Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies

Taylor (Firm)

Would someone from WP:WPCY mind taking a look at Taylor (Firm) and assessing it? It was just created and already has had most of its content WP:REVDELeted as a copyright violation. There might be some COI/Paid editing involved since the two accounts primarily editing it are also brand new WP:SPAs. Not sure if it meets WP:ORG since one of the sources seems to be some kind of Harvard Law School student project and the others might be problematic per WP:CORPDEPTH. -- Marchjuly (talk)

WikiProject Investment

Was hoping to collaborate with this project!

I'd like to invite you to join the Investment WikiProject. There are a lot of Investment related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help get this project off the ground and a few Investment pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks!

link on hybris not working (wallet garden content)

http://www.eweek.com/it-management/sap-closes-deal-to-acquire-mdm-maker-hybris

doenst work

Stemcor

Suggested new content

Hello,

I have a conflict of interest so will not edit the page directly but wanted to point the editor of this page to some recent updates from the company in order to keep the page recent and correct.

Please see below a recent article from the FT covering the companies return to profit and turnaround since the restructuring:

https://www.ft.com/content/c9e18fe8-5c0e-11e8-ad91-e01af256df68

This is also reflected on the companies own website where they have published the results.

https://www.stemcor.com/news/

In addition, the company has also appointed a new chairman, while its CEO is Steve Graf and not Julian Verden as the page states:

https://www.metalbulletin.com/Article/3809334/PEOPLE-MOVES-Stemcor-appoints-Martyn-Konig-non-executive-chairman.html

Thanks!

The Jewelry Exchange

Hello! I was wondering if WikiProject Companies would mind taking a look at my page and assessing it. I have multiple issues that need to be resolved, but I don't know how to have them resolved.

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page: This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; try the Find link tool for suggestions. This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. This article relies too much on references to primary sources.

COI edit requests for Stash

Hi all, a few months ago Stash (company) had a lot of its content stripped out due to COI interference, and is currently a stub. Stash has hired me to work on fleshing out the article ethically and transparently with content that meets Wikipedia's standards for notability and neutrality. To that end, I've shared a few COI edit requests on the article's talk page. If anyone here would be willing to take a look and offer help or feedback, I'd tremendously appreciate it. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 03:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

MaryGaulke, the best thing to do is start with the talk page and request specific edits which it appears you already have. Then, you need to place {{request edit}} template on the talk page, or by posting a note at the COI noticeboard, so that they can be peer reviewed. I would suggest using the former and awaiting for a reply prior to going to the noticeboard. Give it time and if no one responds, please come back here and let someone know.

@CNMall41: Thanks for the reply! Previously on that same Talk page I did use the request edit template, but the request was rejected and I was asked to find consensus because my requests were controversial. I disagree that the requests were controversial, but that's not for me to decide, so I'm asking around here to try to get some consensus, rather than pinging the request edit queue a second time, which would likely get me the same result. Mary Gaulke (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

MaryGaulke, I am not sure what is controversial about the edits you are requesting. You should first reach out to the editor who declined the request and ask what the controversy is. It would be good to know the specific information you want added that is controversial in order for others to opine on whether is belongs in Wikipedia in or not. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@CNMall41: Based on further discussion, my understanding is that Justlettersandnumbers takes issue with the fact that my edit request is coming from a non-neutral point of view. They also see the requests as in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Again, I disagree—particularly in the case of the stripped-down, revised requests I posted, which I genuinely believe are neutral and make the article more useful and informative—but again, that's not for me to decide. If at all possible, I'd like to have additional feedback; even if it's a rejection of my suggestions, it will inform my future work. I'm grateful for any help from anyone here. Thank you. Mary Gaulke (talk) 23:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

MaryGaulke, it appears that you are in discussion on the talk page and that Justlettersandnumbers is actively discussing content with you. I normally don't like to get involved at all, but will do so if no one else is reviewing your request (which is not the case here). I would suggest continuing dialogue with JLAN and if you cannot reach a consensus, you have other options such as WP:3O and WP:RFC where you can elicit opinions from a broader audience in Wikipedia. You can also use WP:COIN if you feel necessary. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@CNMall41: Thanks! My understanding is that Justlettersandnumbers is done engaging in the discussion, so I'll try WP:3O. Thanks again for your help! Mary Gaulke (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi all, this is a longshot but I've had an extremely challenging time getting a consistent response to these requests. Based on comparable articles (Mint.com, Qapital, TransferWise, You Need a Budget and Robinhood (company)), I've revised my requests, here. (Please note the editor with whom I was previously conversing has declined to respond further.) I apologize for my persistence here – it's highly atypical of me – but I truly believe this article stub could benefit from the addition of some basic information. Thanks for your time. Mary Gaulke (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I normally step in if a regular Wikipedia reviewer requests or the COI editor is having difficulty obtaining help. In this case, it appears that editors have helped, just not provided a solution that is satisfactory to you. You should ping the other editors involved or reach out to them on their talk pages to continue the discussion. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@CNMall41: I really appreciate your time here. To quickly recap the history of what happened: my client had a history of editing outside of Wikipedia policy, resulting in the article being gutted to stub status. Stash then reached out to me to try to go about things in a more ethical way. I proposed edits that are in line with the substance, structure, and tone of many comparable articles, with full third-party sources. These edits were rejected almost exclusively because they came from a disclosed paid editor. I then significantly reduced the scope of my requests. I received limited feedback on the revised requests, to which I replied. The second editor then also declined to engage with me further due to being too busy, and suggested that I involve a third editor. It's now been three full months since I started working on this. I can't help but think that my client would have been better off working with a black hat editor who just quietly made the changes, and I hate that. (And to be clear, I personally would never engage in undisclosed paid editing; disclosed paid editing is emotionally exhausting enough.) I don't know what else to do. I've been doing this work for five years, I believe in Wikipedia and want to protect its neutrality, and this is the single most frustrating project I've ever worked on. I am happy to pull back on client requests when they're rejected for valid reasons aligned with Wikipedia policy – I never promise definitive results to my clients – but I don't believe that's the case here. I know you owe me nothing, but I wanted to at least try to explain. I know this is an imperfect system we have here, and that paid editors are a nuisance, but I am doing my best to work within the rules and not be part of the problem. Thank you again. Mary Gaulke (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

MaryGaulke, I am sorry as I read your frustration, but I am not the one to turn to for help with that. You would be better going to WP:COIN if you have issues with the process itself. As far as the request you made, I still feel you have not exhausted your available avenues. The link you sent me does not show that Reidgreg "declined to engage with [you] further." The message was that they would not have time until the new year. Have you reached back out to them like I suggested above? I will review the request but only after you have exhausted the "edit request" process. Maybe someone else here in the project is willing but it is not the norm for me. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi there. Most editors are unpaid volunteers, and it may not be fair to place demands on them. Third opinions are meant for quick answers and advice, and that was all I could really offer. I'm just another editor and my opinion on the matter was non-binding. This has become a very busy week for me and with my present commitments it would be irresponsible for me to take on more tasks at this time. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, both. Totally understand that neither of you owe me anything – I'm just stuck in an odd position on this one. I'll try posting in COIN. Best wishes. Mary Gaulke (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft Coty, Inc. article

Resolved

Hello. Over the last few months, I've been working with Coty, Inc. to draft an updated and better-sourced Wikipedia article. I received some help from User:Fylbecatulous, but learned they are deceased, so I am hoping to get some help from another editor. I have disclosed my COI appropriately, and won't be editing the article directly. I'm looking for editors to review my proposed draft and update the live article. I'm working section by section, and so far I've submitted a request to update part of the "History" section. Are any project members willing to take a look?

Thanks for any feedback or assistance in advance. Inkian Jason (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Inkian Jason, are you just looking for feedback or someone to implement the edits? I normally only like to be involved after someone has exhausted other avenues (such as using the edit request template). If you are just looking for feedback please let me know and I will opine. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:23, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I am looking for someone to review my proposed text and implement the edits. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 16:11, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I realize the editor who reviewed previous requests is no longer with us, but why have you not used the "request edit" template? --CNMall41 (talk) 01:53, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

The requests have been answered so I am marking this section as resolved. Inkian Jason (talk) 17:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

proposal to split Foursquare

Hi! I've been paid by Foursquare to propose splitting Foursquare into two articles: one focused on the Foursquare City Guide app, and one focused on Foursquare Labs the company, which for the past several years has focused on advertising technology and other enterprise products. Details and proposed drafts are on the current article's talk page, here. I tremendously appreciate any help or feedback. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

MaryGaulke, sorry that I am late to the party on this one. I see that you have already started the relevant discussion here. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Correct! If you're interested in chiming in, I welcome your feedback. Mary Gaulke (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

BNY Mellon Request

There is a new edit request to clarify information in the Operations section at The Bank of New York Mellon on the article talk page. I am an employee at BNY Mellon and I refrain from directly editing articles about the company. Can editors review and update the article if they are comfortable with these changes? Thanks! Madelyn at BNY Mellon (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

FYI - answered --CNMall41 (talk) 04:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Alibaba Group assessment

Josephua has posted an assessment request to Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing. Since this article is much more about a company than computer technology, that request may be better entertained by someone here. ~Kvng (talk) 13:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Kvng, this has been already done. Alibaba was moved to B status in a review as I had requested, but this is in behalf of WikiProject Companies. Since there are 3 more WikiProjects Alibaba Group is a part of that categorize the article as C class, I want them to get reviews in hope for a B on behalf of those WikiProjects. However, I must say, the people I ask are usually inactive to review the article, such as the people of WikiProject China etc. - Josephua (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the active community of WikiProject Companies though. They are quick to respond and I was able to get a review from you guys in a short time. Cheers! - Josephua (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Organizations underpinned by multiple companies

When there is a longstanding organization with a consistent trading name, that over time has been underpinned by multiple legal entities, do we have separate articles for each legal entity or do we combine as one?

Case in point being A & G Price. It originally commenced trading in 1868, a new legal entity was established in 1951 that was placed in administration in 2017[1] the business was then sold and resumed trading under new ownership with the same brand, same core employees, same premises etc, underpinned by a new legal entity.[2] It has been suggested they should be split. Could understand if the article was massive, and it would be a logical point to split if required, but this one is fairly short. Onetrung (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Endemol company articles

Editors who follow this WikiProject talk page may be interested in a discussion at WT:FILM about merging two articles: Endemol and Endemol Shine Group. The discussion can be found here. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Defunct airlines AFDs

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AB Aerotransport
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greenair
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Venus Airlines
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quikjet Airlines
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finnaviation

--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment on Crunchbase on the reliable sources noticeboard

There is a request for comment on the reliability of Crunchbase (crunchbase.com) on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § RfC: Crunchbase. — Newslinger talk 12:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

SkyWay Group

We could use some experienced editors over at SkyWay Group. The article has undergone a transformation over the past month to better reflect RS coverage, changing focus from the technical details of the product and proposed projects (5 February version) to primarily covering their financial dealings (24 February version). There's a lot of discussion on the talk page about scandals and various items that could be added to the article, so it would help to have a few more eyes to assess the quality of this content and develop a better structure for the article. –dlthewave ☎ 20:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Dlthewave, am I reading correctly about the previous AfD? When I click on the deletion discussion from the talk page, it takes me here for the term String transport. Looks like the term was redirected into the company page so it gives the appearance that the company page previously went through AfD. I will look more tomorrow, but just at a glance I am not sure the company meets WP:NCORP (hence the reason I looked at the previous discussion to find out why it was kept). --CNMall41 (talk) 07:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

See the move discussion here. "String transport" is a term coined by SkyWay to describe their transportation concept, and that article covered both the company and the technology. The claims and descriptions of the technology were sourced entirely to the SkyWay website, with no secondary coverage to be found. We trimmed all of the self-sourced content and replaced it with information about their questionable financial dealings which is the only thing about the company that has been covered by reliable sources.

I don't think the deletion discussion adequately considered the fact that much of the article was self-sourced. –dlthewave ☎ 13:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Dlthewave. That makes more sense now that you point things out and I see with a fresh set of eyes today. I am still not sure the company meets WP:NCORP. There is some coverage, mainly negative, but what I see boils down to routine annoucements about the company and nothing really that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. I will take a more in-depth look a little later. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Dlthewave, just took it to AfD. Looks like a ton of edits today from SPAs and Socks. I still don't see the depth of coverage so I guess we can sort it out at AfD first. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

"Mobil" (and Mobiloil) origin?

In the page Vacuum Oil Company it's said that the Mobil trademark born in 1899, created by Vacuum as Mobilgas. In Mobil I read that "In 1920, the company registered the name "Mobiloil" as a trademark". In an Italian 1925 magazine I read that Vacuum sells the "Gargoyle Mobiloil". Vacuum and Socony merged in 1931. There is something wrong. --Moxmarco (talk) 10:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The wording in the Vacuum Oil Company page says, "It originated the Mobil trademark in 1899 (as "Mobilgas;" "Mobiloil" came later)." If I understand that correctly, the trademark "Mobile" was registered in 1899 and the trademark "Mobiloil" came later which would very well could be 1920 (I didn't check the reference on the Mobiloil page but the dates seem to line up to me). If I am not reading that correctly, let me know and I will look further. Or, maybe someone else here has a different view?? --CNMall41 (talk) 07:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that Mobiloil was sold by Vacuum and not by Socony (Mobil) --Moxmarco (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Unobjectiveness flag on Datalogic page

Good morning everybody, I write to ask for an opinion about the flag of "content written like an advertisement" which is currently displayed on the "Datalogic" page. The page was completely re-written in the past months, and the flagged issue of promotionality has been handled several times by different users to eliminate unobjectiveness as much as possible (as reported in the Discussion page). May it be enough to do eliminate the flag, or is there anything else to be done to fit at the very best the Wikipedia content guidelines, in your opinion? Thank you all in advance, and have a nice Tuesday! --Riccardo Bigazzi (talk) 11:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The tag was added by JJMC89. I would suggest asking them if they feel the issues have been addressed. I took a quick look and in my opinion is still reads like a promotional resume for the company. For instance, three of the sections (Research and development, Awards, and Product categories) are something that is best for the company website, not Wikipedia. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you a lot CNMall41, I'll work on it ASAP! --Riccardo Bigazzi (talk) 09:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Change Amalgamated Bank's opening paragraph

In the current opening of the article for Amalgamated bank it says that it is the largest union owned bank, however that is no longer the case since the company went public in August of 2018. We were wondering if that could be changed and have the beginning of the article be something like "Amalgamated Bank is an American financial institution that supports sustainable organizations, progressive causes, and social justice." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.106.192.254 (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Answered on the user's talk page. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Question about sourcing

Hi there, I'm Lauren, an employee of Rodan+Fields. I'm interested in assisting the Wikipedia community to improve the existing Rodan + Fields article. In my suggested updates on the Rodan+Fields Talk page, I've offered Bloomberg Businessweek as a source to verify the company's revenue, but was told this source is not acceptable. Might someone take a look at this and recommend an appropriate way to verify a private company's revenue that is acceptable to Wikipedia editors? Thank you! LH at R+F (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Answered on the talk page. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Gallup (company) edits

This is Mark, editor at Gallup. I invite WikiProject Companies members to review and discuss a request to update the introduction at Gallup (company). Details are at Talk:Gallup_(company)#Introduction. I will not edit the article because of my conflict of interest. Thank you. GallupMS (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

GallupMS, please use the {{request edit}} on the talk page for review. There are editors who work hard reviewing all COI edits and will answer your request once the tag is placed. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Utility Warehouse - Problem with Citations

Hi,

I tried making an edit to the Utility Warehouse article by giving some information about their QUIP scheme. For my citation, I thought the best reference would be the Utility Warehouse website itself, as they have an entire web page dedicated to providing information about the scheme. However, I was unable to do this as the utilitywarehouse.co.uk domain is apparently blocked and on a blacklist with Wikipedia?

I couldn't find an alternative source to cite, but feel it would be necessary to provide a reference of some kind. What should I do?

Georgecinderfan (talk) 12:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Georgecinderfan, Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary sources. The company website would not be independent and therefore should not be used. If there is not another source available, then the information is likely not worth introduction into the encyclopedia. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Requesting feedback on section within Realtor.com article

Resolved

Hello! In the past, I've worked with Wikipedia editors to improve the Realtor.com article on behalf of the website's operator, Move. I've declared my conflict of interest on both talk page, and elsewhere.

Recently, an unregistered editor added a "Social media concerns" section. I believe this is a case where a specific detail is being given much more weight in the article, compared to the reporting. I've provided detailed reasoning and shared sourcing on the article's talk page. User:SMcCandlish, who helped update the article previously, suggested I posted a note at the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, which I did, but no one responded. He has suggested I submit a request for comment, but I thought I'd try here first to see if a WikiProject Companies member would take a look before I put a larger burden on the wider community.

Is an editor willing to review my argument, as well as sourcing, to see if the recently added content should be removed, or at least rephrasing the content and moving into the "History" section? Thanks for your consideration, Inkian Jason (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I outlined some DUE/UNDUE arguments at the article's talk page, but corporate-focused articles aren't really my specialty, so this should probably get some WP:COMPANIES review. PS: Lest anyone have a knee-jerk reaction, it's been my experience thus far that Inkian Jason is going about fully disclosed paid editing in a very by-the-book manner, and requests unconnected editorial attention (as here) rather than making any changes that could be potentially questionable.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, SMcCandlish. For companies, there is always a struggle between people adding WP:PROMO and others adding WP:ADVOCACY. I normally try to address anything that smells of either and try to bring it to a WP:NPOV. In this case, it looks like the start of WP:SYNTH and should simply be removed in my opinion. Comment left on the talk page. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

And yes, Inkian Jason has been "by the book" so to say. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I have marked this request as answered. Inkian Jason (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I've encountered this kind of issue in spirituality/religion topics a lot (in the "it's miraculous!" vs. "it's all lies by a creepy cult!" vein).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I bet you have. It is basically the same here except you have one side that is mad at a company because they were either shortchanged or don't agree with what they do while the other side is the company and their PR firm trying to talk about how great they are. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Airbnb article request

Hello! I'm Jakob and I work for Airbnb. I've created an account to suggest updates to the Wikipedia article, and I've disclosed my conflict of interest on the company article's talk page and on my profile page. I have several updates in mind, but my first request here to update the infobox's Key personnel has gone unanswered. Can someone here take a look? JK Airbnb (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)