This article 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota 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.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland 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.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.TaxationWikipedia:WikiProject TaxationTemplate:WikiProject TaxationTaxation
The table in this article of largest global medical device firms is from the MarketResearch 2017 table of world's largest medical device companies, but this report is not readable online (paywall); however, I have attached references from articles that (without stating it), quote the MarketResearch report. I think they are fine as standalone references in their own right, but maybe I should also add the MarketResearch reference (or, does the fact that it is behind a paywall render it unusable). I think that it is an important and notable face about Medtronic so is worth keeping. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 10:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
XyZAn, thanks for that. As I understand it, your concern is that the table is not specific to Medtronic, and therefore should be a separate list article which the Medtronic article would link into (have I got that right)? What you say does make sense to me, however, my problem is that I have only been able to do this list for the top-10 and am not sure that a separate WP article on the top 10 medical device companies would be worth creating? My proposal is that we leave this table here for the moment (unless you feel that it is a material violation of the rules?), and I will try and get my hands on a PDF of the top-100 medical device companies which I could paste into excel and easily create a separate WP list article on? There was an table I saw last year from MR which had details around the total revenues, total patents, total staff, tax location, operational location etc. for the top-100 medical device companies, which would be useful to readers and would tie in nicely to all the other medical device company articles. Britishfinance (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
