Talk:BHP/Archives/2017

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on BHP Billiton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071004201204/http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/dpi/nrenmp.nsf/LinkView/E1969D9710F16DE2CA256EC8000B159884B1BCA6986B5725CA256F56001A2D7F to http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/dpi/nrenmp.nsf/linkview/e1969d9710f16de2ca256ec8000b159884b1bca6986b5725ca256f56001a2d7f
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070819155201/http://na.unep.net/digital_atlas2/webatlas.php?id=174 to http://na.unep.net/digital_atlas2/webatlas.php?id=174

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on BHP Billiton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090112150118/http://www.encyclopedia.com:80/doc/1G1-18322244.html to http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-18322244.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on BHP Billiton. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/afx/2005/06/17/afx2098254.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

A pathetically inadequate article. Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 00:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Corporate headquarters
BHP Billiton's global head office & registered office in Australia located in Melbourne. Evidence from the ASX company information page: http://m.asx.com.au/m/company/company-contact-details.xhtml;jsessionid=QzBmviuJhHA5bET0+M4nHbCQ.node220?issuerCode=BHP & BHP's website: http://www.bhpbilliton.com/contact Please do not put Perth, Australia or London, United Kingdom or any equivilent as this would be incorrect. However BHP does have a corporate office (plc) in London & a domestic office in Perth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukerox96 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Revenue/profit incorrect?
The revenue/profit is listed in the millions but this doesn't make much sense as BHP Billiton recorded record profits of 22 billion dollars last financial year: http://www.morningstar.com.au/stocks/article/profit-beats-forecasts/3886. Revenue stands at over 70 billion dollars last financial year and net operating income was around 30 billion (same article). Last year it made around 12 billion according to local papers. Why is the profit/revenue in this article only in the millions? I find it hard to believe the largest mining company only made 12.722 million dollars last year, unless you're counting profits only in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.135.30 (talk) 01:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You are reading it wrong! US$12,722 million profit = US$12.722 billion. The, and . can be confusing, I know, especially as it isn't interpreted the same in all languages either. Calistemon (talk) 04:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah I see. My mistake. It just appears to be a somewhat odd expression to use as other companies on Wikipedia use billions instead of millions. However, I looked at BHP's annual report and they express it in thousands of millions. You are right that I mistook the, for a . though! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.168.149 (talk) 10:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Why repetition?
This statement: "On 5 November 2015 a dam holding back waste water from an iron ore mine in Mariana, south-eastern Brazil, owned by BHP Billiton and Vale burst, devastating a nearby town with mudslides, killing at least 17 people, injuring more than 50 and causing enormous environmental damage [74]" appears in two sections. It seems it should only be in "Accidents" and can be removed from "Environmental Responsibility". Does anyone have a problem with that? Robertwhyteus (talk) 00:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Robert, We have all seen the recent marketing campaign for BHP in the papers.  Your part in this campaign is obvious to anyone who can use Google.  You are paid by BHP to do your work.  This would not be a problem if you had disclosed this fact as per the rules of Wikipedia.  What is unforgivable is that you are clearly Astroturfing this article by removing valid information critical of BHP. Regardless of wether this is the clumsy work of BHP head of corporate affairs or Geoff Healy or not you should immediately revert your edits. - Michelle Walters 59.100.82.154 (talk) 03:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry Michelle you must have me mixed up with someone else. I have no part in any marketing campaign, I am not paid by BHP. I haven't removed anything. Robertwhyteus (talk) 11:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Moved from lead to accidents section only. The accident, whilst significant, does not warrant itself in lead and jars with the summary of the company. If the focus was a summary of major accidents and the company had an ongoing significant accident record spanning since the 1800's, then it may be appropriate. Rangasyd (talk) 07:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Remove COI template?
I have done some cleanup work on the article to bring it up do date with major developments including the Elliot plan and the name change, but I am not really clear on what material warrants the COI tag or who was responsible for any such material. I certainly wasn't, only coming to address the issues in the last few days as an innocent passer by. Someone involved In putting on that COI tag might be in a better position to judge whether it is still relevant. The lead, now including what was a redundant repetition of the flood disaster information, and more detail sourced from actual third party sources, not the company, is probably better. Personally I don't have the time to try to figure out what the COI tag refers to and fix it, if it needs fixing, and as probably quite a few people watch this page, could I suggest somebody look into this issue. Robertwhyteus (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Robert, We have all seen the recent marketing campaign for BHP in the papers.  Your part in this campaign is obvious to anyone who can use Google.  You are paid by BHP to do your work.  This would not be a problem if you had disclosed this fact as per the rules of Wikipedia.  What is unforgivable is that you are clearly Astroturfing this article by removing valid information critical of BHP. Regardless of wether this is the clumsy work of BHP head of corporate affairs or Geoff Healy or not you should immediately revert your edits. - Michelle Walters59.100.82.154 (talk) 03:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry Michelle you must have me mixed up with someone else. I have no part in any marketing campaign, I am not paid by BHP. I haven't removed anything.Robertwhyteus (talk) 11:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Rename BHP Billiton as BHP
Hi there. BHP Billiton has formally renamed itself as BHP and divested some of its former Billiton assets. As a result, I suggest that this article be moved to BHP and that Bhp be moved to Bhp (disambiguation). Prior to requesting a move for the disambiguation page, I'd value consensus here on naming. The other alternative is to rename BHP Billiton as BHP (company). Looking forward to hearing from you. Tagging the following for input: JackofOz, Robertwhyteus, Dormskirk, PhilipTerryGraham, Maxime Vernier, and others... Rangasyd (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it'd be best to disabiguate the article title to something similar to "BHP (company)". The company may not be as well known as it is in Australia, and so I think it'll be hard to prove that it is the primary topic out of a number of articles that are linked in the existing Bhp disambiguation page. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=PhilipTerryGraham&project=en.wikipedia.org count]) 14:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Out of the other topics I only know BHP the company and I am not australian nor british. I would not mind BHP becoming the primary topic Maxime Vernier (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Australia never really got accustomed to BHP Billiton anyway, it was just BHP here for so long. I fully support requesting a moveRobertwhyteus (talk) 22:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. I have asked for the current BHP article (it is just a redirect) to be deleted to make way for the move. Dormskirk (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support this move. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. So, I think we're agreed to rename as BHP; and, thanks to Dormskirk, the article has been renamed. No action is required by me or others. Thanks all. Rangasyd (talk) 07:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)