Talk:URS Corporation

August 2012
Shouldn't there be some discussion of the major projects, including large successes and large failures (MN bridge collapse) that this company had? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andythechef (talk • contribs) 20:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You mean like the part that mentions the MN bridge collapse? --Golbez (talk) 20:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2013
Why is there this penchant for redirecting old companies into whatever they've been aborbed/morphed into? For instance, Dames & Moore was its own entity for years, with a history and projects and... existence. Now it's just a footnote to URS. This is not being very true to the idea of preserving information.Cellmaker (talk) 08:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If you can make an article with sufficient history and project information, go for it. But as it was, it was two paragraphs saying that it existed and was a pioneer, without any sourcing. Redirecting to its new owners was the correct thing. But it's not always the only thing - articles on First Union and Wachovia both exist, despite being ancestors of Wells Fargo. In fact, I would say what damned the Dames & Moore article was no sourcing of its assertions of importance, more than anything else. --Golbez (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I want to add that, "preserving information" is not why Wikipedia exists. There is no such principle at work here. If you start at Five pillars and work your way through all the fundamental principles and policies that guide it, there's nothing about preserving anything. In fact, What Wikipedia is not makes clear at several points that Wikipedia is not here as an archive, a memorial, a repository, or an indiscriminate collection of information.Many failed or acquired or merged companies end up as Permastubs, and in many of those cases it is better to fold that material into a broader article. That said, there's no reason why the there can't be more detail on Dames & Moore in this article, if the sources exist to support it. And the old article is always around, in the history, so it can be recovered if need be. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)