Jump to content

Talk:Public limited company/Archives/2011

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


What is it?

I really still dont understand what a public limited company is!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.0.18 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 25 January 2004

A PLC (UK Name) is a company that can list on a stock market, in Europe companies have a different legal process if they are on a stock market and have different rules and regulations. This is common in most of the world. In practice it means a minimum amount of cash that goes in to set the company up and a lot more rules that the company must follow (even if it is not on the stock market). RonaldDuncan 16:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Naming of PLC articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The necessity of this survey has been disputed. See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Choking the process.

As at 13th September 2004, there's a debate taking place at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Public limited companies as to whether articles about PLCs should be under the legal title of the PLC, or the colloquial name. The suggestion is that we should dissect the issue and then vote on it. The following is a skeleton for such a process; doubtless it'll be adapted over the coming days. please feel free to add arguments pro & con.

Proposal 1 - List under colloquial names

In a nutshell: Company articles should be listed under their colloquial or common name, thus Tesco rather than Tesco PLC

Arguments for:

  • It is standard policy
  • Quickest to find location
  • Insert next Argument for
  • etc

Arguments against:

  • No consensus as to what the common or colloquial name is: Tesco or Tescos or Tesco's? Boots, or Boots the Chemist?
These are debated on a case-by-case basis, as with every other page that adheres to this convention. Saying there is "no consensus" is a bit presumptuous. ed g2s • talk 12:29, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
(Removed personal attack). We could come to a consensus on what we might call an article. Users searching for the article would be as likely to put any of the many "common" names of tescos in ... there is no consensus in user land. (User:Tagishsimon)
  • As per policy, the common name of a PLC is its legal name. Encyclopedias should not muddle up brand names and company names, else we will do more to confuse users than inform them.
  • We cannot get many so-called common names to work without disambiguation; the best disambiguation might well be the PLC. Examples: Sage, Boots, BOC
  • etc

Votes For

  1. James F. (talk) 07:42, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. ed g2s • talk 12:29, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. zoney ▓   ▒ talk 12:35, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. Jallan 17:45, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 03:53, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Votes Against

Proposal 2 - List under legal names

In a nutshell: Company articles should be listed under their legal name Tesco PLC rather than Tesco

Arguments for:

  • It is easy, consistent and unambiguous to list companies under their real names
  • Redirects can cater for the variety of common names that may be input by users searching for info on the company
  • Common names vary from time to time - they are in essence brand names
  • Full name will make it easier to find stock exchange listing and company registration details
  • It will provide traceability of ownership of brands
  • Web search for "Company" will return "Company plc"
  • Insert next Argument for
  • etc

Arguments against:

  • Virtually all searches on the common name will use redirects and most wikilinks will require elision of the redirect
  • There is no standard on whether to use plc or PLC.
  • It would be complete against policy.
  • Insert next Argument against
  • etc

Votes For

  1. Ardonik.talk() 02:21, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC) - I think it looks better this way. I'd like to see this done for humans, too (i.e., George Walker Bush for the main article and George W. Bush for the redirect) but I can't always have my way.
  2. [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 10:29, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. Tagishsimon 11:53, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. P.Riis 15:20, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Votes Against

  1. ed g2s • talk 12:29, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC) As much as our natural instinct is to name a page formally, this is not Wikipedia policy.
  2. zoney ▓   ▒ talk 12:35, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 12:36, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC) Directly contrary to policy; absolutely mad that this kind of thing even needs discussion.
  4. Jallan 17:44, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC) Use the most commonly used name in English for any entity as the article name, whether company, country, person, or thing. That's already the standard here.
  5. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 03:53, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Jon E. (talk) 12:06, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC).

Proposal 3 - Insert your proposal here...

Arguments for:

  • Insert next Argument for
  • Insert next Argument for
  • Insert next Argument for

Arguments against:

  • Insert next Argument against
  • Insert next Argument against
  • Insert next Argument against


Votes For

Votes Against

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

who owns and control public limited company

a PLC is, by definition, owned by its shareholders.

As for control there are as many different answers as there are PLCs as they are controlled according to the by-laws that the company is incorporated under. This is usually that the shareholders elect a board which can be under a variety of methods: most frequently each share gets 1 vote - so a shareholder with 100 shares gets less influence that someone with 1000, sometimes there are different classes of shares, so one type of share gets more influence than another, sometimes there is a golden share where control of the company rests in a single share that may nominally be of the same value as all the others but grants the owner greater influence in board elections. Oftehn the board is elected anually at an AGM. The board is usually comprised of large shareholds.

The board may then elect a chairman of the board who is in charge of the company, though (s)he may hand over day to day control to a CEO or Managing Director or to other people in a variety of other methods. MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 12:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Naming convention for Companies and Businesses

I just wanted to draw attention and comment to on a draft poll to determine naming convention for companies and businesses. I have looked around a number of places and have only seen comments to the effect of "we should have a convention" or "do we have a convention" on how to name a XXX company. This has either the effect of drawing a few uninterested comments or a stirring up a heated debate. In either case the net result is generally zero. Your comments to help clarify this poll and later corresponding vote would be greatly appreciated. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 17:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies)/poll

Voting has begun and will continue until March 5. Please resolve this lagging issue. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 22:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

SARL?

Is the French equivalant SA or SARL? I'm just asking cause I can't find SARL on Wikipedia, but my dictionary translates plc as SARL and ltd. as SA. Is this a mistake or is it correct? - RedHot 19:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

  • SA is PLC
  • SARL is ltd

RonaldDuncan 16:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


"In Malaysia, the word berhad or Bhd indicates the same characteristic."

Who cares? Why specifically mention Malaysia? Every country in the world would have their own word for a 'public limited company', but they don't get a special mention... This is an article about companies in Ireland and the UK, by the looks of it.

Copy?

FTA: "To help you meet this filing requirement, we send a pre-printed 'shuttle' form to your registered office a few weeks before the anniversary of incorporation. This will show the information that you have already given us" - looks copied from somewhere?

I believe it is all copied from Companies House. As CH is a public government body offering a service, and offering this information free, I wouldn't expect there was a copyright problem (though I could be wrong). However, it should certainly be restyled to make it appropriate for Wikipedia.193.133.69.162 19:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

it looks like a lot of this article is a straight copy-and-paste job from official literature. I've added the cleanup tag as it's not very encyclopaedic.BaseTurnComplete 19:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Globalisation

User:GoTeamVenture added the globalisation tag back on 3rd April. My proposal would be to create a page above PLC for the international equivalent and then link into the the individual country pages where available for the equivalent in each country. There was article on Societas Europaea which is a pan European equivalent. It now merged with and redirects to European Company Statute.

If this is Ok we can take off the globalisation tag. RonaldDuncan 16:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a how-to

Has no-one else noticed that some of this article reads like a how-to? Jake the Editor Man 18:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

"In contrast, a public company (sometimes known as a 'listed' company) offers its shares for sale upon the open market - they are 'listed' upon the stock exchange. In Britain, they are usually distinguished by the letters 'PLC' after their name."

This should link to Részvénytársaság, specifically, Nyrt. Korlátolt felelősségű is something different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.77.215.193 (talk) 13:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"PLC" vs "plc" vs "p.l.c."

Is it worth mentioning that p.l.c. is the form now (as of 2006) mandated for corporate documents, and then using a less cumbersome form throughout the document? "p.l.c." (with the quotes, and with the punctuation) looks horrendous. I would suggest that for the article body (after the initial mention) PLC or plc (without punctuation) should be used - the former rather than the latter in order to keep with general English language style of capitalising acronyms. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 13:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Countries

What countries? Not just UK and Rep. of Ireland. India for one. Bound to be other countries with these. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pisharov (talk • contribs) 19:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the topic is probably sufficiently different in other countries that it would be worth just having different articles. Lawdroid (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Why the UK-specific tag?

Why does the article have the complaint that it's not a worldwide view? Other countries don't use the PLC designation. Tempshill (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Quite. Although one or two other countries use the term, "plc" is not in worldwide use. I have removed the tag. --Picapica (talk) 08:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

incorporating PLCs in Northern Ireland after 1st Oct 2009

Isn't this bit out of date? "Northern Ireland has a separate Registrar of Companies. In the Republic of Ireland the equivalent [it refers to Companies House] executive agency is the Companies Registration Office, Ireland."

I've found this on Companies House: "The Companies Act 2006 was fully implemented on 1 October 2009 and the Northern Ireland companies register was fully integrated into Companies House. Companies House maintains a satellite office in Belfast, headed by the Registrar of Companies for Northern Ireland."

Do these statements exclude one another or not? Does anyone know how it really is? I don't want to edit it myself, because I'm just a confused student :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.254.226.166 (talk) 22:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Public limited company → PLC –

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

What is it?

I really still dont understand what a public limited company is!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.0.18 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 25 January 2004

A PLC (UK Name) is a company that can list on a stock market, in Europe companies have a different legal process if they are on a stock market and have different rules and regulations. This is common in most of the world. In practice it means a minimum amount of cash that goes in to set the company up and a lot more rules that the company must follow (even if it is not on the stock market). RonaldDuncan 16:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Naming of PLC articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The necessity of this survey has been disputed. See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Choking the process.

As at 13th September 2004, there's a debate taking place at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Public limited companies as to whether articles about PLCs should be under the legal title of the PLC, or the colloquial name. The suggestion is that we should dissect the issue and then vote on it. The following is a skeleton for such a process; doubtless it'll be adapted over the coming days. please feel free to add arguments pro & con.

Proposal 1 - List under colloquial names

In a nutshell: Company articles should be listed under their colloquial or common name, thus Tesco rather than Tesco PLC

Arguments for:

  • It is standard policy
  • Quickest to find location
  • Insert next Argument for
  • etc

Arguments against:

  • No consensus as to what the common or colloquial name is: Tesco or Tescos or Tesco's? Boots, or Boots the Chemist?
These are debated on a case-by-case basis, as with every other page that adheres to this convention. Saying there is "no consensus" is a bit presumptuous. ed g2s • talk 12:29, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
(Removed personal attack). We could come to a consensus on what we might call an article. Users searching for the article would be as likely to put any of the many "common" names of tescos in ... there is no consensus in user land. (User:Tagishsimon)
  • As per policy, the common name of a PLC is its legal name. Encyclopedias should not muddle up brand names and company names, else we will do more to confuse users than inform them.
  • We cannot get many so-called common names to work without disambiguation; the best disambiguation might well be the PLC. Examples: Sage, Boots, BOC
  • etc

Votes For

  1. James F. (talk) 07:42, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. ed g2s • talk 12:29, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. zoney ▓   ▒ talk 12:35, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. Jallan 17:45, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 03:53, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Votes Against

Proposal 2 - List under legal names

In a nutshell: Company articles should be listed under their legal name Tesco PLC rather than Tesco

Arguments for:

  • It is easy, consistent and unambiguous to list companies under their real names
  • Redirects can cater for the variety of common names that may be input by users searching for info on the company
  • Common names vary from time to time - they are in essence brand names
  • Full name will make it easier to find stock exchange listing and company registration details
  • It will provide traceability of ownership of brands
  • Web search for "Company" will return "Company plc"
  • Insert next Argument for
  • etc

Arguments against:

  • Virtually all searches on the common name will use redirects and most wikilinks will require elision of the redirect
  • There is no standard on whether to use plc or PLC.
  • It would be complete against policy.
  • Insert next Argument against
  • etc

Votes For

  1. Ardonik.talk() 02:21, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC) - I think it looks better this way. I'd like to see this done for humans, too (i.e., George Walker Bush for the main article and George W. Bush for the redirect) but I can't always have my way.
  2. [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 10:29, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. Tagishsimon 11:53, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. P.Riis 15:20, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Votes Against

  1. ed g2s • talk 12:29, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC) As much as our natural instinct is to name a page formally, this is not Wikipedia policy.
  2. zoney ▓   ▒ talk 12:35, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 12:36, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC) Directly contrary to policy; absolutely mad that this kind of thing even needs discussion.
  4. Jallan 17:44, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC) Use the most commonly used name in English for any entity as the article name, whether company, country, person, or thing. That's already the standard here.
  5. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 03:53, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Jon E. (talk) 12:06, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC).

Proposal 3 - Insert your proposal here...

Arguments for:

  • Insert next Argument for
  • Insert next Argument for
  • Insert next Argument for

Arguments against:

  • Insert next Argument against
  • Insert next Argument against
  • Insert next Argument against


Votes For

Votes Against

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

who owns and control public limited company

a PLC is, by definition, owned by its shareholders.

As for control there are as many different answers as there are PLCs as they are controlled according to the by-laws that the company is incorporated under. This is usually that the shareholders elect a board which can be under a variety of methods: most frequently each share gets 1 vote - so a shareholder with 100 shares gets less influence that someone with 1000, sometimes there are different classes of shares, so one type of share gets more influence than another, sometimes there is a golden share where control of the company rests in a single share that may nominally be of the same value as all the others but grants the owner greater influence in board elections. Oftehn the board is elected anually at an AGM. The board is usually comprised of large shareholds.

The board may then elect a chairman of the board who is in charge of the company, though (s)he may hand over day to day control to a CEO or Managing Director or to other people in a variety of other methods. MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 12:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Naming convention for Companies and Businesses

I just wanted to draw attention and comment to on a draft poll to determine naming convention for companies and businesses. I have looked around a number of places and have only seen comments to the effect of "we should have a convention" or "do we have a convention" on how to name a XXX company. This has either the effect of drawing a few uninterested comments or a stirring up a heated debate. In either case the net result is generally zero. Your comments to help clarify this poll and later corresponding vote would be greatly appreciated. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 17:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies)/poll

Voting has begun and will continue until March 5. Please resolve this lagging issue. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 22:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

SARL?

Is the French equivalant SA or SARL? I'm just asking cause I can't find SARL on Wikipedia, but my dictionary translates plc as SARL and ltd. as SA. Is this a mistake or is it correct? - RedHot 19:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

  • SA is PLC
  • SARL is ltd

RonaldDuncan 16:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


"In Malaysia, the word berhad or Bhd indicates the same characteristic."

Who cares? Why specifically mention Malaysia? Every country in the world would have their own word for a 'public limited company', but they don't get a special mention... This is an article about companies in Ireland and the UK, by the looks of it.

Copy?

FTA: "To help you meet this filing requirement, we send a pre-printed 'shuttle' form to your registered office a few weeks before the anniversary of incorporation. This will show the information that you have already given us" - looks copied from somewhere?

I believe it is all copied from Companies House. As CH is a public government body offering a service, and offering this information free, I wouldn't expect there was a copyright problem (though I could be wrong). However, it should certainly be restyled to make it appropriate for Wikipedia.193.133.69.162 19:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

it looks like a lot of this article is a straight copy-and-paste job from official literature. I've added the cleanup tag as it's not very encyclopaedic.BaseTurnComplete 19:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Globalisation

User:GoTeamVenture added the globalisation tag back on 3rd April. My proposal would be to create a page above PLC for the international equivalent and then link into the the individual country pages where available for the equivalent in each country. There was article on Societas Europaea which is a pan European equivalent. It now merged with and redirects to European Company Statute.

If this is Ok we can take off the globalisation tag. RonaldDuncan 16:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a how-to

Has no-one else noticed that some of this article reads like a how-to? Jake the Editor Man 18:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

"In contrast, a public company (sometimes known as a 'listed' company) offers its shares for sale upon the open market - they are 'listed' upon the stock exchange. In Britain, they are usually distinguished by the letters 'PLC' after their name."

This should link to Részvénytársaság, specifically, Nyrt. Korlátolt felelősségű is something different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.77.215.193 (talk) 13:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"PLC" vs "plc" vs "p.l.c."

Is it worth mentioning that p.l.c. is the form now (as of 2006) mandated for corporate documents, and then using a less cumbersome form throughout the document? "p.l.c." (with the quotes, and with the punctuation) looks horrendous. I would suggest that for the article body (after the initial mention) PLC or plc (without punctuation) should be used - the former rather than the latter in order to keep with general English language style of capitalising acronyms. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 13:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Countries

What countries? Not just UK and Rep. of Ireland. India for one. Bound to be other countries with these. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pisharov (talk • contribs) 19:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the topic is probably sufficiently different in other countries that it would be worth just having different articles. Lawdroid (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Why the UK-specific tag?

Why does the article have the complaint that it's not a worldwide view? Other countries don't use the PLC designation. Tempshill (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Quite. Although one or two other countries use the term, "plc" is not in worldwide use. I have removed the tag. --Picapica (talk) 08:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

incorporating PLCs in Northern Ireland after 1st Oct 2009

Isn't this bit out of date? "Northern Ireland has a separate Registrar of Companies. In the Republic of Ireland the equivalent [it refers to Companies House] executive agency is the Companies Registration Office, Ireland."

I've found this on Companies House: "The Companies Act 2006 was fully implemented on 1 October 2009 and the Northern Ireland companies register was fully integrated into Companies House. Companies House maintains a satellite office in Belfast, headed by the Registrar of Companies for Northern Ireland."

Do these statements exclude one another or not? Does anyone know how it really is? I don't want to edit it myself, because I'm just a confused student :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.254.226.166 (talk) 22:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Public limited company → PLC –

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

What is it?

I really still dont understand what a public limited company is!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.0.18 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 25 January 2004

A PLC (UK Name) is a company that can list on a stock market, in Europe companies have a different legal process if they are on a stock market and have different rules and regulations. This is common in most of the world. In practice it means a minimum amount of cash that goes in to set the company up and a lot more rules that the company must follow (even if it is not on the stock market). RonaldDuncan 16:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Naming of PLC articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The necessity of this survey has been disputed. See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Choking the process.

As at 13th September 2004, there's a debate taking place at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Public limited companies as to whether articles about PLCs should be under the legal title of the PLC, or the colloquial name. The suggestion is that we should dissect the issue and then vote on it. The following is a skeleton for such a process; doubtless it'll be adapted over the coming days. please feel free to add arguments pro & con.

Proposal 1 - List under colloquial names

In a nutshell: Company articles should be listed under their colloquial or common name, thus Tesco rather than Tesco PLC

Arguments for:

  • It is standard policy
  • Quickest to find location
  • Insert next Argument for
  • etc

Arguments against:

  • No consensus as to what the common or colloquial name is: Tesco or Tescos or Tesco's? Boots, or Boots the Chemist?
These are debated on a case-by-case basis, as with every other page that adheres to this convention. Saying there is "no consensus" is a bit presumptuous. ed g2s • talk 12:29, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
(Removed personal attack). We could come to a consensus on what we might call an article. Users searching for the article would be as likely to put any of the many "common" names of tescos in ... there is no consensus in user land. (User:Tagishsimon)
  • As per policy, the common name of a PLC is its legal name. Encyclopedias should not muddle up brand names and company names, else we will do more to confuse users than inform them.
  • We cannot get many so-called common names to work without disambiguation; the best disambiguation might well be the PLC. Examples: Sage, Boots, BOC
  • etc

Votes For

  1. James F. (talk) 07:42, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. ed g2s • talk 12:29, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. zoney ▓   ▒ talk 12:35, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. Jallan 17:45, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 03:53, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Votes Against

Proposal 2 - List under legal names

In a nutshell: Company articles should be listed under their legal name Tesco PLC rather than Tesco

Arguments for:

  • It is easy, consistent and unambiguous to list companies under their real names
  • Redirects can cater for the variety of common names that may be input by users searching for info on the company
  • Common names vary from time to time - they are in essence brand names
  • Full name will make it easier to find stock exchange listing and company registration details
  • It will provide traceability of ownership of brands
  • Web search for "Company" will return "Company plc"
  • Insert next Argument for
  • etc

Arguments against:

  • Virtually all searches on the common name will use redirects and most wikilinks will require elision of the redirect
  • There is no standard on whether to use plc or PLC.
  • It would be complete against policy.
  • Insert next Argument against
  • etc

Votes For

  1. Ardonik.talk() 02:21, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC) - I think it looks better this way. I'd like to see this done for humans, too (i.e., George Walker Bush for the main article and George W. Bush for the redirect) but I can't always have my way.
  2. [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 10:29, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. Tagishsimon 11:53, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. P.Riis 15:20, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Votes Against

  1. ed g2s • talk 12:29, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC) As much as our natural instinct is to name a page formally, this is not Wikipedia policy.
  2. zoney ▓   ▒ talk 12:35, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 12:36, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC) Directly contrary to policy; absolutely mad that this kind of thing even needs discussion.
  4. Jallan 17:44, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC) Use the most commonly used name in English for any entity as the article name, whether company, country, person, or thing. That's already the standard here.
  5. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 03:53, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Jon E. (talk) 12:06, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC).

Proposal 3 - Insert your proposal here...

Arguments for:

  • Insert next Argument for
  • Insert next Argument for
  • Insert next Argument for

Arguments against:

  • Insert next Argument against
  • Insert next Argument against
  • Insert next Argument against


Votes For

Votes Against

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

who owns and control public limited company

a PLC is, by definition, owned by its shareholders.

As for control there are as many different answers as there are PLCs as they are controlled according to the by-laws that the company is incorporated under. This is usually that the shareholders elect a board which can be under a variety of methods: most frequently each share gets 1 vote - so a shareholder with 100 shares gets less influence that someone with 1000, sometimes there are different classes of shares, so one type of share gets more influence than another, sometimes there is a golden share where control of the company rests in a single share that may nominally be of the same value as all the others but grants the owner greater influence in board elections. Oftehn the board is elected anually at an AGM. The board is usually comprised of large shareholds.

The board may then elect a chairman of the board who is in charge of the company, though (s)he may hand over day to day control to a CEO or Managing Director or to other people in a variety of other methods. MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 12:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Naming convention for Companies and Businesses

I just wanted to draw attention and comment to on a draft poll to determine naming convention for companies and businesses. I have looked around a number of places and have only seen comments to the effect of "we should have a convention" or "do we have a convention" on how to name a XXX company. This has either the effect of drawing a few uninterested comments or a stirring up a heated debate. In either case the net result is generally zero. Your comments to help clarify this poll and later corresponding vote would be greatly appreciated. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 17:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies)/poll

Voting has begun and will continue until March 5. Please resolve this lagging issue. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 22:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

SARL?

Is the French equivalant SA or SARL? I'm just asking cause I can't find SARL on Wikipedia, but my dictionary translates plc as SARL and ltd. as SA. Is this a mistake or is it correct? - RedHot 19:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

  • SA is PLC
  • SARL is ltd

RonaldDuncan 16:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


"In Malaysia, the word berhad or Bhd indicates the same characteristic."

Who cares? Why specifically mention Malaysia? Every country in the world would have their own word for a 'public limited company', but they don't get a special mention... This is an article about companies in Ireland and the UK, by the looks of it.

Copy?

FTA: "To help you meet this filing requirement, we send a pre-printed 'shuttle' form to your registered office a few weeks before the anniversary of incorporation. This will show the information that you have already given us" - looks copied from somewhere?

I believe it is all copied from Companies House. As CH is a public government body offering a service, and offering this information free, I wouldn't expect there was a copyright problem (though I could be wrong). However, it should certainly be restyled to make it appropriate for Wikipedia.193.133.69.162 19:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

it looks like a lot of this article is a straight copy-and-paste job from official literature. I've added the cleanup tag as it's not very encyclopaedic.BaseTurnComplete 19:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Globalisation

User:GoTeamVenture added the globalisation tag back on 3rd April. My proposal would be to create a page above PLC for the international equivalent and then link into the the individual country pages where available for the equivalent in each country. There was article on Societas Europaea which is a pan European equivalent. It now merged with and redirects to European Company Statute.

If this is Ok we can take off the globalisation tag. RonaldDuncan 16:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a how-to

Has no-one else noticed that some of this article reads like a how-to? Jake the Editor Man 18:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

"In contrast, a public company (sometimes known as a 'listed' company) offers its shares for sale upon the open market - they are 'listed' upon the stock exchange. In Britain, they are usually distinguished by the letters 'PLC' after their name."

This should link to Részvénytársaság, specifically, Nyrt. Korlátolt felelősségű is something different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.77.215.193 (talk) 13:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"PLC" vs "plc" vs "p.l.c."

Is it worth mentioning that p.l.c. is the form now (as of 2006) mandated for corporate documents, and then using a less cumbersome form throughout the document? "p.l.c." (with the quotes, and with the punctuation) looks horrendous. I would suggest that for the article body (after the initial mention) PLC or plc (without punctuation) should be used - the former rather than the latter in order to keep with general English language style of capitalising acronyms. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 13:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Countries

What countries? Not just UK and Rep. of Ireland. India for one. Bound to be other countries with these. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pisharov (talk • contribs) 19:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the topic is probably sufficiently different in other countries that it would be worth just having different articles. Lawdroid (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Why the UK-specific tag?

Why does the article have the complaint that it's not a worldwide view? Other countries don't use the PLC designation. Tempshill (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Quite. Although one or two other countries use the term, "plc" is not in worldwide use. I have removed the tag. --Picapica (talk) 08:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

incorporating PLCs in Northern Ireland after 1st Oct 2009

Isn't this bit out of date? "Northern Ireland has a separate Registrar of Companies. In the Republic of Ireland the equivalent [it refers to Companies House] executive agency is the Companies Registration Office, Ireland."

I've found this on Companies House: "The Companies Act 2006 was fully implemented on 1 October 2009 and the Northern Ireland companies register was fully integrated into Companies House. Companies House maintains a satellite office in Belfast, headed by the Registrar of Companies for Northern Ireland."

Do these statements exclude one another or not? Does anyone know how it really is? I don't want to edit it myself, because I'm just a confused student :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.254.226.166 (talk) 22:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Public limited company → PLC –

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Public_limited_company/Archives/2011&oldid=1137103904"