Talk:BusinessObjects

Advertisment vs Encyclopedia article
Somebody at IP 129.97.114.173 changed this article to an advertisement for BO. It is great that you want to impove this very small article about your company but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we take the idea of neutral point of view very seriously because this is an encyclopedia. If you would like to expand this article in an encyclopedic fashion that's great but advertisments don't last long as wikipedia articles. JesseHogan 17:54, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not an Add anymore
Now, it is 07 June 2007. I've read the article, and don't think that we should consider it as an add.

Redirect
Redirected BusinessObjects to this page.

--Sheldonc 02:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

POV and history
Do we get anything to check for the business objects for reporting. All the way down you can easily go and check wheather these consumptions are made by folks who are really co-workers for that particular company. Since, there are not effected because we din't even change yet the proposal's from the co-worker's. I tried to remove some of the POV in this article, but I still think that the text in this way could be on the companys website as an advertisement. Sure it is a great product but it is not ultimative. Furthermore I am not sure how lists are handled in the English Wikipedia, but at least the history section should be converted to a continuous text. -- CecilK 01:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Crticism
There are no citations anywhere in the criticism section and a lot of these are simply an individuals opinion. I think we should remove the conjecture and add some citations if this section is to remain. Macutty 18:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Also added a number of citation tags. The info reads like a competitor spreading FUD rather than anything else.

After reviewing rules on verifiability and OR I'm suppressing the criticism section using the <! tag until sources can be found to back up these statements Macutty 22:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I cleaned up this section and rewrote it. I think this section should NOT be removed, if anything competitors web pages require similiar sections.  -G 21:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Concur with Macutty. That was a mass of trivia and original research.  Blogs and forums are not acceptable references.  If you'd like to add criticism in the future, please source it properly and post it here on the talk page first so we can discuss it and assist you in citing it. Thanks!  Kuru  talk  13:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

CEO Compensation
Removing the comment on CEO's compensation: he is not even listed in the top 3. See link for details: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/07/10/8380869/index.htm Macutty 19:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

PR in the lead
There's a big chunk of press release in the lead. I will strip it out at some point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.209.6.41 (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Move?

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved per request and discussion below. GTBacchus(talk) 16:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Business Objects (company) → Business Objects — Capitalization is sufficient to disambiguate from Business object Pnm (talk) 01:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Is a plural '-s' and the case of one letter enough disambiguation? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think so because Business Objects is well known and the topics themselves are not confusable. --Pnm (talk) 03:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:PRECISION. Capitalization and pluralization is more than enough for the title as long as a hatnote is added to the company's article for the occasional lost reader. Station1 (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, and it seems most of the existing links to Business Objects (currently a redirect to the generic term) are intended to point to the company anyway.--Kotniski (talk) 10:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

weird jargon
"Other Business Objects toolsets enable universes, and ready-written reports, to be stored centrally..." Universes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.158.133.78 (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A Universe is the way that the Business Objects software enables users to view query and extract data contained in the data warehouse. Rather than users needing to write SQL code to extract data, the Universe automates the generation of SQL code by reporting software that has a graphical user interface. This means users can drag and drop the data objects they want to report upon without needing to know any details of SQL or the background database tables or their data relationships. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 09:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

More wierd jargon is - SAP BusinessObjects 4.0 is now GA for most countries: - First, what does GA mean? Second, is SAP BusinessObjects 4.0 the same as BusinessObjects 4.0 and if so where does Business Objects XI, the flagship product, fit in? - Cameron Dewe (talk) 09:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Move? (2)

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Business Objects → BusinessObjects – This is a proper noun, the spelling used currently and (as far as I can tell) from the start is without the intervening whitespace. Relisted again. Jenks24 (talk) 14:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC) Relisted. BDD (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC) RossPatterson (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, albeit lukewarm with all the caveats inherent in Google searches. "Business Objects" + SAP gives 5.5 million hits against 2.3 for "BusinessObjects" + SAP. Favonian (talk) 11:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right about hit counts. Interestingly, the top hit on both searches is http://www54.sap.com/solutions/analytics/business-intelligence.html, which Google summarizes as "By providing them with self-service access to the data and insight they need, no matter where the information resides. SAP BusinessObjects BI solutions help ..." - the target of the requested move.  RossPatterson (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on BusinessObjects. 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/20101204200028/http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/generate-article.php?id=2004_30 to http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/generate-article.php?id=2004_30
 * Added tag to http://www.windowsitpro.com/article/database-development/business-objects-acquires-olap-work.aspx

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)