Talk:Stora Enso

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

Untitled[edit]

According to Hyltebruk, Hylte Bruk is a paper mill owned by Stora Enso. Should we include this in the Stora Enso article? --Anthony5429 04:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a bit trivial to be honest, especially considering how short the Stora Enso article currently is. A quick glance at their website suggests they have literally dozens of paper mills. 82.12.114.155 08:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:StoraEnso logotype.png[edit]

Image:StoraEnso logotype.png 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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 11:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Stora Enso[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Stora Enso's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "AR2011":

  • From Metso: "Annual Report 2011". Metso. Retrieved 4 April 2012.
  • From Rautaruukki: "Financial performance, Annual Report 2011". Rautaruukki. Retrieved 23 May 2012.
  • From Wärtsilä: "Financial Statement bulletin January-December 2011". Wärtsilä. Retrieved 27 January 2012.
  • From Konecranes: "Annual Results 2011" (PDF). Konecranes. Retrieved 22 March 2012.
  • From Nokia: "Annual Results 2011" (PDF). Nokia Corporation. 26 January 2012. Retrieved 2 March 2012.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Childwork[edit]

Finnwatch have published a leaflet: [4] Based on this the state has responsibility to act binding principles and give help to put it in action (United Nations Ruggie): United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights Watti Renew (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The section about Kemijärvi seems out of place[edit]

There is a separate section about employment and environment in the Finnish town of Kemijärvi, citing only Finnish-language sources, and partly dealing with the operations of another company than Stora Enso. Except for brief mentions by Reuters and New Europe, I cannot find any evidence of Stora Enso’s Kemijärvi activities having been the subject of attention by English-language media aimed at the general English reader.

The balance of information in the article would benefit if there were less text about Kemijärvi and a focus on facts that have been covered by English-languague publications. I also believe that the article would become easier to read and more informative if the various criticisms agains Stora Enso were rearranged, so that they could be found under a main “controversies” heading, with subheadings where appropriate. OttoG (talk) 15:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added content and improved structure[edit]

I have expanded the history section, based on translations from the Swedish article about Stora AB as well as English third-party sources (mainly for the recent history). I have also added information about the market presence, operations and governance of Stora Enso, structured existing content based on commonly used main headings and clarified some sentences, where the language was previously hard to follow. Further, there are additional facts and sources in several places. And since nobody has objected to the above suggestions (October 2015), I have decreased the level of detail in the coverage of the Kemijärvi plant closure. OttoG (talk) 14:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Stora Enso. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

“Advert” and “Paid contributions” tags[edit]

Hi, on 17 October 2018, the tags Template:Advert and Template:Paid contributions were added to this article, without any explanation on the discussion page. I have asked for clarification regarding the "Advert" tag on the user talk page of User:GSS. (If the "Advert" tag is justified, it might imply that the "Paid contributions" would be justified, too, and vice versa. I therefore find it reasonable to concentrate the discussion on the appropriateness of the "Advert" tag.)

Current help-page guidelines for the "Advert" tag:

Add this to articles that need help from other editors because in whole or part they are advertisements masquerading as articles. For example, they may tell users to buy the company's product, provide price lists, give links to online sellers, or use unencyclopedic or meaningless buzzwords. The advert tag is for Wikipedia articles that in whole or part have been made into public relations documents or brochures, with content that portrays an issue, a product, an organization, or a person in a positive or negative light.

Current help-page guidelines for the "Paid contributions" tag (my emphasis to the final words):

This page may be used on pages that have disclosed, but still problematic, paid contributions and that require cleanup.

In my opinion, it is not relevant to apply any of these descriptions to the Stora Enso article. I propose the deletion of the mentioned tags from the article and invite to a discussion under this talk page section on whether the article content fits the criteria for being marked with these tags, or not. --OttoG (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As there have been no other comments on this issue for more than five weeks, and a request for clarification posted on the talk page of User:GSS has yielded no response, I have now removed the tags. At the same time, I reviewed the introductory paragraph and the history section and made some changes to the language in an attempt to further strengthen the neutral, encyclopaedic tone of the article. --OttoG (talk) 13:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Too many references?[edit]

Hello! I think there are a way too many references used in parts of the article. See e.g. "Examples of notable products launched in 2017 and 2018 are cardboard-based packaging under the name EcoFishBox as an alternative to polystyrene boxes for transportation of fresh fish, industrial-scale supply of lignin under the name Lineo as an alternative to phenol-based adhesives, and prototypes of biodegradable drinking straws.[37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48]" . Jjanhone (talk) 13:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

A paid editor made contributions to this article, and has disclosed that fact on this page, therefore the {{paid contributions}} is a matter of fact and does not require discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to the policy "if you place the Paid tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article." As a paid editor I'm not allowed to remove the tag myself, but if any volunteer editor thinks that the neutral point of view of the article is ok, they are free to remove the tag as told in the Template:Paid contributions instructions: "If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning."Jjanhone (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello OttoG! Do you see some problems on this article that should be corrected?Jjanhone (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, as far as I am aware of, in case of disagreement, the burden of proof definitely falls on the editor who is adding NPOV tags to give examples or otherwise clarify what the problems are. While I am responsible for the style and content of a number of paragraphs in this article and might thus be somewhat partial, I wish to stress that I have been very careful to always keep a neutral point of view. Additionally, I cannot find any deviances from this perspective and style in any parts of the article that I have not edited, either. Unless convincing arguments are presented very soon, I will not hesitate to perform the removal of the tag myself.--OttoG (talk) 13:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Over the course of three months, no relevant arguments for keeping the “paid contributions” tag have been put forward. I have therefore now removed the tag.--OttoG (talk) 14:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong category for company[edit]

The company information states Stora Enso is a paper mill company. This is incorrect. They focus on creating materials out of wood, eg batteries, packaging, pellets. They also own forests, but their main work is not paper mills anymore.

Murgmen (talk) 08:07, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  Lightoil (talk) 02:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers are wrong[edit]

the numbers are wrong. It is $17 billion, not $17 million. This is a pretty obvious mistake, since the firat number is in the billions. This is probably a transcription error since some parts of Europe consider millions and billions as the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.210.254.130 (talk) 11:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about the infobox numbers using the period as the thousands separator? If so, yes, they should use the comma instead, so I fixed the thousands separators. --JAAqqO (talk) 08:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stora_Enso&oldid=1204929007"