Talk:Future plc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


There is no discussion regarding the disputed neutrality of this article. Thus, I am removing the tag until an editor is willing to oblige the community and let us know _why_ the article is in dispute.--Toph3r 01:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I have tagged the article as possible advert and needing wikification. I would point to the use of phrases such as "The lively style of writing and incisive, impartial reviews..." and "successful and influential titles such as the cerebral games magazine Edge". The various adjectives appear POV, though I admit that the article does contain reference to the company's financial problems, providing some balance. My main beef would be the style/tone of the writing, which is not, IMHO, encyclopedic. TrulyBlue (talk) 10:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Future Publishing.gif[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Future Publishing.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Future plc rebranded on 23 November 2012. Here is the new logo to replace the existing graphic. Please consider it's use fine under fair use


Sections of this article are written in management jargon - see "Ensuing success" and "Into the new Millenium". They've also been edited to put the company in a better light. For example, references to market failures have been removed. See edits by "Futr". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Future US merge[edit]

Shouldn't this article be merged with Future US? Drumpler (talk) 14:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as Future plc is the parent company of Future US I think that Future US should be merged into the Future plc article. The other way around just wouldn't make sense. - X201 (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that does make sense. I just meant it would be more sensible to merge the two articles into one article. This is my first time recommending merging an article, so you'll have to forgive me if I'm not all too clear. :) Drumpler (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be classified as a non controversial edit so I say be WP:BOLD and go for it. - X201 (talk) 09:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Future PLC is the parent company of both Future Publishing Ltd (which this article is in fact about for the most part) and Future US Inc. A merged article would work, alternatively rename this one Future Publishing and create a new PLC article which links to both. Sanderton (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Oppose If anything Future_US should be merged into Future plc or both should be merged into Future Publishing. --Hm2k (talk) 09:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

No Its Should dEFINTEY NOT be —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Future US is a subsidiary of Future plc so they should be linked, but Future plc is the parent company —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosielou2 (talkcontribs) 10:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Information removal[edit]

Will users please stop shortening the page. Most of the info I restore has been on the page for ages and ages. POINT: We`are ranked No 6 in the whole of England and we deserve better recognition than the stuff that made us look no bigger than a small firm. Renkaw Gib (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Please note that you have put in a substantial amount of unsourced, non-verifiable material. Your use of "we" is very revealing. Wikipedia is not there for advertising. I will continue to revert non-referenced material and if you persist to add this I will seek impartial arbitration. Peteinterpol (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
They employ me and I am comitted to them, end of. I know my place of work and everything I wrote is notable and was originally placed by an army of good editors. Then someone came along and wiped it all. Renkaw Gib (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I think what Peteinterpol was referring to when he brought up the "we" was our conflict of interest guidelines, which generally discourage writing in areas where we have conflicts of interests (e.g. an employee of a company should generally avoid writing about that company, or competing companies). Dreaded Walrus t c 21:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Dreaded Walrus, that's a helpful clarification of the point I was trying to make. For info, Renkaw Gib has now been indefinitely blocked, initially for disruptive edits, and then for having an unacceptable user name. More info is available on this at User talk:Renkaw Gib. Regards, Peteinterpol (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Controversy section[edit]

Please can the Controversy section of the Future PLC site be removed as we do not feel it is of encyclopaedic value.

Bikeradar is a site owned by Future PLC but this specific matter is not an issue for Future PLC as such.

Ben Pester (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

My first reaction is that this is a clear fail for WP:UNDUE. Even if the topic does have encyclopedic value, and if it even justifies an article or coverage somewhere else, then it's way overboard to have a section this size, with such a vague title. That's the sort of response we should reserve for, "Future staff eat kittens".
However there does seem to be some issue here. Future surely have editorial control over BikeRadar? Particularly as much of this story (see Streisand effect) seems to be that Future pulled the story from the BikeRadar website, after it was criticised. Now that does seem to have more relevance to Future PLC.
I'll raise this with the Cycling project and see if there are any other opinions. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I've pruned it. I think much is supportable and would be justified in an article under BikeRadar, Ingenie or even "Cycling in the UK". I'm still undecided on its relevance to Future and would appreciate comment from others. Having looked at the background in more detail, it now seems perhaps a little careless for BikeRadar to have got involved at all, but their turn-around could be explained quite reasonably as "seeing sense", more than any dreadful U-turn shenanigans. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that the sources are a Twitter stream and a self-published blog post. We use reliable sources both to determine facts and to establish if something is notable enough to include. IMHO, the content is not particularly incriminating of Future, nor does it appear to really be that controversial to deserve this header, but I don't see any validation that the subject is important. It seems trivial to me. User:Corporate Minion 17:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Agree. I've been editing it this afternoon, although only from a standpoint of trying to keep it within guidelines and style requirements, and then edit it to a sensible level and/or move it to a better home at a later time. As mentioned, the Bike Radar article that we haven't got is the best place for it, although the section's total value seems to be diminishing as the hours go past, as the incident looks like a simple lack of communication cock-up. I think in a month's time, even the edited version will seem to be a bit too long and suffering from a tad of UNDUE. I've knocked the separate section heading on the head as I think that was adding to UNDUE - X201 (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Merits a rap on the knuckles for some subeditor, but no lasting effect. If there were no such thing as Twitter, the righteous indignation of a few people would have died off in the duration of a cup of coffee: now that there is such a forum to be angry on it might last 4 days. Probably should be deleted as undue: leave it a week and we should be able to do so without it being argued about. Kevin McE (talk) 19:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

We also need to thank Ben for using the request edit template due to his declared COI. Well done, wish more would do the same. - X201 (talk) 07:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Mea culpa - I'd meant to post specific thanks on his talk page at the outset.
Also note that now seems to be a dead link. Maybe Ingenie are shifting their position too? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Not to hijack the thread, but I have submitted an RfC for a template to be added to company article Talk pages regarding COI. If implemented, I think it would make a difference in reducing direct edits and getting more request edits instead.User:Corporate Minion 15:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
BTW, can I close this one? It seems the request has been answered, but I also notice consensus (I think) is to remove the content entirely, but nobody has been bold enough to do so. User:Corporate Minion 15:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I think it was in the "wait and see" mode that arose yesterday. I'll do a straw poll. - X201 (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Rough and ready straw poll[edit]

A quick straw poll based on Corporate Minion's removal question above. Given that time has now passed. Should the text on this subject stay, be removed, or be edited further?

  • Remove - Storm in a teacup. Of minor notability now, and will only diminish over time. Still have query about motivation behind its addition. - X201 (talk) 18:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • remove I'd keep it on a BikeRadar article, but it's of no real significance for Future overall. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I'll remove and close the request edit. User:Corporate Minion 15:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Article is incomplete[edit]

Given that Future Publishing now redirects here, there needs to be at minimum a list of publications published by this company. They published C&VG, the longest-running videogame magazine ever, and a whole range of other famous magazines. I recommend adapting the text from (talk) 16:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Future plc. 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)