Talk:Catamaran Corporation

Copyedit tag

I went through and fixed some spelling, formatting, and capitalization errors; it looks better now but I would love for a third editor to have a look at it. From more of a cleanup perspective, I would like to see some more proselike style in the business segments section and removal of some of the redlinks in the customers section. Jminthorne (talk) 04:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I will work on the prose like style but I won't remove most of the red links. I think having them there is better for the encyclopedia because it gives those companies more links to their articles when someone creates them. More reason to create those articles.Grmike (talk) 00:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)grmike

Done, I hope it looks good. —fetch·comms 01:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

the company is notable and there is no reason the article that was tagged to be accused of blatant advertising

at&t holds the company in high regard and refers to it as a leader, university of toledo calls it an innovative leader, inside-healthcare calls it a pioneer, hoovers talks about it, when the company was much smaller as systems xcellence it processed 140 million transactions in the US, received 2007 Rx benefit award when it was a lot smaller company[1] and the award in 2009, it is larger than about 40 % of the US pharmacy benefit companies with articles and one of the fastest growing with 15 times higher annual revenue in 2010 than a couple years ago, sterling commerce called it's technological role powerful. also it is listed on 2 of the 8 largest stock exchanges in the world. I know being on a major stock exchange making a company notable is not consensus opinion but being on 2 should help its case. the deletion tag accused the article of being an advertisement without pointing to anything on the article except references one of which incorporated information from a press release. that is not enough to warrant the deletion tag being invoked. I have notified the other users who contributed to the article since it was created and asked them to help improve it. I understand that just because the deletion tag is removed that doesn't mean all parties are satisfied with the article.Grmike (talk) 08:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)grmike The article has more information than a stub but is not one than can be considered finished.Grmike (talk) 10:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)grmike

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Catamaran Corporation. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20111003151154/http://www.mosaid.com/corporate/investor-relations/reports/RevenuebyEmployee.pdf to http://www.mosaid.com/corporate/investor-relations/reports/RevenuebyEmployee.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100801015624/http://www.pbmi.com/awards.asp to http://www.pbmi.com/awards.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 03:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)