Talk:Citrix Systems/Archive 1

• User:16912_Rhiannon/Citrix_Products

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

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.  Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 13:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

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:

• User:16912_Rhiannon/Citrix_Operations

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?  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)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

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:

• User:16912_Rhiannon/Citrix_Corporate_responsibility

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)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

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)

Hi again to anyone watching this page, I'm back with some further thoughts on the

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,

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

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

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 75.108.94.227 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

WP:STAND. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

14:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks JC713 and Onel5969, would one of you mind making the edits in the article? Due to my COI I prefer not to edit articles directly (I follow the "bright line"). Thanks again, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 12:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done - Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks so much! Also, if either you or JC713 is able to take a peek at the request below, I'd love to hear your thoughts. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 14:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

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)

Hey Rhiannon, if you can draft up the changes, I would be happy to apply them. Any corrections to misinformation should be addressed ASAP, so no conflict there :).

Appreciate it! I'm pulling some sources together and will hopefully be able to provide some drafted language later today. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 14:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience while I got this ready. As I was looking at the sourcing, I felt that with the Reuters source being so clearly speculative, and the fact that other sources contradict it, it might be best not to include. With that said, the updated language that I'd like to propose adds some more details and clarifies the involvement of Elliot Management, corrects the mention of Templeton's retirement, and includes some suggested wording about the company's plans to potentially sell off it's GoTo products. I've also suggested renaming the section Recent history. Let me know what you think!