Talk:Freudenberg Group

Identifying the company

I'm rewriting this to be about the Freudenberg group of companies headquartered in Weinheim that is the subject of the German article de:Unternehmensgruppe Freudenberg. The original version did not give enough information to be certain that they are identical, but if there is another Freudenberg conglomerate based in Germany, it is not sufficiently notable to show up in a search, and this one is. Accordingly, if kept at AfD, this article should in my opinion be moved to Freudenberg Group, which is the name used on the English version of the official website. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

I do not understand why someone has deleted the company infobox of the site?! In general, adding an infobox is a good idea especially when lots of standard information about a company are spread throughout the article, hence improving the readability a lot. Thanks. TheBraveLegal 16:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Infoboxes are a matter of taste and by an Arbcom ruling, in most categories of article (the big exception being species, for which they were invented) it is left up to the major contributor(s) to an article whether to include one. I do not share your opinion that they improve readability; their major function appears to be to help outside businesses such as Google to divert readers from Wikipedia and/or draw teh reader's attention to their ads. You may disagree because you prefer to read statistics and are not interested in prose, but you should remember that this is an encyclopedia and other readers may wish to read the actual articles without first having to bushwack through a great big box of what someone decided were the key points. Thank you for asking. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I think infoboxes are great. They are incredibly helpful at quick summarization of data for books, animals, geographic locations, electronics and so forth. A weird thing to nitpick over; editors have bigger problems to worry about with regard to corps and orgs than trivial infoboxes. Either way, there seems to be consensus for its inclusion so, I'm glad that is all sorted out now. dsprc ^[talk] 17:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dsprc: It may be trivial to you, and you may find it "incredibly helpful" to have a quick summary of data, and belittle your fellow editors who write content for "nitpicking". The existence of other problems does not mean the imposition of these things is not a problem. (I note that in this case the editor took several edits tweaking the infobox but could not be arsed to cover up the bare URL reference. The editor concerned is new, but I find the priorities skewed to say the least.) I'm half inclined to remove the damned thing again. Settled, my left big toe; this is a contentious issue in the community, and rightly so. Kindly familiarize yourself with the Arbcom decision and consider respecting others' work when they disagree with your viewpoint. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

That is because it is trivial and they are helpful; just like it is a method for "Google to divert readers from Wikipedia" to you. Also, I wasn't belittling. As an Admin you should know to assume good faith and to not bite the newcomers (including myself). Everyone's priorities are skewed but, this is a feature of Wikipedia (and humanity), not a bug. I've absolutely zero interest in reading Arbcom or other bureaucratic nonsense; I'll happily leave that to you and the rest of the Vogons, thanks. Please don't throw around weighted claims that I am "denigrating" others' POV, because when such comments are made, it is then the pot calling the kettle black. Ditto on the last point. Either way, this has carried on long enough; none of this is helpful in improving this article nor the purpose of this talkpage. If you've any other constructive critique, please address them on my talkpage. Thank you. dsprc ^[talk] 19:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dsprc: On the contrary. You're a very fast learner, and have been reporting a lot of new users for conflict of interest, so clearly that matters to you. Your use of links, such as a referral to some Signpost article, is perhaps more belittling than you realize, perhaps because you are such a fast learner and found your niche so soon. I am not assuming bad faith - I am pointing out that (not unlike the other editors who have imposed the infobox to your great satisfaction), you are too easily assuming the infobox issue is settled because you personally like them. Please consider toning down your lip-smacking delight by not using words such as "incredibly" when you know others do not agree. The Arbcom decision matters because Arbcom is the final arbiter of disputes and actually decided infoboxes are a divisive issue that should be decided on a case by case basis. I have allowed this article - which I saved at AfD - to be defaced with an infobox because multiple editors have decided to come by and dump one in it - mucking up the references in the process. I have extended good faith that they are indeed multiple editors and perhaps a case of repeated logged-out editing, not socks. But there is no policy requiring an infobox, much less requiring me to kowtow to your judgement of how marvelous infoboxes are, or what is trivial (or to accept being called a Vogon). The infobox is not an improvement here - it is clutter imposed by those who prefer reading statistical tables and assume the reader does too. It's a price we pay for having a collaborative editing environment. I suggest you write a few articles yourself and decorate them with infoboxes; that would improve the encyclopedia a lot more than your lambasting me for responding to a drive-by comment here. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• After consulting the Arbcom decision over infoboxes and noting that the Business WikiProject requires infoboxes, I have implemented the solution used at other articles where there has been an intractable dispute over infoboxes, for example Little Moreton Hall, and collapsed most of it. I appreciate the good-faith effort that goes into concocting one of these, but I regard them as not an improvement except in certain specific classes of articles (such as ships and species). Specifically in the case of companies, I believe they place an unencyclopedic emphasis on statistics. We are not a directory. Feel free to take me to AN/I for conduct unbecoming an administrator for disagreeing with you about infoboxes. The thing is there; it's just collapsed. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because the first source seems to be a copy of this wikipedia page. [1] Looking through page history Their text includes text initially added in multiple revision including 2011 [2].

The second possible source has a date of 2019-04-24 after the text in the article was written. It seems to be a website lifting info from many sources. --Salix alba (talk): 05:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion to update figures

Dear all,

I would like to suggest an update of sales and employee numbers after the publication of the Annual Report 2021. Please note that I have a financial conflict of interest as I am being paid by Freudenberg Group. I hope that uninvolved editors could review my suggestions and make changes if they find them appropriate.

Extended content

Suggested changes to the Infobox: Revenue 1. Please remove the current revenue from the infobox: "€8.8 billion (2020)" 2. Please add the following as revenue to the infobox: "€10.039 billion (2021)" 3. Using as the reference: Freudenberg Group Annual Report 2021 "Annual Report 2021" (PDF). Freudenberg Group. Retrieved 2022-03-30. As an alternative source – German-language newspaper: "Freudenberg macht Rekordumsatz". Weinheimer Nachrichten (in German). 2022-03-30. Retrieved 2022-03-30. 4. Reason for change being made: Revenue for fiscal year 2021. Employees 1. Please remove the current employee number from the infobox: "47,777 (2020)" 2. Please add the following employee number to the infobox: "€49,836 (2021)" 3. Using as the reference: Freudenberg Group Annual Report 2021 "Annual Report 2021" (PDF). Freudenberg Group. Retrieved 2022-03-30. As an alternative source – German-language newspaper: "Freudenberg macht Rekordumsatz". Weinheimer Nachrichten (in German). 2022-03-30. Retrieved 2022-03-30. (Please note that the employee number in the article has been rounded to 50,000 employees; the exact number can be retrieved from the Annual Report) 4. Reason for change being made: Employee number for fiscal year 2021.

I greatly appreciate everybodys time and effort with this. Thank you very much in advance for your help! All the best, Conandcon (talk) 13:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Happy Editing--IAmChaos 06:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

IAmChaos, Great, thank you! Best, Conandcon (talk) 08:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Suggestions for history section

Dear all,

I would like to suggest to add information to the history section using reliable, secondary sources like (history) books or newspaper articles. Freudenberg just finished a research project aiming at adding missing sources to the history section of the German article, where such reliable sources where missing. In addition to adding missing sources to the history section, which was written before by independent editors, they corrected some false information and conservatively added some missing milestones from the company's over 170-year old history - also of course not using primary but reliable secondary sources and respecting NPOV! In addition, all changes where checked and approved by independent editors.

So, as the German history section is now fully backed by sources and as it is much more thorough now as it is currently here in WPEN, I was wondering if it would make sense that I translate the section and post a respective suggestion here on the talk page or - if more suitable - on my user page.

I also asked Yngvadottir for his opinion on this a few days ago as he was one of the main contributors to this article - especially in its "early" days. As he has not been involved in this article for some years now, he asked me to post my suggestion here on the talk page.

Also: Please note that I have a financial conflict of interest as I am being paid by Freudenberg to support here.

I am very much looking forward to feedback from independent editors on my suggestions. @Yngvadottir and IAmChaos: What do you think?

Best, Conandcon (talk) 15:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)