Talk:Qlik

Comments

This is a real company with thousands of customers. It is really growing as fast as the articles explain and should be added to Wikipedia. Any company that has been listed as Technology Pioneer of the Year for 2008 should be listed here. Let me know how I can make this post stick so that others may learn about QlikTech.

The article sounds like an advertisement, not an encyclopedia article. It should be written from a neutral point of view (i.e., not by the company or an employee thereof). Player 03 (talk) 21:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, seconded. I've added a NPOV to it. "....enables organizations to make better and faster decisions....ability to provide users with detailed data analysis with a single click", etc. Sounds like the QlikView is writing its resume.Walker222 (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd originally nominated this for deletion, but upon further searching, I'm not convinced the company isn't notable. I am, however, convinced that the enormous "Awards" section at the end is spammy and self-promoting, so I've removed it in an effort to make the article more encyclopedic.evildeathmath 21:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Move to QlikTech International

I suggest that this article be moved to QlikTech International, the company's full name. Does anyone have any comments on the proposed move? --Eastmain (talk) 02:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The article seems to be written in advertisement literature and contains personal judgments about some companies instead of facts and figures —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.127.26.170 (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Qlik. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131203060453/http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=1000606175&fid=1725 to http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=1000606175&fid=1725
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111230041411/http://www.jvpvc.com:80/news/jvp-sells-30-of-its-holding-in-qlik-technologies-for-112-million to http://www.jvpvc.com/news/jvp-sells-30-of-its-holding-in-qlik-technologies-for-112-million

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

missing data point

the article doesn't say when has the company moved from Sweden to the US. צחי (talk) 11:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Clearing out non-RSes in a few days

This article's been a sea of primary sources for a long while. I'll be clearing out everything cited only to a non-WP:RS in a few days - David Gerard (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Page cleanup

Hi everyone, I just started what I consider a clean-up, namely trying to add more neutral references, etc. Please help me to brainstorm what has to be done before the templates for verification can be removed. The following is on my to-do list:

1. Summarize what https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2016/08/31/qlik-stock-withdrawn-as-thoma-bravo-completes-acquisition/#7d51c82aa4f8 is about.
2. Summarize and cite https://www.heise.de/ix/meldung/Business-Intelligence-Qlik-zeigt-neue-Software-fuer-Entwickler-4026480.html
3. Elaborate on the difference between QlikView and QlikSense given my discussion with the Qlik hotline.
4. Inquire about when the company moved to US.
5. Figure out, what is known in the Swedish web about the company.

Hou710 (talk) 09:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Some proposed changes

Proposed information to be added to make the article more robust: 1) Information about Qlik's acquisition of Podium Data ; 2) Details on the history of Qlik 3) Updated product range with Idevio GeoAnalytics and Podium Data acquisitions 4) Company's work around data literacy 5) Qlik industry recognition ; Wooly2727 (talk) 07:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Reply 11-DEC-2018

  Clarification needed  

• It is not known how the changes you are requesting to be made are to be worded in the final implemented version. Please specify all requested changes verbatim in the form of "Change x to y using z".

Change x to y using z

x	A verbatim description of the old text to be removed from the article (if any)
y	A verbatim description of the new text to be added to the article (if any)
z	A reference which verifies the requested change

Example edit request:

Please change:

• The Sun's diameter is 25 miles. (This is x)

to read as:

• The Sun's diameter is 864,337.3 miles. (This is y)

using as a reference:

• Sjöblad, Tristan (2018). The Sun. Academic Press. p. 1. (This is z)

When ready to proceed, please alter the {{request edit}} template's answer parameter to read from |ans=yes to |ans=no.
Regards,  Spintendo  09:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Clean up mass reversion

Hi @MrOllie:, I appreciate your edits on the page and your vigilance on Wikipedia. I understand some of the content was poorly sourced or too bussiness related. I'd like to add a small amount of the existing edits back in that were associated with sources that meet WP:RS. I will also tone down any promotional language in my revision. Here are some of the sources I'm talking about: https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-us-co-qlik-buys-attunity-in-560m-cash-deal-1001274304 (Israel Business News) https://www.computerworlduk.com/data/qlik-launches-industrys-only-end-end-data-platform-3696832/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/qlik-acquires-podium-data-as-bi-and-big-data-coalesce/ (Author is expert in the field)

Snappytimez (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

All three of them look like thinly rewritten press releases to me. - MrOllie (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Nasdaq

This article is included in the Companies formerly listed on the Nasdaq category. However, there is no mention of Nasdaq in the article. This Nasdaq press release is the announcement that Nasdaq: QLIK would start trading on July 16, 2010. It appears that QLIK traded up to 2016.

This June 2016 web article about The Rise and Fall of Qlik mentions that QLIK had agreed to be acquired by the private equity firm Thoma Bravo. I'm guessing that caused QLIK to be removed from Nasdaq though don't know the exact date that happened.

Overall, the company trading on Nasdaq for six years seems significant enough that it should be mentioned in the article. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Undisclosed Paid Banner

It may very well be true that the original article was created by an advertiser (certainly appears that way from early Talk page comments), but that was in 2008 and the article has been heavily-edited and rendered down to a nPOV by multiple editors in the intervening 16 years. I'm hard-pressed to find anything here that isn't a simple statement of fact. It's all "in year 200X, they did Y" and "product X is used to do Y" kind of stuff. In other words, if the paid hype is long gone and virtually every word has been replaced (sorry, Theseus!), then is the big scary banner really necessary at this point? 68.202.111.228 (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Page does not reflect Qlik's current product set and can be seen as anti competitive

The information on the Qlik page is now terrible out of date and many attempts to update with quality citations, and remove Qlik commercial partner citations relating to retired products blocked. I made four such changes today. All reversed. Each was simply a correction. Any AI crawler (if they can read Wikipedia) would get an out of date perspective of Qlik. This page is therefore not neutral and should be updated or deleted. It is a brand page, not a company page. Qlik is not the company name, QlikTech Inc is. Parkerauk (talk) 18:54, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Are you associated with Qlik in some fashion? MrOllie (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2025 (UTC)