Talk:Information technology consulting

message: The list of firms is getting a bit out of hand. Is it reasonable to limit the list, or eliminate the lists entirely, and just use the category links?
Maybe it would make sense to separate the list into major players, and everyone else? that way it's a valid resource for people who want an overview, and a list of the firms they might have heard of, and also a good place for people who might want a fqairly comprehensive list of companies that can provide these services? After all, Wiki is supposed to be comprehensive, and for everyone. The current list isn't comprehensive and not everyone who wants consultancy services (especially just a few $1000s worth) is going to look at the big players. I vote start adding some of the deleted ones back in, in a "minor players" section. wimbledon andy 01:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't find long lists helpful in Wikipedia and they are specifically discouraged in various guidelines such as Wikipedia not  a link repository and Wikipedia:Embedded list which begins with "as a basic principle, you should avoid list-making in entries." I prefer changing the list into prose, telling a bit more about why each organization is significant. I find articles that try to be comprehensive to be less informative than those that briefly explain the key points, sorting out for me what is significant and eliminating minor details. If there is a strong desire for a list of consuting firms, then a separate list article can be created, although in this case I like the suggestion of just referring to the category. Entries in such a list should still be notable per WP:CORP and probably be limited to internal links. JonHarder 14:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't object to the list if the entries are accompanied by headcounts and restricted to the major players such as Accenture, EDS, IBM, etc.  I find the entries with no head count such as Indra, or low counts such as Ikonami (35) or Pentalog (70) to be dubious and probably WP:NN. MarkBrooks 19:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Wikipedia is not a repository for links, and it isn't the yellowpages. I propose that we limit entries in the list to notable companies based on the number of employees.  I suggest a minimum threshold of 10,000 employees, but open up discussion for an alternative basis. I'll go ahead and start deleting. -Taco325i 16:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added Patni Computer Systems and Larsen & Toubro Infotech to the list as I found they have around 13,000 and 24,000 employees respectively. I wonder why the Asian firms listed are the ones having only above 10,000 employees while there are European and American firms which have less than that number.--Flexijane 17:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed Fujitsu Consulting as it has only 6,700 employees, below the agreed 10,000.  S3000  ☎ 19:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: there are soo many I.T firms in Asia.Why is the list so short?

message: Could someone fill in the missing principle?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Five basic principles - only 4 listed

message: Hello all, I am interested in adding some additional references to the page. Please let me know what your opinions about this are. Also, I am going to add an additional citation, possibly a line or two to the article. If I do something incorrect, I am open to help. I have this exercise to do as apart of my education and I do not intend to upset anyone or cause an issue. Thank you Mof1987 (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional references/ sources of information