Template talk:IT giants

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Templates for deletion This template was considered for deletion on 2006 October 21. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Further classifications are possible, e.g. business vs. personal computing; this would single out IBM, SAP, Oracle, Sun.

I decided against including Canon because their business is mostly engineering; they do use semi-conductors and rudimentary operating systems in their devices, but the same can be said of most branches of engineering these days.

I'm also thinking about a separate template for web companies that could include eBay and Amazon besides Google and Yahoo!; these four seem the most significant forces on the web. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] What is this template for?

There needs to be a clear definition of which companies should and shouldn't be in the template.

For example, how is Yahoo! more of an "IT giant" than Amazon or eBay? Are we talking revenue here? Influence?

EMC and Cisco certainly belong if Oracle and Motorola are on the list.

It just boils down to what the point of this template is. Is it specifically IT or computing in general or just consumer companies? Without a clear description of what the template is, it can balloon into pretty much anything... PaulC/T+ 22:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

To my mind, certainly Amazon sell goods. They're neither an IT nor a computing company. It does say "major". I'm not quite as familiar with Cisco and have to admit to having never even heard of EMC. Revenue would be a good guide, as would influence. A lot of companies depend on what Google, Sun or Novell get up to, for instance. Google certainly have a lot of computing intellectual property, their business was originally built on a novel algorithm. You may wish to educate me on whether Yahoo! can be considered a computing company in a similar sense. They seem to be the main competitor to Google. I don't see the same rationale being true of eBay, whom I would also classify as a service provider. Maybe these kinds of major web businesses could go in a separate template. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually... now that I think about it, the way the template is currently, it is very hard to keep WP:NPOV... deciding what does and doesn't "deserve" to be included in the template implies a value judgement unless you can come up with specific criteria for what does and doesn't belong in the template. For example, Amazon has many web services and provide e-commerce expertise for many large companies (Target, Borders, etc.) they also own A9 (a search engine) and Alexa. Why shouldn't they be in the template? Why should they? where do you stop? What is "major"? Without a clear direction, this template may belong on WP:TFD... PaulC/T+ 03:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
BTW, EMC is a very large (almost 10 billion in revenue) computing corporation, they mostly sell storage for large companies tho. Take a look at the companies I added if you aren't familiar with them, they all play major roles in different areas of computing. eBay too, they own Skype and PayPal and you can bet that they see Google as their main competitor (GTalk, Google Wallet (coming soon), Google Base). Cisco pretty much provides all of the networking equipment out there... so they basically run the internet, a pretty big company (20+ billion). PaulC/T+ 03:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Your concern applies to all pages and templates similar to this one on Wikipedia. Editing nonetheless succeeds by means of consensus among editors. Some editors seem to think most of Wikipedia should be deleted. I disagree with those editors. BTW, the reason I chose "computing" over "information technology" was to prevent this becoming a long list of telecom companies. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd be curious to see similar templates on wikipedia. The only one I found didn't survive TFD even though it was brought back after a deletion review because despite the ambiguity of the template it was found to be useful. I'm not sure this template is nearly as useful... but there would be less people looking at the TFD request, so who knows. PaulC/T+ 16:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
FFS, will you nominate it if you're that desperate? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DSPs, computer services

I would add TI to the list of hardware companies as a result of dominance of DSPs (the brain of the mobile phone). Also I would add a tab for computer services outfits like IBM, EDS, Accenture, Capgemini and CSC.

I'd like to learn a bit more about the "computer services". This template is about computing in the technical sense. I'm happy to clarify this if I've made it ambiguous. If we start including management consultancy firms, too many articles will want to be included. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extra section for dot-com corporations?

Amazon, eBay, Yahoo! and Google aren't software companies. They're dot-com corporations. I think there should be another section for such dot-coms. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 04:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

That's nonsense. Of course they are software corporations. What do you think runs on their servers? Spaghetti? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 07:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Just because they aren't normally thought of as selling software to the public doesn't mean that they don't do it. Also, they are important because of the software they use and develop to offer their particular service. pschemp | talk 14:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
This template focuses on the technology, not on the business. So regardless whether eBay and Amazon distribute desktop software (Google and Yahoo both do), their business is in existence because of the software innovations they made (well, Yahoo is probably not that innovative, but software is still what they do). Software is software, whether on a server or a desktop. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
But a spaghetti server is an interesting concept...end world hunger? :) pschemp | talk 18:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I forgot to consider that they could be considered to provide Internet software, and that they need to develop software for their servers. However, most people will consider them dot-coms, and since there are several dot-coms in the list, I was considering a seperate section for them. It seems consensus is against this. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 04:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
We could think about redesigning this template as a Venn diagram, although I have no previous experience of this - it would depend whether there is a way to implement the <area> tag on Wikipedia. Anyway, I won't be spending sleepless nights over this. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asus

I feel Asus should be on this list. Asus makes motherboards, graphics cards, PDA's, laptops, cell phones and more. They made over 250 million US dollars in 2004. If Asus is not a IT giant then I don't know what is. - CaptainAmerica 04:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

  • No complaints, I'll add it then. - CaptainAmerica 17:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Who removed Asus... and why? - CaptainAmerica 00:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Microsoft

This Template appeared on SGI a few moments ago. Nice job to all involved. Anyway, my query is why Microsoft is considered hardware/software ... they dont seem to be in the same league as the others along that row. Jayvdb 09:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

  • They make game controllers (mosty joysticks, but a few game pads), keyboards and mice, and supposedly (even though don't quote me on it) I believe they sell a lot of them. Therefor, I think that would make them a Hardware company - 216.138.170.250 12:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template needs to be revised

I was the guy who suggested that Computer Services Companies be included. Now I feel that some Companies included in Software should not be there at all. Yahoo, Google, Live, E-Bay, Amazon are not Software Companies (though they do develop Software) they are Web Services Companies. This is more accurate than dot com. The major Software outfits are Microsoft, IBM Software, Oracle, SAP, CA and Symantec. So a new tab here please. Also the Hardware tab needs to be loooked at again. Maybe there should be a separate tab for Semiconductors, Servers, Storage, and Communications/Networking Equipment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamieFoster (talk • contribs)

I agree, this article is getting too big. - CaptainAmerica 17:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Google and Yahoo produce desktop software, as does amazon (they have an embedded music player, let's avoid the grey areas by being more inclusive). I am currently considering a wholesale revert of changes made in the last two months, as previous discussion has been entirely ignored by the editors. (yes, you, Jamie, and please learn to sign your posts. Use ~~~~ - it's not difficult! - Samsara (talk ·  contribs) 11:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revised Template

I've made alot of changes. i have added Telecommunications Equipment Companies which is what Cisco, Nokia, Motorola etc really are. I have also removed Google, Yahoo, Amazon, E-bay from Computer Software and placed them in a new Web-Services/dot com tab. We have to be careful because there is so much overlap between computing and telecomms. Many people would argue we should include major phone companies like ATT, BT, France Telecom, NTT, Verizon etc. Many people would say the same about ISPs and major mobile phone companies. It difficult to known where this thing ends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamieFoster (talk • contribs)

[edit] Electronics Manufacturing Services

The reason I have included EMS is because of the following. Your Apple iPod, HP Compaq notebook, Cisco router, XBox 360, Ericcson phone switch or whatever is not manufactured by these companies. It is EMS outfits that produce them under contract for the big brands in Taiwan, China, Philipines, Poland, Mexico or wherever Labour is cheaper than in the US or Western Europe. So the likes of Foxconn and Solectron are totally crucial to the computer hardware industry (both in terms of components and assembly), even though the man in the street has never heard of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamieFoster (talk • contribs)

[edit] Definiton

We need a clear and solid way to define what a IT Giant is. Any ideas? - CaptainAmerica 23:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

ii== Its OK ==

Our IT giants template is pretty good. We have covered the major areas of IT in terms of Hardware, Software and Services. In addition pretty much all the most important IT companies are featured. I am not sure if we should include Novell and Redhat in Software. Although they are important outfits and Linux is a key OS they have very small revenues when compared to say Microsoft or IBM. So although influential they are not at the moment giants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.94.221 (talk • contribs)

[edit] No Advertising

I've noticed that some jokers think they can insert tiny companies that I've (or anybody else) never heard of. It usually happens in the IT consulting tab. This template was created to list the really important hardware, software and services companies. The ones that shape the industry. Although standards bodies and open source are of course vital to the computing industry too. This isn't meant to be the Yellow Pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.93.156 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Apple

No Apple in the list? Why? Thunderhawk89 21:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Because you didn't read closely enough? Its there right after hardware/software companies. pschemp | talk 22:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Solved =D Sorry Thunderhawk89 19:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Order of listing within the template

I propose to follow a strict alphabetical order in the template. It seems to me, that additions have been made at rather arbitrary points within the list. I'll sort this for now, but please add only in a way preserving the order. Thanks, MikeZ 16:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IT consulting giants

There is a new template for IT consulting companies: Let's not clutter the current template with that, it was beginning to get unwieldy... PaulC/T+ 10:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This version is way too bulky...

The seperation lines give extra lines the lines beofre and after itself, the companies list occupies less space than the seperation lines...... --202.40.137.201 07:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. :-) --AMK1211 16:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Point?

I'm trying to figure out... what's the point of this template? If somebody's looking at the IBM article, why would he be interested in going to the Foxconn article? If they are related, what does this template provide the reader with that a category wouldn't? Yonatan talk 20:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)