Talk:Avaya/Archive 1

Criticism section

It is a bit of a stretch to say that Avaya's purchase of Nortel's Enterprise division "recombines root companies Northern Electric and Western Electric, which were split in 1949, back into one entity." The various parts of the original Western Electric were absorbed into several companies including Alcatel/Lucent, Commscope (Systimax), Advanced American Telephones, Elcotel, Avaya and a few others (see the Western Electric article). Nortel is (or was) more like Lucent Technologies before the 2000 spin off of Avaya. 64.208.159.230 (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

As of 15th Sept 2009 this page lists CS2000 as a product Avaya now owns following it's purchase of the Nortel Enterprise division. Surely this isn't valid: CS2000 is a CVAS product, is it not?

- rdm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.106.220.83 (talk) 15:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Whoever keeps deleting the Criticism section needs to reconsider their actions. It's part of the NPOV to involve both pro and con. Take a look at the Freemasonry article, or the Grand jury article, or the Esperanto as an international language article, or the National Missile Defense article, or the Federal Reserve article, or the Political effects of Hurricane Katrina article, or the Kohlberg's stages of moral development article. These are just ones I found through Google in a couple minutes. Criticism of a topic within the primary article on the topic has multiple precedents in multiple areas, and I am justified in including my contribution in the (otherwise press-release-sounding) Avaya article.

- pxs

It's not that criticism shouldn't be on an encyclopedia page. It's that the criticism that you are placing in the article is unverifable and sounds like someone with an axe to grind. If you were to include even a single external reference instead of starting off with the comment about "anecdotal evidence" I think it would be much better. 1001001 06:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I smell investor info brochure cut'n'paste here, we'll, it looks like the "pro-company" speak you only see in press and investor releases... --Mcbridematt 12:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'm adding an NPOV template. Epl18 11:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I looked through the list of temps and marked it as advert instead. Saying that it's number 1 really recalls some ads I saw. I'm editing the link on Voice over IP. Epl18

I got in before you and reverted all of Rupertb's edits, since they were all highly POV PR-talk for Avaya. It's sad to think certain companies evidently task people with making them look better on Wikipedia. Haakon 12:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

thanks. Epl18

I don't see why there shouldn't be pro as well as con. Everything on that page is verifiable. If you want the Avaya Wikipedia entry to be a historical record slanted towards the negative as opposed to the truth of the current state of the company go ahead. I mean, Western Electric ceased to exist over 10 years ago. For the record, the Avaya PR department barely even knows Wikipedia exits. Rupertb

We don't want "pros and cons", we want verifiable, relevant facts written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not a company poster or PR engine, it is an encyclopedia. Wording that does not belong in an encyclopedia includes:

• Avaya has come a long way from its roots
• it leads a global growth industry in innovative uses
• Avaya customers enjoy the intimacy of a real voice connection to their customers

These are completely and utterly POV-based statements, besides sounding like they were copied verbatim from an investor's brouchure. Your company can make better use of its advertising budget than this. Haakon 22:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

So, where is the Criticism section? Max Sánchez

It's in the history, see for example this revision. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Info about the call registry/reference.....

• http://scholar.google.com.hk/scholar?as_q=call+reference&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1.&as_sdtp=on&as_sdts=5&hl=en

• http://scholar.google.com.hk/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+call+registry&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

--222.64.217.62 (talk) 03:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=registry+site%3Awww.avaya.com&btnG=Search&meta=&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

• http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=call+reference+site%3Awww.avaya.com&btnG=Search&meta=&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

--222.64.217.62 (talk) 03:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

ISO 33.040.35: Telephone networks

• http://www.iso.org/iso/products/standards/catalogue_ics_browse.htm?ICS1=33&ICS2=040&ICS3=35&

--222.64.217.62 (talk) 03:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Further information: Talk:Call centre/Archives/2014 § The history of the edition for this topic.....

--222.64.217.62 (talk) 03:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Extra Space

After the links in ===Technologies acquired from Nortel===, a space appears. Does anyone know why? Fix if possible, thank you.Curb Chain (talk) 12:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Editing

This article needs a LOT of editing and also needs to discuss Avaya's internal changes to divide the company into Enterprise and SMB "divisions". (Communications Manager vs. IP Office as well as the networking gear)--Salsany (talk) 01:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Link spam?

Some of the External Links listed have very little informational content (such as verticall.com and webuyavaya.com). Should these be deleted? -Big Smooth 21:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but genuine web sites of "Business partners" ought to be left on. Bearian 16:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that genuine websites of "Business partners" should be left on unless they are relevant to what is being discussed (i.e.: Discussing Avaya's acquisition of Expanets assets) Wikipedia is not for advertising and BP pages are sales websites. I have no objection to links to blog posts, press releases or relevant content that happens to be on a BP website, but we should tread lightly.--Salsany (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

HELP HELP HELP!!!! What does AVAYA mean?????=

What does Avaya mean? I have searced and searched to find the meaning or orgin of the word; What does it mean? Is it a Hindu God or something? Or is it just a word like "Miata" or "canola" that sounds real cool? It sounds like a name a yuppie couple might give to a daughter: "Yes our Avaya is on fast track to Yale with Baby Einstein????????????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.8.188.205 (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The Term Avaya has no meaning. It was created at the height of the Internet Bubble and after much debate and research, the term was coined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.126.92 (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

When working for Avaya just after the split, my understanding was that it was created as a new word, however it was (supposedly) soon discovered that it also meant "wisdom" in a native American language. Sorry I do not have a reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.220.220 (talk) 12:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems odd to me... "Avaya" is a beautiful Indian name for girls (truly "Abhaya", but pronunciation is very similar using English syllables, and very hard to transcribe using only English letters, which cannot describe all possible human speech-sounds). I would tell you what it means (because it is familiar to many Indians, especially Odiya peoples), but I have no references, so it would simply be speculation. Note, though when I say "Indian" it does *not* mean indiginous peoples of North and South America; it means people from India :-D. The name comes from the sanskrit language, but represents no Hindu deity that I am aware of. So interesting; that which is common knowledge for some of us is encyclopedic for others!! So, perhaps this curiousity will prompt someone to find for themselves this answer I know, but in an existing notable source. Then they can cite it in the article. Then everyone can know. By the way, the second reply in this thread here says that Lucent made it up... and this is true, in that it is (as best I know) the official corporate statement on the subject. Personally, I think this is a big lie from the company, as it was in vogue to use Indian first-names for spin-offs and startups during '99-'01 (it still is, actually). 166.70.232.249 (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Ha, replying to myself, how silly, eh? So I just searched WP and learned it was also a BOYS name for a Sri Lanka king thousands of years ago. Who knew? :-) 166.70.232.249 (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

"Perceptual judgment" in Jainism Xcrivener (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

References

This page is an ad, right?

I stopped reading before I finished the first paragraph... because this was OBVIOUSLY written by a marketing shill for the company. Of all the Wikipedia pages I've ever read, this one is most clearly an advertisement, not an encyclopedia entry. The editors on Wikipedia are too busy clamping down on legitimate opposing views (on real issues) to bother deleting this spam. This site is going straight down the toilet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.8.218 (talk) 06:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

No. It is a skeleton of an encyclopedic entry with no information for someone looking for historical/geographical/technical information about a communications company. Compared with pages of smaller orgs from the same industry (number of employees criteria) it would seem Avaya is non-existent with its outdated Wiki. Article must list registered sellers, support providers, trainers etc. instead of the names of folks in board of directors. Coolpriyanka10 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Leadership Information

Is it necessary to list out the current leaders of the organization? Not encyclopedic enough to be included.

Coolpriyanka10 (talk) 09:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, and it's likely to become out of date. I'm going to remove this. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

AT&T / Lucent

According to Avaya, "In 1995, the company that would become Avaya was part of Lucent Technologies. Before that it had been part of AT&T."[1] But that can't be true, because while Lucent was incorporated in 1995, none of AT&T's assets were transfered to the new company until February 1996.[2] Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)