the number of hired people? --Cantalamessa 16:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

do i-flex have an office in Hyderabad?... - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.145.67.112 (talk • contribs)

It does not possess an office in Hyderabad. The article is updated now. -- Rajith Mohan ^{(Talk to me..)} 07:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Editing and advertisisng

Is there anyone different from company employees who follows and checks if this article is becoming again a sort of advertisement? --Cantalamessa 09:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

where are the updates of company after year 2007 ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.67.206 (talk) 10:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Needs systematic edit to justify claims

The superfluous adjective and adverbs and similar terms are unsupportable, and have been removed. However, there are a number of claims are are unsupportable (comprehensive, most etc) which cannot be used and others which need references if they are to stay in the article. --Duncan 14:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is MISLEADING

the article is about Oracle financial services but it looks like it is a failed attempt to give limelight to "i-flex" linking its name majorly with Oracle, wordings of the article have strong language and notions which clearly states that this article has been diverted from the topic and information is not at all correct, on further investigation on the topic, no such information can be found on internet as claimed in this article majorly promoting "i-flex". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Science.Warrior (talk • contribs) 19:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Oracle Financial Services Software/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

== Flexibility versus performance == I remember a database guru once illustrated the idea of flexibility with some long spaghetti that one has to wind around the fork in order to be able to eat them... It looks like that would illustrate pretty well what Flexcube is. To add on top of that that it does not use stored procedures, as Oracle experts generally say an ERP system should, but has the processing entirely in Oracle Forms... By buying them out, Oracle just bought something that goes against what they recommend. But, if it pays...

Last edited at 13:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 01:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Oracle Financial Services 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120103114638/http://mphasis.com/pdfs/FortuneRanking.pdf to http://www.mphasis.com/pdfs/FortuneRanking.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 10:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Addition Of Citation

Hello Wikipedians,

Citation needs to get added in the first paragraph beside the word "2006" in the Oracle Corporation section.

Here is the citation link to get added as citation in the sentence "Oracle purchased Citigroup's 41% stake in i-flex Solutions for US$593 million in August 2005, a further 7.52% in March and April 2006, and 3.2% in an open-market purchase in mid-April 2006"

Link : https://academic-accelerator.com/encyclopedia/oracle-financial-services-software

Please take out some time to check and consider my suggestion related to addition of citation. Prudent CAS (talk) 10:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

No; that site merely mirrors Wikipedia and that page is taken directly from Wikipedia; it absolutely cannot be used as a source for Wikipedia or for verification. See Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. NebY (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

This newly created account is endeavouring to contribute by adding citations. A request has been made to include relevant citations in the appropriate talk pages. Could you please offer guidance on the recommended links for updating citations on the Wikipedia platform? Prudent CAS (talk) 04:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I've responded on your talk page. NebY (talk) 11:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Overloaded key people

In the editor, the “key people” section in the overview table is marked as having a maximum of four key people along with their positions within the company. There are much more than four key people here, and once this list is revised their positions will need to be added as well. Tofitaeveryvisit (talk) 05:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)