Talk:PeopleSoft

message: "No, they just wrote some web interface; most backend infrastructure remains unchanged."  It is true that the development environment remains similar, but there were significant changes to reflect the changed environment, too.  There's a simple reason for that - it didn't need to change - most of the things we need to do in a development environment aren't any different if the end user is using a web browser.  We need different controls on a page, we may need to hide or display some objects, validate data entered,and so on. A valid comparison would be with Microsoft's Visual Basic development environment versus Visual Studio .NET - there are significant diffences but also some very similar areas. "they just wrote some web interface" seems to imply the approach taken by PeopleSoft and other ERP vendors in the early days of web-enablement.  This invloved downloading and running a Java applet in the browser which then allowed the existing client-server app to run in a web browser. PeopleSoft PIA is much more than that - much more akin to developing in .net
As for the the comment about customisations and California State - it is 100% true you have to re-apply customisations.  This is true for all software so why is it considered noteworthy in connection with PeopleSoft?  What have people got against PeopleSoft in comparison with, say SAP? 86.144.207.140 11:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  response 

message: I have put this back with comment about rapid deployment removed.  Whilst rapid deployment is undoubtedly possible, I agree that it's also possible to deploy PeopleSoft in a slow and defective manner, just like any other software, so this comment probably wasn't helpful.  As for the rest, I've made some comments above.  I have worked with PeopleSoft for ten years and fail to see what is misleading or inaccurate - perhaps you could elaborate from your detailed knowledge of the product rather just deleting what was a useful background (IMHO of course) 86.135.98.170 12:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RE: product design 

message: I have reverted an edit from about a month ago which claimed, "it is noteworthy that Oracle's CEO Ellison - as the trial progressed - made a donation of $10,000 to Senator Boxer". (I had not ever looked at this article before; this was called to my attention by a non-Wikipedia correspondent who was reading the article.)
Three problems with this, all major:
# "it is noteworthy" is a violation of Wikipedia style. Don't tell the reader that your fact is more important than other facts.
# The placement of the information creates a suggestion that Ellison's donation to Boxer was relevant to the outcome of the case. This amounts to a charge of bribery, a blatant violation of WP:BLP; only the extreme latitude allowed by U.S. law in comments on public figures keeps this from being potentially libelous.
# There isn't even a citation for the fact that the donation even occurred. Now, if the donation occurred, and if there is some sense in which it can be shown to be important in and of itself, that might belong in the article on Ellison, possibly in the article on Boxer, but unless a reliable source ties that to the PeopleSoft case, it has absolutely no place in the article on PeopleSoft.
Jmabel | Talk 22:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noteworthy innuendo 

message: I have removed an insertion "However, the difficulty inherent in dealing with a proprietary platform has led to many failed or failing implementations of the PeopleSoft products due to the learning curve associated with it."
This is just heresay.  One could just as easily make a perfectly valid comment that many implementations have been successful.  I say again - why are people so very keen to hijack wikipedia as Peoplsoft gripe site? PeopleSoft is ERP software - like SAP, Oracle (applications) etc, they all have these issues.  Trying to paint a negative picture is not helpful and I don't believe it's in the sprit of Wikipedia.
Ukurko 21:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Product Design 

message: Someone, probably in ignorance, attempted to delete the article under a speedy for spam. apparently they did not read the article. I removed the tag. (and did a small cleanup). Possibly the description of the system components is still a little too detailed. 
However, specific references are still need, not just the general ones at the bottom. DGG 23:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that the speedy was placed by Touken, a ed. with only two edits. His other one is an attempt to justify a deleted article on People-trakDGG 23:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: attempted deletion

message: I've removed two links from the article.  One was simply a link to a six day old ultra low content blog, the other to a "peoplesoft alumni network" which seems useless in the context of building on the article.  If there are concerns, please note them here before re-adding the links. Kuru talk 02:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: I removed the following sentence as it doesn't make any sense
"With Release 9.0 Peoplesoft's largest CRM is been released since 8.0."
Ukurko (talk) 11:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: RE: product design 

message: *** TO WHOEVER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS ARTICLE ***
Please consider removing the 2004 report on the planned implementation for the DoD. Given that PeopleSoft was acquired around that time, can we really trust this article? If there are more articles about the DoD project, then put them up. Otherwise, assume no such project exists and delete the section.
Just a suggestion.
66.117.135.137 (talk) 06:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consider removal of DoD planned implementation 

message: After extensive work, I have found some areas which are outside the scope of a simple copy edit, but which need improvement. The tone of the article varies greatly between chearleading, criticism, and trivia. The first two both reveal a bias, which is not appropriate in an encyclopedia. The latter tone is also inappropriate, simply because the purpose of the article should be to educate, rather than bore with a sales pitch (I, for one, find it very dull to know if the software supports an obsolete system I've never heard of). I've done what I can to clean this up, but an editor with more experience in NPOV and interesting probably should take a look.
On a different note, the 'PeopleSoft in Use' section is worthless. The first part is simply a giant list of Oracle press release (read propaganda). This is boring, absolutely devoid of actual information, and ugly. Someone with detailed knowledge of the product, please go back and try to make an actual paragraph out of that. The second list is even worse, with a half-assed not-really citation. I want to delete it. I might come back later. 
Also, yes, a giant software conglomerate suite has problems. Its worth noting the major ones that result in real consequences (being sued, being investigated), but software costing money, or not allowing Joe P. Freshman to register the first time? This is not noteworthy. Its complaining. 
Finally, please sign your comments in the talk page with four ~, so at least dates can be recorded. RevZoe (talk) 02:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Results of Copy Edit

message: This article seems to have a strong degree of multiple-personality disorder.  It starts off talking about PeopleSoft the company, but then spends much of its time discussing PeopleSoft the platform.  Granted, when a company exists almost exclusively for a single product/platform, one would expect to find information about both.  But the two are separate entities, as evidenced by the fact that the platform is still sold even though the company has been assimilated.
Further complicating this is the fact that the article links to itself: under Timeline, the 1988 entry links to PeopleSoft HRMS -- which redirects back to the same article, a violation of WP:LINK.
I'm inclined to think that there should be two articles, one on the company, the other on the product.  However, once the product information is mostly stripped from the company article, there may not be enough to warrant maintaining a separate article for it, in which case it might simply be better served as a section in the Oracle article.  Regardless, the product certainly deserves a full article, and there is far more information to be had than is available here.
EJSawyer (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split article