This template 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.
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy 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.
I think that drilling vessels which are not owned by BP should be not included in this template. Namely, Deepwater Horizon and Iolair are not owned by BP and therefore I propose to remove these articles from the template. In the case of Deepwater Horizon, articles about its explosion and oil spill are included, so no need to add an article about the rig, which is owned by Transocean. Beagel (talk) 04:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
The Facilities section of the template includes articles where BP owns, leases, operates or contracts work as clarified within the articles. I think the goal with any Template is to make sure it serves as a good navigation tool and I think people interested in the BP company would be interested in the drilling vessels, especially Deepwater Horizon. I'm certainly open to different ideas though if there is consensus against this inclusive approach.RevelationDirect (talk) 23:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
i don't think it's really appropriate to list what's essentially rented equipment. further, it seems odd to list the terrestrial facilities with those that are offshore. i dunno...maybe a separate section??...just my humble opinion. --emerson7 00:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
That might work. Would Northstar Island be land or sea? We could also divide up office buildings from production facilities. Or create a separate shipping section with these vessels plus the British Tanker Company from the top section. Now that I think about it, I like the idea of a separate shipping section because it might better group like articles. But I'll hold off on any changes until there is more input.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
It is misleading to add the Amoco Cadiz disaster to this template. At that time, the ship was owned by Amoco, several decades before BP bought this company. So they had no involvement with this event whatsoever. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
i don't agree...when you acquire a company, you get all of the good, bad, and ugly that comes with it. the technical accounting term for this is Goodwill (accounting) which can be monetarily quantified. --emerson7 00:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, the company we're talking about here is BP Amoco plc, which was a result of a supposed merger of two equals rather than an acquisition. So I see the history of either company as on point. That equal footing never lasted though and BP Amoco changed it's name to BP a couple years later so I can certainly see other viewpoints here. Anyone else have thoughts on whether the pre-merger history of Amoco should be included? RevelationDirect (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
It is not a question of current legalities but of historical context!. That is why there are for instance separate articles for Amoco and BP, because prior to the merger, they were seperate companies with separate histories. So, the fact is that in 1978, BP didn't own Amoco. By adding Amoco Cadiz or any other event prior to the merger to this template is taking these event out of historical context, making it appear that BP owned it at that time. You may know better but the general reader may not, and that is why it is misleading. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
i think the template enhances the continuity of the historical content, and my guess is that most--myself included--would not otherwise be aware of all the companies that have been folded into BP. i think the layout still needs to be massaged and refined a bit (no pun intended) but the general content is certainly on par with other conglomerate company templates. --emerson7 20:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I certainly appreciate that you are trying to make the template on par with other company templates, and yes, acquisitions and subsidiaries like Amoco should be included. But I'm not talking about the company, but about the ship and events that took place long before the merger. My first impression when the BP template was added to Amoco Cadiz was: "Oh, was it owned by BP?". No, the ship was never owned by BP, and I had to cross-reference to Amoco why the template was added. Comparatively, the history of Amoco before the merger is not added to the BP article because until that point, they are unrelated. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 21:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
i think it's best not to become overly pedantic with this template just yet. upon close examination, one would find far more serious issues with it...particularly with some content not quite fitting with the group headings. taken as a work in process, however, it think its a decent start. --emerson7 16:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I created a Amoco Category to better group these articles. I will warn you that that it appears as a subcat of BP though! Old companies with long histories are challenging: AT&T was bought by a former spinoff which can't possibly be explained in that template. Similarly, CastrolBurmah is the founder/rival/subsidiary/brand of BP (depending on the year) and "Division" hardly captures that nuance. Templates need to be accurate but I don't think they can be precise.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)