Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Werdnabot (talk | contribs)
60,702 edits
m Automated archival of 1 sections to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies/Archive 1
No edit summary
Line 311: Line 311:
==Notability of shopping malls==
==Notability of shopping malls==
Is every shopping mall notable by definition? [[User:Who then was a gentleman?|Who then was a gentleman?]] ([[User talk:Who then was a gentleman?|talk]]) 21:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Is every shopping mall notable by definition? [[User:Who then was a gentleman?|Who then was a gentleman?]] ([[User talk:Who then was a gentleman?|talk]]) 21:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

==List of companies deletion discussion==

See [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of companies of Georgia (Country)]] that might have an impact on the future of the various List of companies of...-articles. [[Special:Contributions/76.117.1.254|76.117.1.254]] ([[User talk:76.117.1.254|talk]]) 14:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:52, 30 July 2009

WikiProject iconCompanies Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject Companies To-do:
Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Template:Werdnabot

PLEASE READ

  • If you are looking for assistance from this project with an existing article, please see if you can add it to the relevant section of the to do list instead
  • If you are looking for assistance from this project with creating a new article, please instead list it at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and Economics/Businesses and Organizations along with any supporting information you may have
  • If you are notifying us of an AFD, please add that to the Articles for Deletion section below instead of creating a brand new section

Lists of Companies Discussion

This section is for a discussion on which Lists that currently exist in Wikipedia for companies should be supported by this project

Guidelines Discussion

This section is for discusing any proposed changes to the guidelines outlined on the project's main page

Articles nominated for deletion

Deletion discussion template

{{subst:Delsort WPCompanies}}

(item below is transcluded)
Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. ~~~~

Articles for deletion (AfD)

This section is for notifying the project of any articles within our scope that have been nominated for deletion. In order to facilitate prioritization of expending effort on these articles, the WikiProject Banner with class and importance parameters filled can be added to the talk page of the nominated article.

I am the Deputy Director of Sustainability and Stakeholder Engagement at Asia Pulp & Paper (APP). I am new to the Wikipedia editing process and I recognize that there exists an inherent COI with me making any edits to the page about the company I work for. If I have made any procedural errors I apologize in advance and ask that someone direct to the proper venue for this complaint. In an effort to approach this in an honest and upfront manner, I have not made any edits to the page. I recently came across the Wikipedia entry on APP and I believe it meets the Wikipedia description of an “Attack page.” I recommend that the article be reduced to a neutral “stub” immediately and a more appropriate, neutral and encyclopedic article be created over time and added. I would like to submit some suggested material for consideration in the article to the WikiProject Companies and allow for it to be reviewed and edited by neutral editors with no COI. I believe that a simple reading of the article will show that it is clearly meant to disparage the company it is about. I recognize that there is a high level of controversy regarding APP and certain issues, including the environment and financial issues. I respect the rights of any and all to express their opinions on these subjects freely, but as I understand it, Wikipedia is to be a source of neutral and encyclopedic information and not a soapbox for the views of individuals or organizations. An article on APP should certainly include mention of the controversy and the issues, but in a more balanced and accurate way. Additionally, a more encyclopedic article might include more information on the history of the company and the area in which it operates. I would also, like to make clear my specific concerns with the article, the following are quotes from the article and my specific concern with them and a suggested neutral change:

• “their record of consistent breaches of environmental laws and agreements has lead many companies to terminate contracts with them[2].” – Even in the article quoted “consistent breaches of environmental laws and agreements” is not mentioned. The article says, “large paper sellers in the U.S., Europe and Asia, including Office Depot Inc., stopped buying from APP in recent years because of alleged environmental misdeeds.” The entry should use the wording from the quote which would be an acceptably neutral phrasing, “alleged environmental misdeeds.” In fact, APP does not have a record of consistent breaches of environmental laws and agreements.
• “has been convicted of being involved in Illegal Logging in Cambodia, Yunnan province in China, and in Indonesia, and has breached agreements with three major environmental organizations.” – First, there is no citation for this sentence and claim (though similar claims later in the entry quote sources). Second, APP has never been convicted of Illegal Logging anywhere. There have been allegations and even investigations into Illegal Logging, but never has the company been convicted of Illegal Logging. I believe that stating that APP has been convicted of such a crime could be considered libel. Finally, none of the articles quoted in the entry claim that APP has ever been convicted of Illegal Logging, they discuss investigations or allegations of Illegal Logging, but none say that these allegations or investigations have resulted in any kind of conviction. An appropriate phrasing would be to say that “APP has been investigated for Illegal Logging,” or “there have been allegations of Illegal Logging by APP.”
• “The company is also well known for defaulting on debt repayments in 2001, leading to a collapse in confidence of South Asian assets.” – The company is well known for defaulting on debt repayments in 2001. However, it is difficult to make the claim that this lead “to a collapse in confidence of South Asian assets.” Again, the source quoted to back this claim does not say or imply this. I would recommend removing or at the least attributing the claim that the default lead to such a collapse in confidence.
• In a broader context the “Environmental Issues and Illegal Logging” section presents the views and opinions of environmental NGOs and groups with a long record and history of attacking APP without contextualizing it, or presenting other views on the subject. The entry seems to present these views as fact and uses Wikipedia as an outlet to promote these opinions. A more balanced article would note the controversy and contextualize it appropriately, possibly presenting the APP view on the subject.

I have other more specific complaints with language and tone, but prefer to limit this initial post on the topic to the major issues. I believe a neutral party would agree that this article meets the “Attack page” requirements as described by Wikipedia and should be reduced to a neutral stub while an appropriate, encyclopedic article is developed. I am posting this on the entry’s “Discussion” page and the WikiProject Business “Talk” page. I have also alerted the editor who added this information to the entry to alert him/her of my concerns. If more experienced Wikipedia editors and users believe there is another, more appropriate venue or method for this discussion or I have in any way breached standard procedure please let me know. As mentioned earlier, I am new to this aspect of Wikipedia and would appreciate any guidance. My goal in this is not to use Wikipedia as venue for promotion but simply to ensure that a balanced, neutral and high quality encyclopedia article is created for APP.
Dewi bramono (talk) 11:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Resolved AfD discussions

Items below are listed in day-order of nomination; for items with the same day of nomination, those with later closing dates are listed first (i.e. two open on 01-04 and one closes on 01-09 and the other on 01-20, the 01-20 close is listed first). (section has not been discussed in detail)

Proposed deletions

Rather than discussing PROD-nominees here, it is better to contribute to the talk page for the article nominated for deletion. If you agree with the proposed deletion, you don't have to do anything or you may second the nomination. If you think the article merits keeping, then remove the {{prod}} template and make an effort to improve the article so that it clearly meets the notability and verifiability criteria.

AfD/PROD Archives

Health Industry Task Force sub-page created

Further information: Wikipedia:WikiProject Companies/Health Industry Task Force

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 08:59, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Call for help

I'm a retired wikipedia editor, but I think it would be a crime not to tell someone about this. CM (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Pacific Railway

I have nominated Canadian Pacific Railway for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Arsenikk (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate logos

I (B64 - TALK) and ViperSnake151 , have a disagreement I think we should add the corporate logo to the infobox of the subsidiaries, I think it look better and could climate any confuses if any about the parent companies, because of any abbreviation, ect.

Because of disagreements we have been kept going back and undoing each others edits, so that why their old pages.

Here are a few samples:
Caesars Atlantic City:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Caesars_Atlantic_City&oldid=286359233
ABC – America
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Broadcasting_Company&oldid=286333886
Compaq
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Compaq&oldid=285766315

Sorry, but its just decorative fair use. ViperSnake151  Talk  11:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the use is merely decorative. Any confusion the reader may have about the parent company can be cleared up by clicking on the wikilink to go to that page. Gr1st (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We can not use corporate logos like this per our policy. WP:NFCC. Even if we cold do this I think it would have bin a bad idea. Rettetast (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wellspring Camps

Recently created article on the company Wellspring camps, had some tags earlier, now much improved. Wondered if any members of the project could take a look and see if still warrants any of the tags? Thanks, --Oscarthecat (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus Needed on Ning

There has been some dispute over the Controversies section of the Ning article. This dispute can be found in the talk page.

Please review this dispute and help resolve it by weighing in whether Charting Stocks is a reliable source here. [1] While there are multiple issues beyond WP:RS, this seems to be the biggest point of contention at the moment. Thanks. Kangaru99 (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hydro-Québec (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've finished the translation of fr:Hydro-Québec. The article is now much more comprehensive (and balanced). WP:BOLD! Bouchecl (talk) 06:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAR of BC Rail

I have nominated BC Rail for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Arsenikk (talk) 12:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Standardized infobox logos

I just posted a discussion at the WikiProject for Infoboxes regarding standardizing logo dimensions in infoboxes. Would you please consider chiming in over there?   user:j    (aka justen)   03:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Braskem

In the End of the Article on the Brazilian Chemcal Company Braskem (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/braskem) valua for the take over of Grupo Ipiranga is said to be 1.5 million.

This seems to be rather small value! Can anybody correct it? Or confirm it?

Pelzkragen (talk) 12:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers don't match up?

On pages 40-41 of the 2007 report and pages 73-72 of the 2008 report, the "preceding year" column of the latter doesn't match the former. Which numbers should I use in the infobox? --NE2 16:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, which number on p. 97 would be the "total equity"? --NE2 16:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers aren't out by much - I'd presume the '07 figures were slightly adjusted for one reason or another after the publication of that year's annual report. The total equity on p. 97 is $18.111 billion (second-bottom line). Gr1st (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I round the percentage change to the nearest whole number, it doesn't seem to matter which I use. But what should I round the current values to, given that they may change like the 2007 values? --NE2 21:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The current version is at BNSF Railway#Operations, by the way. --NE2 21:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For me, about four significant figures is a sensible compromise between accuracy and conciseness. In most cases the audited accounts of large corporations are not subsequently restated to any great degree, so we can be reasonably confident that the numbers will still be accurate come next year's annual report. Gr1st (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since the 2006 figures changed in the 2007 report, and the 2007 figures changed in the 2008 report, it's likely that the 2008 figures will change in the 2009 report. I think I'll go with 3 sig figs for the tens of billions and 2 for the billions; should I write it "$18.1 billion" or "$18,100,000,000"? --NE2 22:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another question: should "founded" be where and when the present corporation was incorporated, or is it something more abstract? I'd appreciate a full look at the infobox in BNSF Railway#Operations to see if there's anything else that should be added. --NE2 23:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pan American World Airways, a featured article, needs more refs

Pan American World Airways was promoted as a featured article in 2005. Now, it needs more references. Otherwise it could lose its FA status. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment of Mr. Lady Records

The article, Mr. Lady Records, has been reassessed as part of the GA Sweeps project. The article has been found to not be meeting the GA Criteria. As such it has been put on hold and may be delisted if work is not done to bring it up to the GA Criteria. My assessment can be found here. I am notifying the interested projects and editors of this eventuality. If you have any questions please discuss them on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hill Samuel

Should the above article belong to this WikiProject? Griffinofwales (talk) 04:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of mergers and acquisitions by Expedia

I have nominated List of mergers and acquisitions by Expedia for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.--Crzycheetah 21:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Company in soputh Africa

I have a business idea and I want to start a company in SouthAfrica.It will grow in a couple of years and we will take in Venture Capital. What is the best form of starting a company. Is it Incoporated (Inc. or Limited (ltd.) or anything else? and what are the demands for own capital for a start up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.82.224 (talk) 10:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move Ford Motor Company to "Ford"

FYI, Ford Motor Company → Ford - a WP:RM rename request has been filed. The discussion is occuring at Talk:Ford Motor Company#Requested move. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 13:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dell mergers/acquisitions FLRC

User:SRE.K.A.L.24 has nominated List of mergers and acquisitions by Dell for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move of Ducati Motor Holding

Ducati Motor Holding is an Italian motorcycle company. It is being proposed that the artile be renamed to "Ducati" by the same person who proposed and failed to get Ford Motor Company to Ford. I would appreciate some insight from the members of this project into the proposed renaming of a company-related article being moved from the company's actual name to a common name applied to one of its products. See Talk:Ducati_Motor_Holding#Requested_move --Biker Biker (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability re CRA International

I jut placed a notability tag on this and created the Charles River Associates redirect to it; it does have notability, or rather notoriety, due to its connections to the questionable dealings in re the BC Legislature Raids-related sale of BC Rail to CN Rail, in which it issued a fairness report which has since been discredited, but has disavowed any responsibility/refused comment on the premise that the consultants who wrote that report are no longer with the company. That's only one news item, not three, although more than one news cite can be produced for it. The article itself reads like an ad, or a summary for a stock portfolio; if it remains at all it should be seriously culled and notability references provided. See Talk:CRA International#Why? and note the previous section from the page's creator...Skookum1 (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Law firms using Wikipedia as marketing tool

User:KenWalker has drawn my attention to this legal marketing/SEO blog advising law firms to exploit Wikipedia as a way to garner more attention and web profile. This is a common pattern lately in other sectors, and I would seem that consultants of all kinds are approaching Wikipedia with mercenary goals, and encouraging others to do so. User KenWalker has undertaken to put PROD and other tags on various law firms, mostly local within our region but doubtless there are others in need or PRODding... see KenWalker's user contributions with dates June 30 for a listing. IMO some counter-media is needed from the Wikimedia Foundation to confront these marketing campaigns/strategies and also a mini-taskforce should be busy deleting all those that do not belong, and/or which clearly are corporate spam.Skookum1 (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A good idea would be to go through the "law firm" categories and weed out obvious bollocks. I'll make an attempt at that this evening. Also watchlist the general "law firm" articles, say, for attempts to link. Ironholds (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Historic Society (Inc.) - cats needed

Maybe it's a Ltd I don't know, but it's not a historical society; I found that page by following a link from a historian who was a member of the American Historical Association, so likely there are other links taht also wind up at the company page. I added the company stub and changed the category, but only to the raw Category:Companies, as I didn't see anything immediately that fit; they're TV retail on the one hand, and mag/catalogue on the other ,and they're small manufacturing and marketing; I didn't wee a "Merchandising companies" category which might have summed it up. I'm not familiar with the companies subcategories so leaving this here for someone who is. Or is interested in buying a genuine commemorative silver-plated Wikipedia barnstar embossed with Presidents Obama and Washington. It's of the highest-quality workmanship and is mounted in a keepsake heritage template design your grandchildren will cherish, only $17.95 plus shipping. Comes in three colours, not available in Canada.....Available while supplies last....Skookum1 (talk) 02:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute on notability, sourcing, and contents of DreamHost

DreamHost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has had a dispute running for quite a while now. Could I have some extra eyes helping us determine what's notable positive information, what's notable negative infmoration, what's straight advertising (if anything), what requires iron-clad sourcing, and what's non-controversial enough to be held to a minimum standard of sourcing? We really need uninvolved people here, because we're all too sure of ourselves. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for some guidance on Products sections

I've noticed that in comparing articles about well-known companies there is sometimes a wide disparity in what is said about their product lines, even as they are relatively similar. I have been unable to find any guidelines related to what is considered useful information and what is considered advertising. If anyone can offer pointers here, I'd appreciate it greatly. Thanks, NMS Bill (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guideline discussion: historical non-free logos of companies

I am asking the members of this WikiProject to take a look at this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#How.2C_when.2C_and_why_for_historical_logo - There is a debate over the criteria of including historical, non-free logos of companies. Please see it here. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia market research survey

There is a quantitative market research survey about to get underway, now being discussed at Meta Wikimedia. Personally, I consider the effort thus far to be scattered and amateur, and I am trying to lend a hand with re-design of the drafted plan. If there are any Wikipedians here with experience in the design and execution of population research studies, please come help me try to get this on a right and steady course. -- Thekohser 19:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of shopping malls

Is every shopping mall notable by definition? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of companies deletion discussion

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of companies of Georgia (Country) that might have an impact on the future of the various List of companies of...-articles. 76.117.1.254 (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Companies&oldid=305085795"