Talk:Informatica

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Computing Low‑importance

	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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Financial results[edit]

added 000s to the number instead of writing (USB 000s) as it makes more sense. 206.169.93.118 (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disguised ad?[edit]

This article blows. Reads like a press release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.9.164 (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree, this article servers only to promote a newer flagship from the company and is a thinly veiled press release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.102.227.63 (talk) 19:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see you and raise you one -- I'd recommend this page be deleted unless a non-Informatica author submits completely re-written content before, let's say, 30 Nov 2011. Matthew C. Clarke 23:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well. Isn't it time to delete it now? Jhertel (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2015 and this poor page still lives. I wonder how things are deleted from Wikipedia... Nujjer (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is still a poor article. I disagree that it should be deleted: Informatica are a leading vendor for data management solutions and therefore notable. My main complaint with the article is that it quickly dives into the low-level detail of a tiny part of the product portfolio - it doesn't give a sensible high-level overview of what Informatica are all about. If I had the time... M62902 (talk) 10:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with M62902, Informatica are a notable company. I think the section on their products is in decent shape at that granularity, but there needs to be a rewrite of the company's history, mission, and definition of what they are (and are not). The links saying they "grow through acquisition" are from 2009 and 2010. But the article as a whole is clearly not a press release - I don't get a hagiographic or triumphant tone from it at all. Maybe that was different in 2011. Denzera (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of company[edit]

Informatica Corporation is an independent provider of data integration software

Maybe this article should also point out that Informatica is used in many countries to denote what is called Computer Science in the English language? - GideonKlok (talk) 07:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel strongly about that, then create a disambiguation page. Fordsfords (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A cross-language disambiguation makes no sense and would hugely inflate wiki if implemented consistantly! In this case the meaning is hardly a surprise and pretty obvious to English-speakers (Information, Information Technology etc.). May make more sense for things like Strada or Marmite that are less obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.83.30.197 (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

As stated above, this article reads like a press release or a puff piece. SDY (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Website talks mainly about a product called "Informatica 9" - it would be good if someone could explain the relationship between that and the packages mentioned here.

I agree it sounded like an ad. I deleted all the sentences which seemed purely promotional, left only core facts like major product names. Jonathan Stray (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead to be improved[edit]

The lead is missing content. It should include what kind of company it is. The existing content seems superfluous, except for the geographical information (location). --Mortense (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested additions: Informatica provides software for data integration and Big Data to large companies. The company went public in May, 1999. Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).http://www.crunchbase.com/organization/informatica Today the company's market cap is 3.86 billion. A few additional details about the founders: Diaz Nesamoney served as President and Chief Operating Officer at Informatica until 2002 and has since founded Jivox Corporation and Celequest Corporation (formerly known as Viewceler Corp.) Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=232044&privcapId=34431210 Gaurav Dhillon was co-founder and CEO of Informatica for 12 years and has been Chairman and CEO of SnapLogic since 2009. Pollyst (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture section[edit]

This can't possibly make sense to anyone who doesn't already use the software — Preceding unsigned comment added by 54.240.196.186 (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, Informatica can now be spoken of in the past tense.[edit]

Informatica the corporation and Informatica the software program (written years ago) and the suite of programs (now owned by others) that Informatica became are three very different subjects. Several historical articles may make sense. Pretending there exists a program or a corporation singularly identified as Informatica should probably stop soon. Scottprovost (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]