Talk:Shire (pharmaceutical company)

Fair use rationale for Image:Shire.gif
Image:Shire.gif 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 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 (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggested move
Suggest that Shire plc be moved to Shire (pharmaceutical company) in keeping with the desire to keep things like "inc", "plc" and similar out of article titles. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 17:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Undesirable revisions -- moving toward advertisement-type content
I think that the changes under "Operations" reflected in the diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shire_plc&diff=515965025&oldid=512239205 are unfortunate and move the section toward a non-neutral point-of-view. I'm posing this for discussion here rather than unilaterally revising the section. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 17:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 20 October 2014
Shire plc → Shire (pharmaceutical company) – Move would bring the article into alignment with company naming guidelines as noted at WP:NCCORP User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 12:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In light of the lack of input, putting this through as uncontroversial. Dekimasu よ! 23:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Sources and citations
Please use standard book, journal, and web " {{cite " templates to create complete citations, with author, title, date of publication, and (if web/URL-included) the date of access. (See Help:Citation_Style_1 for a list.)

Please consult the WP:VERIFY policy for expectations regarding citation expectations. Please do not add content without a citation, and do not add further URL-only (bare URL) citations. Eighteen of such citations were all fixed today. Editing badly simply creates messes for others to clean up.

Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We are a wiki.  That means that everyone does what they can.  I would rather have a verifiable fact than no verifiable fact.  I would rather have a bare-link cite than no cite. These positions are reflected in policy. Thank you for completing these  citations. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC).


 * A statement added that has no source is not a verifiable fact. It is the beginning of a time-wasting research project for another editor that is either more disciplined, or is more committed to the WP guidelines on encyclopedic writing (see following).
 * Specifically, placing content that is not verifiable is contrary to WP:VERIFY and WP:CITE. (Please make clear the origins of any statement to the contrary, in specific policies. What you or I "would rather" is immaterial; we operate under the site's rules, not the individual preferences of the thousands of editors. To do so would be chaos.)
 * And while this is a wiki, it is—unlike the many various other wikis—an encyclopedia, and much of WP policy is set out to make clear what it means to present encyclopedic, versus non-encyclopedic writing (and encyclopedic, versus non-encyclopedic sourcing). WP:VERIFY and WP:CITE makes clear what is expected of this wiki's encyclopedic writing. Incomplete sources are the poorest possible way to indicate a source, and are disrespectful of other editors, making necessary that others clean up the (often times) garbage left by another. This element of editorial disrespect also infuses the WP policies and guidelines, and so the goal of getting it right from the start. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * you have an idiosyncratic view of verify. you might want to read WP:DEADREF and Link rot again. start here: "A dead, unarchived source URL may still be useful. Such a link indicates that information was (probably) verifiable in the past, and the link might provide another user with greater resources or expertise with enough information to find the reference. It could also return from the dead. With a dead link, it is possible to determine if it has been cited elsewhere, or to contact the person originally responsible for the source." Duckduckstop (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is value in a dead reference. But it is not immediately traceable, and so is not useful to general readers—for whom we purport to be creating these articles—and it is ridiculously unhelpful for student in training (and WP's image), as students are regularly told to judge articles from WP on the basis of the citations they provide. Hence I concur with WP:DEADREF, but in citing just that bit of text, you miss all the rest that talks about providing full citations, which are even easier to renew, through the additional information they contain, and you ignore the reams of text that appear encouraging people to do the very thing I am—to make citations complete. I am done arguing this. The whole of policy and guidelines support my request. That it is idiosyncratic I cannot argue; that most articles are rife with plagiarism, blocks of text lacking any citation, littered arrays of citations that are incomplete or dead—all these point to the fact that your laissez-faire attitude is closer to predominant, than not. Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced, undated, unverifiable presentation of company information
The following is moved here because there is neither a general source for the information, nor specific sources for each entry. It and the table are a bad precedent, and simply invite further additions without verifiability. It is placed here to save the content, until someone can take the time, to provide a source for all of the content, or individual sources of the entries appearing:

Acquisition history
The following is an illustration of the company's major mergers and acquisitions and historical predecessors (this is not a comprehensive list):

I would also note that the clade approach is misapplied here: it is very difficult to maintain (i.e., for others to add new entries), confusing to add citations should they be found, and demands WP:OR when a found source does not fully make clear the relationship of an acquisition to earlier ones. (Inherent to biological clade-type presentations, which contains not only the entry information, but also the pictorial information, is information on the relationships between entries, through the lengths of lines, both horizontal and vertical.) It is my relatively informed opinion, that this information, when sourced and returned, would be better presented as a table. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * it doesnt really add any risk of further unsourced additions does it, really?? In less than 5 minutes with google i found each source, quite possibly the easiest thing ever. With more complex and older companies (ie., Pfizer for example) the clades more easily show predecessor and successors and with wikilinks - make them easy to navigate through. XyZAn (talk) 18:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Unhelpful lead list moved here for discussion
The following list of company products lost its sourcing in the article. It was tagged as unsupported by the text, in the lead. This is not helpful. Can someone find a published source, that is not the company, that lists all or many of these products? That way we can re-add the list (or at least part of it) to the lead, without tags:", Adderall XR, Intuniv, Lialda, Pentasa, Fosrenol, Replagal, Elaprase, VPRIV, Firazyr and Dermagraft."

It makes sense not to have material in the lead that is not sourced. It also makes helps to differentiate what is and is not sourced, in a list. But since all of these are not sourced, it becomes cumbersome. Finding an independently published source seems the best option. Thanks. 50.153.159.45 (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Shire (pharmaceutical company). 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20150402130558/http://www.shire.com/shireplc/uploads/report/Q4-2014-Earnings-Release-results-day-final-12-Feb-2015.pdf to http://www.shire.com/shireplc/uploads/report/Q4-2014-Earnings-Release-results-day-final-12-Feb-2015.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130413012313/http://www.shire.com:80/shireplc/en/investors/investorsnews/irshirenews?id=695 to http://www.shire.com/shireplc/en/investors/investorsnews/irshirenews?id=695

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 22:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)