Talk:Unichem

This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies

This redirect 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

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 14:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contest[edit]

Unichem surely should be reserved for the UK company which is far bigger. They are unrelated seperate companies but Unichem ltd UK is much bigger with an enormous turnover and is world wide, this new zealand company is national and quite small.--UnTrooper (talk) 10:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In any case they can't share an article, and we need to disambiguate. So you should first of all revert your edit as it sits on top of the previous article, then either recreate it at a different name or move the current article to a new name and only then add new content here.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or after you revert i simply delete the NYZ pharmacy brand for lack fo asserting any importance.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its underway, I'll get it done in a couple of days at the most, but I'm part way through as you can see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UnTrooper (talk • contribs) 14:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I fixed the so called cut and paste move. Moreover, you have to avoid copying stuff.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not, there are things I don't know even. But some of the information on the site has been out of date since 2006 and I'm at least correcting that as I am doing it and taking bullet points and writing them in article form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UnTrooper (talk • contribs) 14:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections[edit]

Please stop correcting what I have written, the UK company is seperate and independant to the european branches, this is a UniChem article not an Alliance Boots article which is the parent company. UniChem in the UK still has a multi Billion pound turnover on its own. --UnTrooper (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was just trying to show you how to make a citation. And you better get used to people changing things here. I step back in any case. --Tikiwont (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldnt bother me if the edit was correct, might be an idea to delete all post 1997 history since the Alliance UniChem article (although a little incorrect I will put it right) exists.--UnTrooper (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can understand that you're bothered by incorrect statements, it is what brought me here as well, but the source wasn't very clear in that respect. I agree that it is an argument to keep - at least for the moment - separate articles for the different legal entities.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]