Talk:Archewell

Trademark Details
For anyone interested ... ARCHEWELL - Trademark Details

Status: 661 - Response After Non-Final Action - Entered Serial Number 88818790 ARCHEWELL Status661 - Response After Non-Final Action - Entered Status Date 2020-12-03 Filing Date 2020-03-03 Mark Drawing 4000 - Standard character mark Typeset Attorney Name Marjorie Witter Norman Law Office Assigned Location Code N40 Employee Name WOLFE, YOUNG J Statements Goods and Services Sampajanna (talk) 09:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Consensus flowchart


A simplified diagram of how consensus is reached. When an edit is made, other editors may either accept it, change it, or revert it. Seek a compromise means "attempt to find a generally acceptable solution", either through continued editing or through discussion. Sampajanna (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't understand how this qualifies as a topic for the Talk Page. It looks like Wiki guidelines, but without any Wiki branding. Does it relate to some previous debate about how to reach a consensus, which has since been deleted? Valetude (talk) 22:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As indicated above, it was posted on 18 December 2020. Sampajanna (talk) 05:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'm not with you, Sampajanna. The date of posting does not relate to my question. I was asking how this could be a topic for the Talk page. What issue are you questioning or commenting on? Valetude (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Short description
I feel that referring Meghan, Duchess of Sussex as Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex's American wife is sexist and xenophobic especially since you do not refer to Harry as being British. Also wouldn't it be a better idea if you stated that Archewell is an American or California based organization which it very much is. By placing focus on the building being located in Beverly Hills I feel that you're trying to target Harry and especially Meghan in a classist manner Greyhounddani (talk) 11:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Welcome to Wikipedia. Although your question appears to be directed at User:Tatupiplu, who identifies as female, have a look firstly at how Meghan Markle is described on her own Wikipedia page. The British royal family is quite well known in the world, as too is the nationality of Prince Harry.... Sampajanna (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * - Sexism and xenophobia are hefty claims to make against an article. As Sampajanna says, it follows the format of similar organizations, such as the Obama Foundation, by listing the city in which its headquarters are registered. There's very little classist about the matter. I'm not sure what you're implying - that due to Beverly Hills' well-known economic background, we're aiming to portray the organization or it's founders in a specific way that you disagree with? Additionally, I don't think it equates to sexism or xenophobia to emphasize Meghan's citizenship. The British royal family and its members are, as previously stated, well-known across the world, and adding her nationality adds some clarity and perhaps credentials to a British prince having a hand in establishing an organization in the United States. I'm confused about how xenophobia would be applied to this matter.--Bettydaisies (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
NOTE : Please try to stay in the top three sections of this pyramid. Sampajanna (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Claim of fraud
On 18 December 2020, your first ever contribution to Wikipedia was to attack / vandalize the related Markle Windsor Foundation page and its editors as follows: "None of the information on this page is true and the person who created it is a fraud and the entire post should be deleted! Noting that you have only contributed to Markle Windsor and Archewell, please disclose if you have any WP:COI conflict of interest. Sampajanna (talk) 20:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Heading
@User:Sampajanna Hey! Personally, I don’t think that readers would be confused if the section was renamed - the page itself is very clearly titled “Archewell”, with the origins of Sussex Royal having a separate section entirely. I don’t know if it’s best to have a section with the effective same name as the article, as the subject of its contents could be rendered unclear. Bettydaisies (talk) 09:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@User:Bettydaisies It's of little consequence to me either way. Sampajanna (talk) 09:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Pronunciation
The current version of this page uses the bizzare pseudo-linguistic pronunciation "/rki/-/wel/", which is neither proper IPA nor illustrative of actual pronunciation. Could someone with knowledge of this organization's name's pronunciation update this page with standard IPA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:608:A353:499F:D31A:36FB:A3A0 (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * User talk:2605:8D80:608:A353:499F:D31A:36FB:A3A0 Welcome to Wikipedia. Please spell out clearly what actual pronounciation is being proposed. Sampajanna (talk) 13:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

questions
I'm not sure if I understand what the article says (not an expert). Is Archewell a limited-liability corporation? Does it have owners/shareholders? Is it a non-profit organization? What is the relation with the two subsidiaries? Does it have a charter promising to give profits to charity, or 1% of profits etc? Is it a legal structure that is new and different and nothing of that type had previously existed? A Wikipedia articles doesn't have to be a who,what,when,where,why article like a piece of journalism, but I'm lost in trying to understand the most basic definitions of its subject. Is it like a union or trade union that supports and encourages content-creators, for example? Createangelos (talk) 00:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * According to reliable sources, the organization contains both a for-profit production wing and a charitable projects branch. Bettydaisies (talk) 01:49, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for the quick answer. I'd like to be clear-minded and neutral about the organization/foundation and your statement about a for-profit wing and charitable branch seems perfect if the references are there. The content of what you're saying could, for all I know, also already embedded somewhere but would only be understandable to a lawyer or something the way it's written now. Are you  inclined to make an edit or is it too early to be thinking about trying to characterize it so simply if it is an evolving entity I wonder.Createangelos (talk) 02:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've given a stab at rectifying the lead, let me know if it does/or doesn't! help :)--Bettydaisies (talk) 04:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Looks really nice! The sentence also matches (and explains) the layout of the table of contents, and the summary to the right. Before, the article just looked weirdly complicated and I couldn't understand it. There could well be things I still don't understand, so I won't be devastated if someone reverts ... I'm out of my depth in many ways about lawyer stuff and a lawyer/editor who understands more, or also a charity or even royal expert might be able to correct us or point us in a better direction. As far as I can tell it's perfect.Createangelos (talk) 08:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Income declared
Income for 2020-21 was under $50,000. Shoukd this not be in there. Is this foundation real? Rustygecko (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's already under Formation and trademarks. Keivan.f  Talk 07:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)