Talk:RELX/Archives/2017

Suggested change - March 2017
Hi, RELX Group published their Annual Report last week, so there are a number of things which currently cite last year's report that can now be updated on this page - income/revenue figures etc. The new report is available here: http://www.relx.com/investorcentre/reports%202007/Documents/2016/relxgroup_ar_2016.pdf - I'm happy to update myself, but posting here first in case anyone else would rather do it as I'm an employee and don't like editing the page myself in case conflicts of interest arise. Thanks Ryoba (talk) 11:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Done. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Brilliant - thanks! Ryoba (talk) 10:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

A few other suggestions
A few other minor suggestions to update the page with 2016 data, if possible?

3rd paragraph: "In 2000, two-thirds of revenues were from print and only a small percentage was digital; by 2015, those numbers had been reversed" - change "by 2015" to "by 2016".

Significant disposals: "In 2016, RELX sold Elsevier Weekly in the Netherlands" - source:http://www.reedbusiness.com/news/reed-business-information-sells-elsevier-weekly-and-beleggersbelangen-magazine-to-new-skool-media/

Operations > Scientific, Technical & Medical: Top paragraph - "...generated revenues in the year to 31 December 2016 of £2.3 billion" [1] Fifth paragraph - "It publishes 420,000 articles a year..." [1]

Operations > Risk & Business Analytics: Last paragraph - "...helped trace 163 missing children" [1]

Operations > Exhibitions: Is it possible to remove the last paragraph about selling the defense business as this is already covered in depth in the 'Controversy' section?

Controversy > Boycott: Change last sentence to: "In 2016, Elsevier received 1.5 million article submissions" [1]

Many thanks Ryoba (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Done. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Suggested change, April 2017
RELX has now sold New Scientist (https://www.ft.com/content/4127d94c-1f8c-11e7-b7d3-163f5a7f229c), so can it please be removed from the 'Leading brands' part of the Risk section? (and maybe added to the disposals section?). Thanks Ryoba (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on RELX Group. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170316204334/http://www.relx.com/investorcentre/reports%202007/Documents/2016/relxgroup_ar_2016.pdf to http://www.relx.com/investorcentre/reports%202007/Documents/2016/relxgroup_ar_2016.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151030233859/http://www.ulib.niu.edu/publishers/ReedElsevier.htm to http://www.ulib.niu.edu/publishers/reedelsevier.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150911232425/http://www.nssf.org/newsroom/releases/show.cfm?PR=051013_SHOTManagement.cfm&path=2013 to http://www.nssf.org/newsroom/releases/show.cfm?PR=051013_SHOTManagement.cfm&path=2013

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)