Talk:Capgemini/Archives/2016

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Capgemini. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://ml.com/media/14076.pdf

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Reducing the article to a stub

Greetings! The current article mainly consists of large lists, and is impossible to turn into a coherent, eloquent piece of text by these grounds. I'd like to suggest removing the excessive lists, and start re-writing the article on the basis of reliable secondary sources. Mentioning each one of the company's acquisitions hardly seems relevant. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 12:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

History and Acquisitions

These lists serve almost identical purposes. I'm not an expert on Company Portal style (which is why I didn't go ahead and make the edit), but it seems that acquisitions should be deleted from the History list OR the Acquisitions list should be deleted outright. Frank MacCrory (talk) 05:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The aquisitions of Cap Gemini only demonstrates the company's ability to spend money to gain market share. The history should also encompass the success of the aquistions and whether the penetration achieved was worth the investment. 24.107.116.39 (talk) 01:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)Laura Leed

I agree with Frank MacCrory. The same thing crossed my mind as I was editing the article. In my opinion, the acquisitions section is redundant. We should cover the history of the company in the framework of reliable secondary sources. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 12:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Why is there no mention on this page of SESA (or Sesa as in SSII Sesa) meaning Société d'Étude des Systèmes d'Automation which is mentioned seven times on the French version of the article about Capgemini?

And no, Jayaguru-Shishya, mentioning each one of the company's acquisitions is NOT irrelevant; it is an essential if not central element of the history of a company; it is at the core of what the word "company" means in normal English: "group of individuals who work together for a common purpose" (Wikipedia). The more such groups of people — though formed into commercial companies — group further, the bigger the company gets, and the history of mergers and acquisitions is central to the history of any company, as is the history of any name changes of the original company and of any companies that it acquires, whether it absorbs them or keeps them separate (and in that case whether it keeps their name or changes the name). Iph (talk) 13:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi there Iph, and merry Christmas! We should cover the history of the company in the framework of reliable secondary sources. Should there be such a source that lists all the acquisitions, then we should take WP:UNDUE in account. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@Frank MacCrory:, are you aware of the most recent turn to restore all the material previously discussed to the article?[1] Cheers and Merry Christmas! ;-) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC)