Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Companies (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.


The name of the article Chrysler is under discussion, see talk:Chrysler -- (talk) 05:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The move closed with the result that there will be no move. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Extra eyes on Portwest[edit]

Hi, I'm just your average wikignome. May I please request some more specialized eyes at Portwest? I've got a COI situation in which a user who likely works for the company keeps adding promotional fluff to the article in spite of numerous explanations, and I'm pretty much going at it alone. If you can help improve the article that would be great, but even if you were to simply add the page to your watchlist and help to direct the focus of the article away from promotion, that would be helpful. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb I just checked in and it seems like the ip who had been editing for a couple of months has taken a break in the last month. Thanks for signalling. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Attn: theScore, Inc. page[edit]

Hi - I'm an employee for theScore, Inc. and have noticed our existing page is extremely outdated and also contains a number of factual inaccuracies. I'd be very pleased to assist in drafting updates to this page, but want to adhere to best practices with regards to conflicts of interest. If anyone can assist in helping me in this matter it'd be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, James

Jamesbigg24 (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


Hi there, I'm looking for editors who might be interested to help improve the article for PR company, Hill+Knowlton, which falls under this WikiProject. Currently, the article's content suffers from POV issues, as it is focused almost entirely on a handful of more controversial clients and work, while there is little to no information about the company's history and overall operations. Although H+K is one of the largest and longest-established PR companies in the United States, the article's History is just five sentences long, and the only other section in the article, the Controversies section, dominates its content. Meanwhile, the actual name of the company is inconsistent throughout the article, and its current name "Hill+Knowlton Strategies" is not used at all in the main body of the article.

On the Talk page, I've proposed a new draft for the article that relies on secondary sources and aims to add more information about how the company operates, and how it has developed over time. I should note: I am working as a consultant to H+K and prepared the draft with the company's input, so I'm not going to make any edits to the article myself. Instead, I'm hoping to find editors who would be interested to review the draft and move the content into the live article if they feel it is appropriate. If you'd be able to help, please take a look at the full request on the Talk page. Don't hesitate to ask if you have any questions at all. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 17:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Uber RfC[edit]

Hi WikiProject Companies. There is a Request for Comment on the Uber article Talk page regarding the coverage of regulatory and legal issues in the article. Since the article is part of this WikiProject, editors here may want to join the discussion. The question under discussion is how the information on legal and regulatory issues would be best treated, particularly whether it should be summarized in the Uber article or potentially split off into its own article. Craig at Uber (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

ClearPoint Credit Counseling Solutions[edit]

I'm looking for someone to take on the project of creating a new page for this company. (I work in marketing for the company). It's a nonprofit, so I'm not sure if my request is in the right place here, but it does have significant media coverage and sources available. Could anyone suggest next steps?

Here is the full request. TeeBright (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you advertise elsewhere. I can't see anything noteworthy about another "nonprofit", funded by creditors, so you can entice broke consumers into paying their debts. ChristineBaker1 (talk) 23:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not advertising, but can't help but find your comment irrelevant and unfair. The company receives funding from creditors, yes, but over 20 percent of revenue comes from government funding, and over 16 percent from philanthropic support (see annual report). The notability of the company is also well established, given the numerous publications that have featured ClearPoint's data, used ClearPoint's clients in research studies (Kaiser and Ohio State University), and included ClearPoint's commentary on timely consumer issues. TeeBright (talk) 13:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@TeeBright: Requested articles is the right place to request someone create an article, but it contains a very large number of articles and only a few that someone picks up. Realistically you'd have to create a neutral article with proper secondary sources yourself and submit it to Articles for Creation. However, most COI-submitted articles there are also rejected, because they tend not to be neutral or not meet the requirements for an article. If you are not an experienced Wikipedian familiar with all our rules and norms, what I would suggest is just submitting a three-sentence stub to articles for creation, with a filled-out infobox and the best possible, in-depth sources to verify its notability. This will get the article started; then you can hope other editors take an interest in it. CorporateM (Talk) 15:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Updating Honeywell[edit]

I'm currently working on updating the page for Honeywell, making sure information is current and reorganizing the history so it reads more chronologically and cohesively. I declared COI on the talk page about two weeks ago and haven't seen any responses, so I thought I'd check in here and explore my options for gaining consensus on my proposed changes so I can submit an edit request. Please leave any comments or concerns on Talk:Honeywell, but also feel free to leave feedback on my talk page or on my draft. Thanks! FacultiesIntact (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

FICO scoring - Credit Bureaus[edit]

I am currently in litigation against credit bureau Equifax, last sued Trans Union in about 2009, Experian 2006 and Fair Isaac (FICO) in 2003. I'd like to update their pages with unrelated litigation and regulatory investigations. Is there a conflict of interest? ChristineBaker1 (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@ChristineBaker1: The technical definition of COI depends on your motives, rather than your circumstance, but I would think that is very much so a position that would at the least create an appearance of a COI. Personally, I would love to see you improve the pages anyway, but given that your identity is disclosed, it might expose you to legal risk from the orgs involved. Probably what I would do in your shoes is ask an admin about using an alternate account to protect your identity for this particular circumstance and asking someone to take a look at your contributions before making them. Someone else may reasonably offer very different advice though. CorporateM (Talk) 15:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
@ChristineBaker1 and CorporateM: I've a somewhat different view from that expressed by CorporateM. I would suggest that you not pursue editing as you have suggested. As CorporateM says, it could have the appearance of COI, but it is also just another thing you are doing which has a touch point with a struggle you are in. There is such a vast array of things which can and should be done here, that I think your stepping away from these particular articles would be prudent. As for editing under a different account ... If you do want to remain engaged in the articles, I would suggest that you instead post suggestions for edits on the talk page; this indicates your recognition of the potential for COI and allows uninvolved editors to take the suggestions and implement them. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Also good advice, even if it is very different from mine. CorporateM (Talk) 00:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Suggested amendments to Andrex page[edit]

Hi, my name is Eoin Sandford. I work for MHP Communications in London as a Senior Account Executive. Andrex are a client of MHP. I have been asked if it would be possible to make a few amendments to the page by Andrex. Each suggested amendment has a link attached to back up the request. I have contacted this page as it is regarded in the talk section as an article of interest to this Wikiproject page. If there are any questions at all i am more than happy to answer. Please see below the suggested amendments:

Before the first paragraph in History could the following sentence please be added "Andrex was originally developed as a gentleman’s disposable handkerchief, which were sold exclusively in Harrods department store, London. Prior to this softer tissue, consumers used harsher products referred to as ‘shinies’, which were sold mainly through chemists – the most famous brands being Bronco and Izal". Please see link to reference this sentence [1]

In the third paragraph in history would it be possible to add the following information about the first advert in 1972. Please see the suggested amended text here: "The first Andrex Puppy advert was aired in 1972. The original concept was blocked by television regulators as it was thought that the image of a little girl running through her house trailing a roll of Andrex would encourage wastefulness. So, the little girl was replaced by a playful Labrador puppy that still stars in Andrex adverts today". Please see link to reference this suggested amedment [2]

In the third paragraph after the first sentence would it be possible to add the following sentence "Andrex was issued a Royal Warrant in 1978 for supplying Buckingham Palace with toilet tissue". Please see link to reference this sentence: [3]

After the Royal Warrant sentence to coincide with the history timeline would this sentence please be added "Andrex was the first brand to introduce moist toilet tissue to the UK in 1992". Please see this reference which is taken from another Wikipedia page: [4]

Andrex replaced it advertising slogan in 2014. Would it be possible to add the following sentence as the last sentence in the history section "In 2014, Andrex replaced its advertising slogan Soft, strong and very very Long, with How Andrex do you feel?". Please see this reference which is taken from Marketing Week [5]

Eoinsandford (talk) 11:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

In general sounds a good idea. First two sound like paraphrases of the Superbrands article. I would suggest rewriting in original words. Third: the source doesn't say which royal granted the warrant. I guess we can look this up somewhere. Four: a claim to be the first probably needs to verified. Five: no opinion. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I have made edits as per your request to the first two suggestions. I have also found new references for the royal warrant and verifying Andrex as the first to ::introduce moist toilet tissue.
Here is the amended piece for before the first paragraph. "Andrex was originally developed as a disposable handkerchief. Harrods department store in London sold the handkerchiefs ::exclusively. Before Andrex brands such as Bronco and Izal produced products that were harsher. They were mainly sold through chemists and known as “shinies”.
Here is the suggested amend for the third paragraph in history. "One of the most popular ads in the UK almost did not happen. The original idea by Andrex in 1972 was for a girl to run ::through a house trailing a roll of Andrex. The television regulators did not approve this as they felt it encouraged children to be wasteful. Andrex decided to use a Labrador puppy instead."
Please see the new reference for the royal warrant[6]
Please see the new reference to verify Andrex as the first manufacturer of moist toilet tissues. It is mentioned in the final paragraph before description[7]

Eoinsandford (talk) 11:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I added your two proposals for history. I, and others, will probably further edit your contributions.

The Royal Warrant probably belongs in the Kimberly-Clark article, as it doesn't mention Andrex or toilet paper.

We can't use Wikipedia as a reference.

(I don't speak for Wikipedia or for any group of editors: these are my personal responses to your requests.)

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

References for this section[edit]

Quest celebrates some more[edit]

The company Quest Diagnostics seems to be written by the company's PR staff. This is the MetPath survivor which has become so dominant by acquiring all potential competitors. Can someone with a better grasp of history make this fairy tale a little more believable? Is the country better off having all of the former laboratory diversity homogenized into a single mega-laboratory?LeastRecent (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Help with Steelcase[edit]

Hi there. A month ago, I proposed a new History section on the Steelcase Talk page to replace the bulleted list that currently appears in the article. I prepared the draft on behalf of the company, so I'm not making any edits myself. I've reached out several places for assistance reviewing it, but have had trouble finding anyone to help. Although I did have one editor write back, after I replied they haven't returned to the page. I'm hoping an editor here might be willing to take a look and give feedback if they have any. You can find the draft and additional information about my proposed changes here. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

GE Capital Aviation Services [edit]

This article currently documents when large outlays of capital are used to purchase new capital assets (airliners), but when I tried to document a large monetary loss due to the write-off of such a capital asset (an airliner), it's been reverted. Shouldn't this article also document large monetary losses due to the the destruction of capital goods? -- (talk) 06:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I replied at Talk:GE_Capital_Aviation_Services#Additions_and_losses --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Lists of companies[edit]

Lists of companies is a new article. WikiProject Companies members are invited to help improve it. North America1000 12:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Nicely done. Kuru (talk) 00:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Lists of past employees[edit]

I notice our Cravath, Swaine & Moore article is dominated by a detailed list of 80+ Notable current and former employees. I don't recall seeing such lists in other company articles, even those about prominent law firms in the UK, but I notice that a couple of other firms in Category:Law firms based in New York City do have "Notable alumni" lists, though they're a lot shorter (Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Sullivan & Cromwell). Is there a point at which such lists become simply promotional? Come to that, is their very existence rather promotional? NebY (talk) 20:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@NebY: I don't think there is something inherently wrong with this, as long as the lists are sourced and the inclusion criteria are clear. If the list becomes too large a part of the article, it can be split to a separate article. I can see your argument about promotion as in "Seeee how many important people have worked with us ... shouldn't you too?", but that is an interpretation and it need not be assumed to be the intent of the inclusion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC) .... a second thought on this is that inclusion of a list of notable alumni of a company is a lazy way of writing the article. If the people substantively contributed to the company, then should their contributions be included in the narrative instead? I would generally say "yes" to that. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I should have said the effect seemed promotional, not the intent; without checking, I suspect the list has grown partly in a spirit of thoroughness. I think your second thought identifies a big part of my unease. I suspect that approach would mean leaving out all but a handful. NebY (talk) 22:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I want to add Vegetarian Shop Pvt Ltd as a company[edit]


First of all clearly disclosing that I am a co-founder of the company Vegetarian Shop Pvt Ltd in India.

This company is a for-profit company in India. The main objective of the company is to promote compassionate lifestyle and providing cruelty free products in India. It is India's first company providing such option.

It has been featured in number of news sites, articles sites and magazines. If my request can be considered, than I can share all the links with you. You can also search for Vegetarian Shop (

--Dharmeshrdoshi (talk) 12:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Considering adding your company into the Wikipedia:Articles for creation workstream. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dharmeshrdoshi. Are you able to provide two links to in-depth profile stories about this company? (generally speaking, we need at least two credible, independent sources, where the company is the main focus of the article, to write a page). CorporateM (Talk) 04:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)