Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies/Archive 1

Industry focuses or task forces
I have a current proposal in the WikiProject Council for a health industry wikiproject. I'd be happy to fold that proposal into this project if there is a commitment to have some effort toward specific industry focuses or task forces. My issue with health-related companies is probably the same for all industries -- too many articles are written like brochures rather than proper encyclopedic articles. Further, I think it's important to cover both the positive and negative aspects of companies. Would a health industry focus be welcome here? Thanks. Stevie is the man! Talk &bull; Work 06:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Stevie - I think task forces for specific industries are a great idea for attracting participants to this project, and would encourage their creation. I'll add a section to the main project page for listing related task forces and then please feel free to sign up for the main project and start a health industry task force.  Please note this WikiProject is just starting so any other comments or suggestions for improvements are more than welcome!!  Cheers! Richc80 05:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Banner for Project

 *  Mi r a n da  21:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Taskforce for credit agencies and data aggregation companies
I was wondering whether the WP Companies team thought it would be worth starting a taskforce specifically focused on credit agencies and similar companies? My thought is that these articles need special attention for the following reasons:
 * Highly noteworthy attracting much media and regulatory attention due to the nature of their businesses, especially due to data quality and privacy/big brother issues. (See for example ChoicePoint, Experian.)
 * Are often started as POV articles biased against the companies
 * Seem to be more often edited by the companies themselves than other industries. See for example ChoicePoint, Experian, Equifax and possibly TransUnion
 * Are complex organisations whose articles could benefit from having a variety of editors working on them. For example see the problematic Florida voter section of ChoicePoint
 * Seem yet to have a common article structure (contrast LexisNexis which is written about from a product perspective against TransUnion, which is almost at stub status despite its large size).

Any thoughts? CheersSaganaki- 04:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm in let me know what you need / where to start. I've already started searching the 'Big Three'. --Patrick Fleischman 19:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Project Proposal
I would like to propose a project, but I am not sure if I should propose it here on the Companies page or with the Wikiproject Council. Some advice would be greatly appreciated. Kpapadopoulos 15:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you are trying to see if others would be interested in joining your proposed project, my advice would be to propose it on the Wikiproject Council page first and then post a message on the talk page of related projects linking to that proposal and asking interested people to sign-up. Assuming that it is related to companies in some way, then one of those messages would be here.  Alternatively if you are looking for feedback on whether your proposal will make a "good" project, feel free to tell us about it here and we can give you our thoughts.  Either way, good luck! Richc80 13:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for you help!Kpapadopoulos 14:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Merged companies
How are articles about merged companies managed? A user keeps on deleting the content of the Web.com article since the company has merged with Website Pros on Oct 1st. All other examples I can think of in the moment keep their own - updated articles - like Macromedia or Ulead. I think there are plenty of reasons to keep the Web.com article. It was traded on NASDAQ as late as last week and they are still selling products over their website. Please advice. --Peter Eisenburger 14:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting question, and I don't believe there is any specific policy on this. My personal view is that if a company was notable enough for an article before becoming defunct (either through merger or liquidation) then continuing to have an article for it is valid, and information from prior to a merger / liquidation certainly continues to be encyclopedic.  We also have .  Have you tried talking wih the editor in question about why they insist on a redirect?  I'd also recommend reading Wikipedia's article on conflict resolution.  Cheers. Richc80 00:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I had used the defunct template and also made some minor changes to the article. See my comment below.--Peter Eisenburger 07:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Richc80. The companies you mention all have existing product lines, which is the primary focus of those pages.  This page that was merged is different in that it was part of the companies history.  That company (and its' history) is now part of another company's page, which already makes mention of the prior company.  I appreciate the dialogue as this does help.--Obgydd 17:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I moved your comment to the right section. - I think you misinterpreted Rich's post. A merger can be no reason to delete an article altogether over night. There is much reason to keep the information for our readers as all the other examples show. And of course the history of a bought company is not part of the history of the buyer but stays in its own right. Wikipedia has lots of articles about history (things that are over). E.g. a country that has been incorporated by a bigger country once in time sure keeps its own article.
 * Please consider that a "redirect" in effect means a "deletion" that you made in a very unilateral way. However I am happy that you are open to dialogue. Let's give other readers the choice to read the text of Web.com too. For that purpose I will restore the article. Please don't delete again but take part in the discussion and hear what others say.--Peter Eisenburger 07:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll add this here, rather than start a new section, since it is to do with merged companies. Is there a consistent way to deal with the foundation dates of a company that is formed from two or more with separate dates of their own.  I've seen the latest date put (when A & B became A-B) and the earliest (A alone).  What is the preferred method of giving this info? Cheers, Lindsay 10:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Lindsay, thanks for your post. I've brought this up over at the talk page for the Infobox Company template (see discussion here).  My preference is that the foundation date should be the latest (when A&B became A-B).  In my view there are a couple of benefits to that:
 * Consistency - uses the date the current entity (A-B) was actually formed, rather than whichever date & history the company chooses to keep (could be A's date, B's date or some other date that the company "traces its history to")
 * If prior entities are notable enough for their own article then the dates between articles will "flow" correctly (e.g. A's date would be 1911, B's date would be 1934, A-B's date would be 1975).  Having that could even let us do something like with a band's discography in the artist infobox, where previous & newer entities are displayed)
 * Information on the other dates could be noted under a Corporate History section. I've had a couple of other editors agree with this suggestion.  Hope this helps! Richc80 (talk) 12:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you. I knew that there must be a previous discussion of this matter somewhere out there, but a brief modicum of searching didn't bring me to it.
 * I think your suggestion certainly makes sense, and answers my question admirably. Thanks again, Cheers, Lindsay 12:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for deletions
Reading your project page I see you recommend major companies with a billion dollar revenue and nearly two thousand employees for deletion because of lacking notability or importance. I deleted one template and wrote sth. on the talk page. I won't go in any further but you should explain your guidelines. And why not first ask for sources before giving them only 5 days? In the case of ABRY a simple Google search showed a lot of media coverage for this company.--Peter Eisenburger 19:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Peter, thanks for your message. To respond to your concerns, the articles that are posted on this talk page were not nominated for deletion by this project, nor are we making a "sight unseen" recommendation that they be deleted.  We are asking users to post any company articles that they notice have been nominated so that our participants (as interested and hopefully knowledgeable editors) can review that nomination against our notability criteria and then provide an informed view.  I would mention though that the Google search you provided does not demonstrate "a lot of media coverage", plus not all sources are considered reliable.  A more relevant search would be of Google News, which produces far fewer results. 1 2  Cheers. Richc80 23:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for misinterpreting your project, Rich. - In the case of ABRY I think even if you assess fewer sources as "reliable" as me there are hits for this company. However, what I was appealing for is to take care when deleting articles. The sheer size of this company is one argument in the first place.--Peter Eisenburger 07:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Web.com
Again I ask someone please look after what's going on with the Web.com article. See Talk:Web.com. I restored the article for the 3rd or 4th time now. The last edit contained many errors and was written in bad grammar also.--Peter Eisenburger 19:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Dow Chemical Company
FYI - I've opened a Peer Review on the article Dow Chemical Company, which is rated as a GA on the Companies WikiProject. Feel free to comment on the article on its Peer Review subpage, here. Thanks, Rjd0060 (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review for Blackwater Worldwide, please help!
Blackwater Worldwide, an article under this WikiProject, is up for Peer Review to move to Featured Article status. Please help out and offer up reviews, advice, or edits to the article or review at:


 * Peer review/Blackwater Worldwide/archive1

Thanks! Lawrence Cohen 14:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Embarq
I'm pretty sure that Embarq falls into your project's scope, but its discussion page does not have a WikiProject Companies template. Is it true that general Wiki editors may place your template on articles or must an editor be a member of your project to use the template? GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 03:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ...must an editor be a member of your project to use the template - absolutely not! We welcome input from all editors, so be bold and add it! Thanks for your interest in the project! --Gi m lei (talk to me) 08:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I second that - use liberally and often. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 12:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct, and yes, Embarq does fall in the Companies scope. Basketball110  00:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Subpages
In the Resources section of the Main page, I have added a section containing a link to the subpages of the main WikiProject page. This is meant to eliminate the need for manually maintaining such a list and provides a ready reference for newly created subpages, regardless of whether they are discussed here or not. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Published Company Lists
I have created a subpage for the collection of published lists of companies that might be useful in establishing notability. This was prompted by the deletion of C&H Distributors, which was listed 35th on the first list I have added to this page; a comment was made during the AfD that "35 is not ranked very high", which implies that perhaps 1st or 4th might have been garnered more support. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow. Hmmm.  Notability is a vaperous apparition varying greatly depending on who is participating in the subject.  Is Carver_Bancorp notable? How about C._K._Cooper_%26_Company? --Pearrari (talk) 01:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion discussion notification template

 * notice of thread placed on four editors' talk pages

I have created Delsort WPCompanies (see above), which can be affixed to ongoing xfD discussions in conjunction with listing those discussions here. I will not list this on the Main Wikiproject page until after consensus is reached about whether this template should be retained or destroyed and/or modified. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 12:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, as for me, I have nothing against this template, but I can see only marginal benefit in its use in the afd discussions either. If you could enlighten me, I'd happily support. Otherwise, I am pretty much neutral in this respect. --Gi m lei (talk to me) 07:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've generally interpreted this type of addendum to AFD's as advertisement for the notification route and for the WikiProject in general, a different route to raising awareness of the WikiProject than placing banners on talk pages. Also, it provides closing admins with some information on whether or not a small number of responses in a discussion is due to lack or interest in the article's fate or lack of awareness of the article's nomination for deletion. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 12:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Indicating participants who are admins
I took a cue from WikiProject Scouting which I implemented first in WikiProject Anthroponymy and indicated who of the participants are admins in the Members listing. This information was gotten from quick consultation against List of administrators (I wish there was a lookup tool implemented there). I did this without prior discussion, so please revert if you disagree and we can discuss here. Regards User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 20:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks ok. If anyone think its elitist, then we should revert, but otherwise fine. Addhoc (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't explain why I added this notation. It was primarily to let Project Participants know who among us can either restore deleted pages (either to main or user space) or peer into the history of deleted pages.  --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 17:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Brand names section on Main page - expansion
Regarding the section WikiProject Companies, I have made an expansion of the text to explicitely refer to record labels and book imprints. Examples are needed to back up the text, but I thought it good to add these because I don't think the general public looks at these with the same level of recognition "that is a brand" as they do with the consumer goods mentioned earlier in the text. Please feel free to remove the text and discuss it here, or leave it in place and discuss it here. Thanks. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 04:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree this is a good idea on both counts. Examples would definitely be beneficial to ensure the distinction between label/imprint & actual companies/subsidiaries (such as the Big Four or Penguin Group) that should remain in project scope.  Great work as always with improving the project!  Richc80 (talk) 11:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Parentage statement
May I suggest that we state specifically on the Main page that parent of this WikiProject is WikiProject Business and Economics? This parentage is already reflected in Category:WikiProject Business and Economics and at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Directory/History and society. The reason for doing this is to reflect the hierarchical organization in the text of the Project Main page, as is done for many other Projects. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 04:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. --Pearrari (talk) 01:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, helpful clarification. Addhoc (talk) 13:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Banners & Templates section
I have made significant revisions to the 'Banners & Templates' section of the Main Project page, which is now called simply 'Templates'. The revisions include altered wording of instructions including more background text and links; " " formatting for template code (allowing double/triple click for quick use); and significant re-sectionization. The content is not changed in a major way, and I hope it is clearer and easier to use than before. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 04:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Revision to opening inches
I felt that there was a great deal of white space at the opening of the Main page, so I've made a number of revisions that remove much of that white space. I've also added a 'milestones' listing that draws directly from the quality/importance bot-maintained table; this follows from a similar list I created for WikiProject Anthroponymy. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks nice. Addhoc (talk) 13:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Discussion - Foundation Date
I've started a discussion on the Infobox Company talk page regarding what the Foundation Date should be. I'd appreciate the thoughts & contributions of other WikiProject Companies participants on this subject. Thanks! Richc80 (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * contributed --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 11:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

portal link
The template above has been deleted. Unfortunately, the person who has deleted it has also been removing it from articles without replacing it. See these two items:
 * Templates for deletion/Log/2008 February 4
 * User talk:RyanGerbil10
 * --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Working replacement (see right margin):
 * --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 02:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Upload of company logo's
Can someone point me to the procedures for uploading copyrighted company logos to wikipedia? It seems like a low res image is uploaded. Do we take the image from the website and change it to a low res image somehow then upload it with the fair use justification? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Have a look at WP:LOGO.--Addhoc (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have noted this cross reference in WikiProject Companies/Guidelines. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 18:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Inactive/Infrequent Participants
I've created a subpage to list inactive/infrequent participants and moved those struck out by Edibility to that page. I think this helps make the main page more readable without completely losing those users in case they ever come back to Wikipedia. If you have any concerns about this feel free to revert and discuss here. Cheers. Richc80 (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have moved myself to this new page and left an explanatory line there. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirects
There are many wikipedia searches that are not being appropriately redirected to companies, an excellent example is a search for "twa". A search for twa brings up an obscure african tribe. Please help me get this changed back to twa = Trans World Airlines. Thank you. Paco8191 (talk) 03:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I think that Twa going to the tribe helps to counter the rampant systematic bias here. The vast majority of people who are looking for TWA will use 'TWA', all caps, in my opinion. Let's leave it as it is .. afterall, which is more important, a tribe or a multinational company - if the answer is not obvious, it is 'the tribe' (In my opinion). --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 23:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking at the talk page for Twa, Paco8191 has withdrawn his move request after being made aware that Wikipeda search can distinguish between 'Twa' & 'TWA'. Sounds like that makes everyone happy :-).  Cheers. Richc80 (talk) 02:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Archive
Time to archive this page? Any objections? --Edibility (talk) 22:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that moving the deletion items to a subpage would drop the page size by ~50%. (I'm to blame for much of that content) If archiving is to be done manually rather than robotically, is there a way that we could archive so that topics can be found later? --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 23:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Whatever removes the inactive discussions and work lists works for me. This discussion page is just too long. Topics show up on the TOC of archived pages, so do what you can to shrink this page if you want. --Edibility (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Moving deletion-related items reduced the page size by about ¼. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 16:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Can we still proceed with the archiving of old and inactive discussions? --Gi m lei (talk to me) 07:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Maintenance of Portal:Companies
Is there anyone, member or not, interested in maintaining the Companies Portal? Looks like the "Featured Article of the Week" has not been changed since August, and in general the Portal could do with some TLC. Any takers? Cheers Richc80 (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be good to establish what the use cases for the Portal are so that requirements for maintenance and content can be to-do-listed. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 04:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer review request
Since the mission of this WikiProject is to get articles on companies up to GA or FA status, I thought I would post here asking for peer reviews on Elderly Instruments. I started this article from scratch and want to get it up to FA states. The peer review is here. In return for a substantive review, I will review or copyedit the article of your choice - just leave me a note on my talk page. Thanks! --Laser brain (talk) 04:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have applied the Project Banner to this article's talk page with parameters 'class = B' and 'importance = mid'; I have not provided a rationale on the talk page for the class or importance assignment. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 04:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify: Is that your review of the article or is that an intermediate step of some kind? --Laser brain (talk) 04:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither - the article was not tagged as being associated with this WikiProject - that is now rectified. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 04:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a nice article! I left some comments on the talk page. --Edibility (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI, the article is now a Featured Article candidate. --Laser brain (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Congrats on getting this article to FA status! - Richc80 (talk) 04:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Franchises and trade names
What do we do about franshises and trade names? I came across Civic Video, which is a trade name and a franchise, but not actually a company itself. The company is Civic Retailing. Any guidelines on this? --Edibility (talk) 01:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I would put franchises & trade names in the same category as book imprints & record labels, which as discussed above would put them out of scope for this project. So I say tag Civic Retailing if it has an article, but not Civic Video. Richc80 (talk) 04:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't understand that short discussion. Civic Video is a well-known DVD rental store by that name. It's not a legal company name, but it's an active and recognized trade name. The company does not use its legal name as a trade name, and it franchises its trade name. Its trade is conducted via its trade name. I don't think the answer here is "this is not within the scope of this project". Companies create, claim, and control trade names. And those trade names are often what's seen by the general public (rather than an official company name).
 * I'll ask again: How do we deal with this in Wikipedia? --Edibility (talk) 03:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for any misunderstanding, but now I'm not sure what you are asking. What do you mean by "deal with this" if we are not talking about whether they are within project scope?  Richc80 (talk) 03:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia naming conventions for companies with the same name
How do we deal with companies with the same name? --Edibility (talk) 03:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Contributed my thoughts on the naming conventions talk page. Richc80 (talk) 03:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Changing importance guidelines
I think we should change the "Fortune 500" recommendation in rating the importance of a company to a "Fortune Global 500" recommendation. This is because wikipedia usually wants a global worldview in the article and also because the importance ratings directly correlate to global importance at the top two levels.--Finalnight (talk) 03:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Articles Content Guidelines
Currently, we have Companies, corporations and economic information, a part of Manual of Style. I'd like to embark on a difficult and controversial mission of developing somewhat more detailed and thorough guidelines, basing of course on what is already in place. I would not want/dare to do that myself, but rather team up with some people, and collaborate to produce something, in my view, important and valuable to the community. Is anyone up for it? --Gi m lei (talk to me) 07:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm in. Note that a start has also been made to put together something more comprehensive within the WikiProject, so maybe we could build upon that to start with.  Cheers -  Richc80 (talk) 03:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

State Owned Companies
I noticed someone is trying to create a state-owned companies taskforce. I was under the impression that we do not include state-owned companies. The reason being how do you distinguish between a state-owned company, a government institution, a nationalized company, or some weird mix (IE USPS or Amtrak)? Seems like this would only cause further complications and interfere with other WP projects. If we do include, I recommend that we create a special importance rating or limit it to "high" as I have seen possible nationalism from people adding a lot of their home country's companies as "top" or "high" importance when they are clearly not. I am also curious because I have been informally working on quality and importance ratings of the Fortune 500 and Global 500 since I started on Wikipedia and wouldn't mind further guidance--Finalnight (talk) 07:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You raise a really good question here that I hadn't thought of before. Taking a look at a couple of articles it seemed to be clear to me whether or not they should be included (using the examples you gave, USPS is a government agency so is out of scope, Amtrack is setup as a company with stock owned by the government so is in scope) so my gut feeling is to continue including state-owned companies, but I'm willing to be swayed.  If we do include those in scope then I think the taskforce becomes important in making those determinations, I even think we should look at ways indicate within the project banner (as I've seen happen in other Wikiprojects) that the taskforce is involved.  Thanks for all of the work you are doing for this project! Richc80 (talk) 04:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Companies: Articles of unclear notability
Hello,

there are currently 66 articles in the scope of this project which are tagged with notability concerns. I have listed them here. (Note: this listing is based on a database snapshot of 2008-03-12 and may be slightly outdated.)

I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged into an article of larger scope, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see WikiProject Notability.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! --B. Wolterding (talk) 15:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for putting forth the effort to do this work to assist us in increasing Wikipedia article quality. I will endeavor to take a look at several over the next couple of days. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 00:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As an aside - the optional parameter 'companies' may be useful to encourage use of; i.e. (see Template:Notability/doc). --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Person vs. Company
I could use a little guidance (feel free to point where this has been discussed before)... Bringing SS Christopher Columbus to FA status, I and others de-redlinked every ref in it, including Samuel F. Hodge & Company which was created as a stub. This area is not really my wife's interest so I plan to give it a bit more. The company is notable enough in its field, having put the first triple expansion engine in service in the Great Lakes, in SS Roumania, but overall info is scant, so it's not likely to ever be much more than a start or at most B class article... Many 19th century companies were founded by individuals. This one outlasted the founder, with one of the sons taking over, but I don't think by much. Is it appropriate to put the bio of Samuel F. Hodge into this article? It seems he's notable for little else, and his story and the company story are intertwined. What do others do in this area? Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 17:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your post. To my knowledge this question has not been raised before, either within the project or the wider world of Wikipedia, so there is no consensus or example to follow.  My feeling is, based upon the information you provided, that it would make sense to include information about the founder in the company's article. - Richc80 (talk) 04:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Parent company of Singapore Airlines
I have had a long, long dispute on Singapore Airlines with an editor over whether Temasek Holdings is the parent company. I have a long long long long list of sources stating this is the case, and have even quote the Singapore Airlines annual report, where it states '''Singapore Airlines Limited ("the Company") is a limited liability company incorporated in the Republic of Singapore which is also the place of domicile. The Company is a subsidiary company of Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited, incorporated in the Republic of Singapore.''', yet the other editor ignores this, says it does not mean that Temasek is the parent company, removes info, and then claims that Temasek is the parent of the "Singapore Airlines Group of Companies" (which we know is a different animal altogether). I have started the unknownth discussion on the talk page, and hope other project members can weigh in with their input. --Россавиа Диалог 21:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

INTO University Partnerships
I have created INTO University Partnerships. Can your good eyes see any improvements needed? Thanks! BusinessAsUnusual (talk) 10:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Conflict of interest is obvious, and notability needs to be asserted. My impression after a very brief look is that it is just on the borderline so far. --Gi m lei (talk to me) 12:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What conflict of interest? I don't and have never worked for them, if that is what you mean. Notability? I cite articles from British trade, regional, and national newspapers.  The company says it has £400 million in venture capital behind it, and it is changing the way universities work and see themselves. If that isn't worthy of a Wikipedia article then I don't know what is. I was hoping for constructive suggestions of better categories to put it in, wikilinks to make, info I may have overlooked, etc. BusinessAsUnusual (talk) 22:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Pool Re
Most of this article has been deleted as a probable copyright violation (the material was added in January 2006 and removed a couple of days ago). I'm not certain if it is within the scope of this project or not, but it could do with some attention and watchlisting. Thryduulf (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

style guideline?
Companies, corporations and economic information was marked with "Template:Style-guide", but there were only a few pages that used that template and it's been deprecated. I'm wondering whether to include this page in the "Wikipedia style guidelines" category. It's shorter than other pages in that cat, and it's seen very little traffic over the last couple of years. Does anyone from this wikiproject want to go have a look and decide if it's a useful style guideline? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree in it's current form it is not much of a style guideline, but that there is some useful information there. I think it makes sense for this project to work on creating a more comprehensive guideline (a rough draft has been started) for inclusion in the category.  A couple of project members have expressed an interest in participating, but we've yet to make any substantial progress.  Thanks for bringing this to our attention!  - Richc80 (talk) 09:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks Richc80. I'm going to un-watchlist; please either let me know or post a message at WT:MoS when you guys have something that you'd like included in the style guidelines category.  There isn't any official process to be included, but we like to keep track. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Draft guidelines for lists of companies by country - Review Requested
I've created a draft set of guidelines for the various lists of companies by country. The quality of these lists varies greatly, and several have been subject to AFD discussions in the past. I think it would be good if this project could help facilitate improvements to these lists to ensure a minimum quality standard and consistency across all. Please review the draft guidelines, make edits as you see fit and discuss any major changes on the talk page. Thanks for your help! Richc80 (talk) 09:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Assessment Request Stave Puzzles
Myself and a couple of new editors just created an article about our favorite jigsaw puzzle company Stave Puzzles, we added it to this project and as this was my first article written about a company I would like to get an assessment of its quality and importance from an editor more familiar with company articles. Thanks in advance. --Captain-tucker (talk) 09:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Was this acted on by anyone? --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No action so far, Thanks.--Captain-tucker (talk) 09:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

New look for WikiProject Companies Main Page
I thought that the WikiProject Companies page could use a makeover to make it more user friendly and readable. To that end, I've put together a mock-up for a new page here. I'd appreciate any feedback, either by replying here or making constructive edits directly to the mock-up. Thanks for contributing to the success of this project and Wikipedia! - Richc80 (talk) 01:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to a radical change such as that proposed. Sometimes a shift like this can breath new life into a project.  I think that providing a far more succinct entry page than used by most WikiProjects is beneficial.
 * What do you think about using the brevity of the top-page to our benefit by emphasizing some aspect of the WikiProject on an occasional basis? I am thinking about a section box entitled "Quarterly Message for Q{#} 200{#}" with subtext "a message from the WikiProject to provide focus".  This could be anything from a four-word highlighted phrase like "Companies are people too" followed by a paragraph on the application of BLP guidelines to companies (just a thought) to something like "Goal for the quarter: zero unassessed articles".  No statement would be put up without ample (quorum) discussion.
 * This quarterly statement would be something that could encourage non-participants to act on the Project's behalf and, perhaps, draw at least one new member in per quarter (I don't know what the current addition rate is .. interesting thing to look into, though, across WikiProjects in general).
 * --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's a great idea, thanks as always for the feedback! I've added your suggestion, along with my thought on the first quarterly message (it would be good to get all company articles tagged for the project).  I'll keep working on the formatting and getting the remaining pages setup, and then unless there are any major objections will launch the new page before the end of this weekend! - Richc80 (talk) 04:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the proposed layout would catch my attention more. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Revamp of portal?
In a similar vein to the above, I've been mocking up some ideas for a new-look portal here. Any feedback would be appreciated at Portal talk:Companies. Best, Gr1st (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I love it! I am not so keen on having a list of categories in a portal, but that is just a personal preference. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, bumped a better-looking category tree off to the index subpage. Anyone have any more thoughts before I deploy this for real? Gr1st (talk) 21:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I do: I love it even more. But please comment out the link to Portal:Co-operatives (yes I know it was me that asked for it to be added, but that portal seems to be broken right now.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There is one small problem to tidy up before I deploy this: the two-column category tree apparently only works in Firefox - it just sits in one column in IE and Safari, meaning a huge amount of white space on the right. Any suggestions for a better way to lay this out (or a fix for the column problem)? Gr1st (talk) 21:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've rolled out the new-look portal. Would appreciate the highlighting of any errors/possible improvements. Cheers, Gr1st (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks great! I couldn't find any errors. --Patrick (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Any chance your project wants to take on business executives?
Earlier I tried to clean up the article on Leslie Moonves, CEO of CBS Corporation and in 2007 the second-best paid S&P 500 executive (see salary reference I added to his infobox). It was filled with TV watcher's trivia, which I reduced but didn't eliminate.

It would be nice to get at least the following business biographies (10 best paid S&P CEOs) cleaned up and fleshed out:
 * 1) John Thain, Merrill Lynch, $83.1 million
 * 2) Les Moonves, CBS Corp., $67.6 million
 * 3) Richard Adkerson, Freeport-McMoran Copper & Gold Inc., $65.3 million
 * 4) Bob Simpson (executive) (not in current version of Bob Simpson (disambiguation)), XTO Energy Inc., $56.6 million
 * 5) Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman Sachs Group Inc., $53.9 million
 * 6) Kenneth Chenault, American Express Co., $51.7 million
 * 7) Eugene Isenberg, Nabors Industries Ltd., $44.6 million
 * 8) John J. Mack, Morgan Stanley, $41.7 million
 * 9) Glenn Murphy, Gap Inc., $39.1 million
 * 10) Ray R. Irani, Occidental Petroleum Corp., $34.2 million

Thanks. 67.101.7.149 (talk) (a.k.a. 68.167.254.135 (talk)) 10:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC).

Introduction of C-Class
As you all may or many not know, the WP Assessment team is adding a new C-Class to the assessment scale to fall between B Class and Start Class. Since it is optional for individual projects to use, I think we need to decide if we will be adopting this or not. Thanks.--Finalnight (talk) 21:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The community needs to decide the definitions (and examples) of B and C class. Won't that take months?  When they emerge, we can decide if people here want to do more assessments, or write articles. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 23:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think of doing an assessment and writing an article as not mutually exclusive activities. Nonetheless, the key question here is how would the implementation of an additional class (C-class) benefit the WikiProject's contributing to the Encyclopedia.  This class axis tends to deal with article structure and "completeness", so I agree that the consensus as to how to define this class might take a long time. I think that the low-med-high axis of importance is more relevant to prioritization of editing activity by a WikiProject as this is a measure of how important a particular topic is to the subject area as a whole.  The A-B-C class axis is more of a milestone bar and I feel that such "structural" classes should emerge from natural editing activity than be striven for -- meaning that they should be assigned by an "outside committee" (relative to the WikiProject) or by bot (based on a clear rule-set).  In those external-measure cases, it doesn't matter if C-class is added or not.  The 'Good Article' and 'Featured Article' classes are where the two axes converge and are considered together (at least for FA). --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like it was implemented faster than we thought, I have added the proper code to the banner.--Finalnight (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup
Currently, 959 of the articles assigned to this project, or 33.2%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 2008-06-18.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subsribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
 * The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
 * The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
 * A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot  ( Disable )  22:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

UK Companies
Is there a section dealing with UK (England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Island) companies, or do they just come under the companies project, as most of them will be insignificant to Americans and others, but have some local significance, and bringing articles to peoples attention can help to get them expanded as a lot of niche groups have created articles but only categorised then in there niche area and not as companies. But bringing article to greater viewing prominence can then lead to calls for AfD. rather than them receiving constructive editing and expansion to get them to a reasonable quality. Some articles could be a Bio or a Company article, but appear to be nither or.

I'm unsure if to join WP Companies as already involved in other UK Area projects, which obliviously cover the companies in the local areas in there scope of work, ut some UK Areas do not have projects looking at them. - BulldozerD11 (talk) 01:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the phenomenon you describe is called a walled garden. But attracting readers is never harmful.  I created an article for a small UK company last week, Northern Co-operative Society.  Someone tagged it for notability within seconds, but I was soon able to improve the referencing, and hopefully it is going to stay.


 * Don't feel you have to join a WikiProject to work on a topic (if that is your concern.) If you don't, it can still be helpful to put a project's page on your watchlist, to keep an eye on what editors that share your interest are talking about.


 * --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Robotshop up for deletion
FYI, Articles for deletion/Robotshop. Banj e boi  21:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

company template guidelines
Are there any parameters for template content/purpose? I'm having an issue with the existence of Intrawest resorts and the response I'm getting from the template's creator (also the author of articles on resorts owned by that company) is that "people want to read more about places owned by Intrawest", rather than "people who want to read about other ski resorts". I ran into the same thing with Ski resorts in the Canadian Rockies, which had only resorts owned by Resorts of the Canadian Rockies Inc. (formerly titled Resorts of the Canadian Rockies, which is a clever corporate name in this search-engine happy age, no? I changed the Cdn Rockies template around to actually be about resorts in the Rockies (and not ones outside owned by Resorts of the Canadian Rockies, Inc.).  This Intrawest one, aside from the recognizable spin-doctor responses of the author, is also of issue because of the context of the article I found it on Whistler Blackcomb, which is the site of the alpine and sliding events for the 2010 Olympics; my concerns about that are laid out on Template talk:Intrawest resorts.  I've posted this already on WikiProject Canada but I came here wondering if there are corporate-usage guidelines.  I think the template is spam/promotion and wonder how many also might be seen as such; Weyerhaeuser is an entirely different type of company template; but my discussion companion trotted out Disney resorts and Six Flags and (mistakenly} cited Canada's railway hotels as if it were CP Hotels. Disney and Six Flags and chateau gothic hotel buildings are definitely of thematic interest; but are resorts, simply because they have the same owner(s)?Skookum1 (talk) 04:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw the WP:BFAQ notice in the intro to the project page; should I post it there or leave it to someone more polite?Skookum1 (talk) 04:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * RE company templates (nav boxes) For an example UK articles have several single company ones but are often used with others of a more general nature so navigation of both general subject and the corporate structure is possible (due to regional branding & take overs companies operate with various names). See First_Group, were there is a company template for the large no of subsidiaries, and regional templates to navigate the competition / other operators to balance. I would say create a simple one listing all Canadian resort operates (with wiki pages) or all Resort Areas in Canada, theme. The rockies resort article has little content any way in its present form (detailed history not examined) to be considered corporate hype. My view is that template boxes form a neat way of offering navigation without the WP:Lists problem or righting a great load of rubbish to put it in prose thats just padding out whats neater as a list. (just my 2 cents for what its worth). They also allow the same info to be consistent through multiple articles, and update all articles with one edit. - BulldozerD11 (talk) 10:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The Rockies template had resorts owned by the company in question, and did not list other Rockies resorts (i.e. Powder King, among others( but it did list corporate-owned ones in the Selkirks and Monashees. But only theirs, not all.....Skookum1 (talk) 13:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Skookum1, have you actually read and looked at what it says above, as I'm talking about have one company template and A more general one in an article to cross link " ALL Resorts in the Rockies, the world" or what ever criteria editors feel is valid groupings. you opinion that its corporate spam is unjustified. If you feel a general template navbox linking Resorts in general serves a purpose make one. But as its more general would sit below the current one. IMO. - BulldozerD11 (talk) 17:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's common to have company navboxes list assets and subsidiaries, so I don't have a problem with the wholly (or partly) owned resorts such as Panorama Mountain Village being there. As a compromise move to end the stand-off at Template talk:Intrawest resorts, however, I'd suggest that entries such as the "Club Intrawest" group (which just link to the nearest city or town rather than an actual property) be removed as they don't serve the purpose for which navboxes are intended. Gr1st (talk) 11:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure there's a standoff, per se. There's one editor, going to any page he can find on Wikipedia, calling me a "spin doctor," spammer, and "kibitzer."  Then, you have him saying he's going to make other navboxes, simply so he can place them "above" Template:Intrawest resorts on the Intrawest articles.  Hello, WP:POINT, how are you?  If you'd like to remove the Club Intrawest links, that's fine.  But I think doing it to resolve a "standoff" and appease an editor who has deemed me an agent of the "corporatization of Wikipedia" and the template I created "near-spam" is a bit of a slap in the face.    user:j    (aka justen)   13:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't call you' a spin doctor I said your responses were spin doctor responses because they sound exactly like them. An I said your template has the effect of spam, I didn't say you were a spammer.  But adjusting what people said to waht you'p prefer had been said.....well, I'm not going to lecture about ducks.  The point above theat hte Club Intrawest links don't even go to resorts, but to towns....this is also what I found on another resort company page - a list of links that claimed to be for the resorts, but were actually only for the towns where they were located (Great Wolf Lodge or Grey Wolf Lodge or some such).  To me a corporate tempalte should have stuff like the Weyerhaeuser template, plus real subsidiaries.  I think the use of tempaltes such as the one I've encountered here is dangerously close to spam, and taht care must be taken in their design and in their use.  Pretending that this is the best template to put on Whistler Blackcomb because "people may want to read about Intrawset" rather than other ski resorts is silly; or sad, if you actually believe that's why people read ski resort pages.  I'll go ahead and make the otehr template, and I'm expecting to see changes on this one that make an effort to not seem like spam.  BTW spin doctors always give personal umbrage that they're not when their activities are pointed out; I'm not saying you're a spin doctor, but I am saying you're behaving like one.Skookum1 (talk) 13:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Mis-citing links is also a trait of.....in this case pointing to the Canada's railway hotels tempalte as if it were CPH's (thet comparison is more to a general ski resorts tempalte, really) and in the tempalte itself making sure people knew about Club Intrawest, even though there were no articles on those resorts (presumably because they're not notable enough to warrant them).Skookum1 (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:NPA. You can't say "spin doctors always give personal umbrage that they're not" and then say you're not attacking an individual editor.  You are.  Stop.    user:j    (aka justen)   14:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Skookum1, you need to start assuming good faith in questioning j's motives - calling him a "kibitzer", etc. isn't constructive. As to my comments above - in hindsight, I could probably have worded them better. Here's what I was trying to say - as the Club Intrawest links, for example, just link to cities and towns rather than a relevant article, they're really of no practical use in what is a navigational template. I don't agree that the navbox is spam (or near-spam, a template which links the various assets of a company is useful), but I do think it should slimmed down to contain only links to properties which Intrawest owns. Gr1st (talk) 14:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Done.   user:j    (aka justen)   14:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, what's left is a collection of links to the notable assets of a notable company - any further accusations of spam will be misplaced in my opinion. Let's hope we can all leave it at that. Gr1st (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This conversation is apparently continuing here: Template_talk:Intrawest_resorts   user:j    (aka justen)   16:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Bank of China (Hong Kong) FAR
Bank of China (Hong Kong) has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 01:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Reassessment Request
Hi. I've been working on the Odwalla article, and I'm wondering if I could get a reassessment. I got one from Wikiproject Food and Drink, who made it C-class, and I feel I've addressed a lot of the issues, so I'm looking for some more feedback. Thanks. If you could leave your comments somewhere on the talk page, that'd be great. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 17:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Stock ticker symbols in introduction
For those articles where the stock symbol (i.e. ) is in the infobox, I want to remove it from the first sentence of the article. This is to reduce clutter. Any objections? --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it does make the article look particularly cluttered myself, and there's nothing in the Manual of Style which discourages this as far as I know. There are featured articles (such as El Al) which have the ticker in the lead. If you want to remove the symbol from a particular article, go ahead, but I'm not sure that going round the hundreds and hundreds of articles that have this is really necessary. Gr1st (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What if someone just copies the article to a word processor to print but doesn't copy the infobox. If I had to choose between the infobox and next-to-the-comapny's-name-in-brackets, I'd go with the latter. It would allow us to have a more generic infobox across listed and unlisted companies. But it's not a huge deal and if you feel strongly enough, take Gr1st's advice! Zain Ebrahim (talk) 16:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see a problem with the ticker symbol appearing in both places, but I agree with Zain Ebrahim; it might be better to pull them from the infobox than the lead section. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 16:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

We may be used to skip past the ticker symbols but new readers might be confused by it. I think it's better to keep the introduction as readable as possible. If somebody copies the article without the infobox, well then he will miss out on all the quick facts. I know business websites often have a linked ticker symbol after all company names, but that is mostly to drive traffic to their affiliated stock trading sites I think.

I'm not going to systematically change all company articles. Just a few so we have a discussion about it and develop a consensus.

We are also discussing the same thing right now at Talk:Sun Microsystems --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we already have a consensus: you have three editors who think the symbol should stay in the intro. sentence, and add me as a fourth one. Please to not do any removals that are contrary to this consensus.  Thanks! UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * So, can I hear some arguments for having stock tickers right after the name in the intro? They are external links with I think make them especially inappropriate as the first thing in the article. --Apoc2400 (talk) 09:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * While I think the burden rests firmly on the editor proposing to change consensus (i.e. you), I'll humor you and give you one: I think the main reason is to have a consistent style between the public company articles that don't have the infobox (the vast majority) and those that do have the infobox. I do not think these external links are problematic; in every case they go to an extrememly reliable site (the exchange); surely you are not arguing that their use is linkspam? UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is any such "burden of proof" rule here, and I have provided several reasons. Still, since it seems the tickers don't bother others much I will drop this for now. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the inline ticker links should be dropped from articles that have infoboxes, as being excessive linking. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 01:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Public Companies
I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies) around my opinion that every publicly traded company in any stock exchange of the world, with a market capitalization of at least $100 million or currency equivalent, deserves at least a stub. I think it's enough to meet notability requirements. Please go there to let me what you think.

BTW - help me expand my worldwide List of companies paying monthly dividends. -- Itemirus  Talk Page  16:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

New stub
Hi guys, I'm not experienced with making articles about companies but I've started Cee Kay Supply by a request. Whilst the article might avoid a speedy deletion, I'm not conviced the references provided to me qualify the company for notability (the first two are identical, so smack of "press release") I'd appreciate either an expansion, or a PROD if you don't think it cuts the mustard. Thanks for any opinion, Marasmusine (talk) 08:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

New Article
I have a new article at User:Patrice58/Subpage which I would like you to look at and improve and or list ways I can improve the article thanks. Patrice58 (talk) 00:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Asus contains apparent opinion / editorializing with suspicious cites
Asus contains a section Asus with what looks to me like opinion / editorializing, and which is cited to various online forums and blogs which would seem to me to fail WP:RELIABLE. Could people who are familiar with this topic please review this and adjust anything that needs it? Thanks. -- 201.17.36.246 (talk) 00:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Concur - that was completely unsourced ranting. I've removed it until reliable sources can be added. Kuru  talk  02:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments
Can I get some comments on my proposal, here  C t j f 8 3 Talk 19:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Companies
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Use of template:Portal
See the difference between and. For me the statistics difference is made by the use of template:portal. Jamcib (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, that template should be used much more widely. Have added it to the pages of the Dow components as a start. Gr1st (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Pending GA Delisting
The Hershey Company, an article within this project's scope, is currently undergoing a GAR for potential delisting due to it no longer meeting GA criteria 1-3 (well written, well referenced, and comprehensive). See Talk:The Hershey Company for the full breakdown. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

New Article Review Please
I am looking to create a new article for Abaca Technology Corp, an anti-spam provider. I do in fact work with the company. I was told that this is the best place to get feedback on the article etc.

Would definitely appreciate some help/feedback/comments or someone to steer me in the right direction.

Draft on my user page

Thanks in advance Jbiggs19 (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Statistics
Now are the statistics traffic of the portal better. But ther is only 1000 articles tagged by Companies portal Please help me to add it on more articles... Jamcib (talk) 18:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

New wikiproject banner template redirect - short and easy
For Use format

 

Created Template:WPCO ("WPC" was already in use) which redirects to Template:WikiProject Companies. I think this will ease our finger strain in addressing the 10,000 articles not yet tagged with the wikiproject banner.

--User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 13:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Good idea, as trying to remember all these project codes (and typing them outs a pain. Ill add it to a few more Company articles now. but there appears a large backlog on assessing articles. Would a division to sub grouping be an idea, e.g US, UK, HK, China, Germany, French etc. ? - BulldozerD11 (talk) 02:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The country-based division is already available through the categorization of the articles to subcategories of Category:Companies by country; I do see that there's quite a bit of overcategorization going on there in my opinion (e.g. Category:Mobile phone companies of Abkhazia and Category:Airlines of Anguilla, for instance). --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 21:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Opportunities for writers: the 10 biggest cooperatives
If you are interested, they are listed at WikiProject Cooperatives#Opportunities for writers: the 10 biggest cooperatives

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Adobe Systems mergers and acquisitions at PR
Hi, I've listed List of Adobe Systems mergers and acquisitions for a PR at Peer review/List of Adobe Systems mergers and acquisitions/archive1 if anyone has the time to post a review. Thanks! Gary King ( talk ) 21:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Harman Becker company is not in Wikipedia (English)
Been looking for it in Wikipedia, did not find it. There is a German page, though. Thanks, Marasama (talk) 14:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 

Lists of German companies by employees
I am currently creating several lists of German companies by employees, see List of German companies by employees in 1907. The years 1938, 1973 and 1995 will follow. Most of the companies have no Wikipedia article, so going through this would be a great way of improving Wikipedia's coverage of historic companies. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

C-class articles for WP INDIA
Hi! We at WP:INDIA are debating the introduction of C-class articles for our assessment. Since WP:COMPANIES has been using the C-class ratings for quite a while now, could someone from this project please weigh in on Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics? We need to know:


 * 1) If the implementation of C-class has been effective for this project?
 * 2) Does C-class articles involve more red tape?
 * 3) Are the lines of distinction between Start and C, and Start and B classes blurred?
 * 4) Does C-class complicate the assessment process?

Eagerly awaiting feedback. Thanks, =Nichalp   «Talk»=  09:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Instead of the first bullet point above, we'd like know something a little more specific. Has the implementation of C-class been worthwhile overall? If so, how? (Has there been evidence of an increase in the quantity or quality of output by the introduction of this grade?) Thanks, Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sinclair Research
Sinclair Research has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Ruslik (talk) 08:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

RFC on a section in Ernst & Young
A user has requested comment on a disputed section in the Ernst & Young article. It revolves around including information on a worker who died of exhaustion. Please see Talk:Ernst & Young/Archives/2013 to offer your opinions. Thanks. Woody (talk) 00:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Barings Bank
I’m surprised this article has not received an assessment yet. Can somebody assess this please--Rockybiggs (talk) 11:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. I figure it is C class right now. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Concern over corporate article
If possible, could I request some eyeballs at Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc., as I'm concerned that the article is being used as a marketing tool, as well as being heavily edited by users that have a conflict of interest. The article has been heavily edited by an IP that, according to WHOIS information, belongs to the corporation concerned. I've tagged the article for a lack of referencing and reading like an advert, and would appreciate some input from editors familiar with the subject matter. Many thanks,  Gazi moff  10:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Advice requested - BMW Motorrad
BMW Motorrad is a division, not a subsidiary, of German automobile manufacturer BMW. BMW Motorrad, which manufacturers and sells motorcycles, has its own websites and its own general director. There was formerly a single BMW motorcycles article on Wikipedia that was very long, covering both past and current production of BMW motorcycles since 1923. Some time last year the article was split into two: BMW Motorrad and History of BMW motorcycles, with the former concentrating on the company itself. Does a division of a company merit an article or should the two articles be merged back into one general article about BMW motorcycles again? I personally favour two articles, but an editor has commented on the talk page today that it isn't needed so I thought I would ask here. --TimTay (talk) 14:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi TimTay, great question. My thought is that a division of a company, like a subsidiary, can have it's own article so long as that division by itself meets the notability criteria for companies.  in short, this means that the division has received "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources".  Note that for this purpose there is an important distinction between coverage of a product produced by the company (which is typically considered trivial coverage of the company) and coverage of the company itself.  My personal view is that having the separate article makes sense (not that this could prevent its existence being challenged of course!), although I would suggest


 * 1) Adding a source for the history information that meets the notability criteria for companies
 * 2) Adding more information about how this division became prominent enough to warrant its own website and general director (during a company re-org perhaps?)


 * Hope this helps! Richc80 (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Great help, thanks. I will see if any information can be found about the division itself as the BMW Motorrad article does seem to be more about the products rather than the division, in which case it should be about BMW motorcycles (the product) rather than BMW Motorrad (the division of BMW). If I cannot then maybe it would make sense to merge the articles back. Opinions from others on this would be very welcome. --TimTay (talk) 15:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The "Division" has no start date, no legal definition, no history. Maybe you or someone else can create it. The "Division" seems to be a marketing ploy based on the German for "BMW Motorcycles". It seems to appear in the 1990's as a marketing ploy with no legal basis. For the article to exist a legal basis will be required. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.116.112 (talk) 12:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just curious, under what basis do you make the assertion that "for the article to exist a legal basis will be required"? I do not see anything in WP:CORP which indicates that.  Thanks! Richc80 (talk) 13:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

After some consideration, and the excellent advice given here, I have changed the focus of the article slightly. BMW Motorrad's position as a business unit with the Corporate and Brand Development division means that it is probably best represented as a brand rather than a distinct company - even though it has a separate General Director. This principle is already established on Wikipedia with another BMW brand - Mini (BMW) so I feel this is the right way forward with the article. Hopefully others will concur. --TimTay (talk) 14:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Milestone Announcements
I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 (t, c) 21:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Shop Direct Group
Shop Direct Group is in the news having just purchased Woolworths (UK). It is the UK's largest retail company, but its entry on Wikipedia is in need of a little TLC. Thought I'd give you guys a nudge. --Jza84 |  Talk 21:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

needs-infobox field in template?
Would it not be a good idea to have a |needs-infobox= field added to the project template? __meco (talk) 15:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Does this provide us with a way to identify and therefore address all company articles without an infobox? If so, I'm all for this but do not know how to implement it!  Many thanks for the suggestion. - Richc80 (talk) 13:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

How does this relate to WikiProject Business?
In tagging railroad articles, I've seen the occasional tag for one of these projects. Which, if either, belongs? (My personal belief is that neither really does, since WikiProject Trains is de facto a subproject of both, but I'd like to hear what you think.) --NE2 00:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If nobody responds, I will remove business and companies tags from railroad article talk pages. --NE2 10:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please leave it on companies (but not other rail articles.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 07:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? Does anyone here do anything about rail company articles (example: Wichita, Tillman and Jackson Railway)? --NE2 07:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Have WikiProject Texas or WikiProject Oklahoma contributed to the example article you provided either? I see the main goal of tagging articles by Wikiprojects as providing editors interested in an article with a place to go to ask questions and understand how other articles in that category are typically put together.  NE2 - I do appreciate what you are saying, but I'm concerned that I see no evidence of a link between WikiProject Trains and this project on the Trains site.  Without that link we may end up going off in different directions on how these articles are put together, which goes against what I consider to be our goal of creating consistency among all Company articles, regardless of which industry they are in.  Thanks for checking in with us on this! - Richc80 (talk) 13:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you're asking, but I'm a WP Trains member and I rewrote that article. What consistency does WP Companies wish to bring to the article? --NE2 13:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You had posed the question about whether any project participants do anything about rail company articles, and cited an example. I was just pointing out that, to me, the "worthiness" of tagging an article (any, not just the example provided) within scope of a Wikiproject should not solely be judged by contributions.  My main concern is that articles on railroad companies appear, from my quick glance, to be from the "rail" perspective and not a "corporation" perspective.  For example, there is the Infobox template for railroads which provides information specific to railroads but excludes a lot of the corporate information that still applies to these organizations and is found in the Infobox Company template (financial information, # of employees, locations, parent, subsidiaries, founder etc.).  Given this my thought is that we should work more closely together to cover railroad articles from all angles.  Thanks again. - Richc80 (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So you're saying there should be two infoboxes? Sorry, but no. If you feel strongly about this, I suggest you work with WP Trains to get all that in infobox rail. --NE2 15:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologise for not being clearer in my previous post (was being rushed out of a hotel!). I agree there should only be one infobox and am happy to work with WP Trains on that.  My point is that both projects (WP Trains & WP Companies) should work together going forward on items such as this to ensure that we are in sync.  Finally, to answer your original question I believe that the WikiProject Companies tag does belong on railroad articles.  Thanks again for bringing up this discussion! - Richc80 (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

[undent]I was here about the item below, but just to note that railway companies often have wide-ranging subsidiaries far beyond their homebase rail operations; Canadian Pacific being may be the grand-daddy of them all; Cominco (Columbia Mining & Smelting) is one such subsidiary, Marathon Realty yet another. Also in the case of the British Columbia Electric Railway Company, despite its name by the 1930s/1940s it had become primarily an electric utility, and was as "BC Electric" (as it was known for short, or BCE) the main founding componenet of BC Hydro.Skookum1 (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Granby Mines
Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mining..Skookum1 (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. &mdash; Delievered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

McLean Group of Companies - prod
Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_British_Columbia.Skookum1 (talk) 01:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Capital stock in infobox company
Is there a way to put "captial stock" in the infobox. For details, please have a look at the discussion here. bamse (talk) 11:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the  parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}<sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">κοντριβς – WP Physics} 08:59, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Devoucoux at AfD
Input would be appreciated at Articles for deletion/Devoucoux (2nd nomination). -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   10:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

review of Travelers Companies
170.202.222.1 made some edits that might be incorrect. Some of the edits look like vandalism, but I am not sure. Please review all the edits made by him. Thanks in advance Griffinofwales (talk) 04:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to be too much wrong with what's there, save for this edit which he/she subsequently reverted. Probably worth giving any future edits by this IP extra scrutiny, though, since it is registered to none other than The Travelers Companies. Gr1st (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Call for help
I'm a retired wikipedia editor, but I think it would be a crime not to tell someone about this. CM (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Pacific Railway
I have nominated Canadian Pacific Railway for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. <strong style="color:green;">Arsenikk <sup style="color:grey;">(talk)  13:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Corporate logos
''I (B64 - TALK) and ViperSnake151, have a disagreement I think we should add the corporate logo to the infobox of the subsidiaries, I think it look better and could climate any confuses if any about the parent companies, because of any abbreviation, ect.

Because of disagreements we have been kept going back and undoing each others edits, so that why their old pages.''

Here are a few samples: Caesars Atlantic City: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Caesars_Atlantic_City&oldid=286359233 ABC – America http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Broadcasting_Company&oldid=286333886 Compaq http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Compaq&oldid=285766315


 * Sorry, but its just decorative fair use. ViperSnake151 <font style="color:#fff;background:#0000fa;"> Talk 11:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the use is merely decorative. Any confusion the reader may have about the parent company can be cleared up by clicking on the wikilink to go to that page. Gr1st (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We can not use corporate logos like this per our policy. WP:NFCC. Even if we cold do this I think it would have bin a bad idea. Rettetast (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Wellspring Camps
Recently created article on the company Wellspring camps, had some tags earlier, now much improved. Wondered if any members of the project could take a look and see if still warrants any of the tags? Thanks, --Oscarthecat (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensus Needed on Ning
There has been some dispute over the Controversies section of the Ning article. This dispute can be found in the talk page.

Please review this dispute and help resolve it by weighing in whether Charting Stocks is a reliable source here. While there are multiple issues beyond WP:RS, this seems to be the biggest point of contention at the moment. Thanks. Kangaru99 (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I've finished the translation of fr:Hydro-Québec. The article is now much more comprehensive (and balanced). WP:BOLD! Bouchecl (talk) 06:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

FAR of BC Rail
nominated BC Rail for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. <strong style="color:green;">Arsenikk <sup style="color:grey;">(talk)  12:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Standardized infobox logos
I just posted a discussion at the WikiProject for Infoboxes regarding standardizing logo dimensions in infoboxes. Would you please consider chiming in over there? user:j   (aka justen)   03:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Braskem
In the End of the Article on the Brazilian Chemcal Company Braskem (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/braskem) valua for the take over of Grupo Ipiranga is said to be 1.5 million.

This seems to be rather small value! Can anybody correct it? Or confirm it?

Pelzkragen (talk) 12:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Numbers don't match up?
On pages 40-41 of the 2007 report and pages 73-72 of the 2008 report, the "preceding year" column of the latter doesn't match the former. Which numbers should I use in the infobox? --NE2 16:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, which number on p. 97 would be the "total equity"? --NE2 16:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The numbers aren't out by much - I'd presume the '07 figures were slightly adjusted for one reason or another after the publication of that year's annual report. The total equity on p. 97 is $18.111 billion (second-bottom line). Gr1st (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If I round the percentage change to the nearest whole number, it doesn't seem to matter which I use. But what should I round the current values to, given that they may change like the 2007 values? --NE2 21:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The current version is at BNSF Railway, by the way. --NE2 21:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * For me, about four significant figures is a sensible compromise between accuracy and conciseness. In most cases the audited accounts of large corporations are not subsequently restated to any great degree, so we can be reasonably confident that the numbers will still be accurate come next year's annual report. Gr1st (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, since the 2006 figures changed in the 2007 report, and the 2007 figures changed in the 2008 report, it's likely that the 2008 figures will change in the 2009 report. I think I'll go with 3 sig figs for the tens of billions and 2 for the billions; should I write it "$18.1 billion" or "$18,100,000,000"? --NE2 22:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Another question: should "founded" be where and when the present corporation was incorporated, or is it something more abstract? I'd appreciate a full look at the infobox in BNSF Railway to see if there's anything else that should be added. --NE2 23:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Pan American World Airways, a featured article, needs more refs
Pan American World Airways was promoted as a featured article in 2005. Now, it needs more references. Otherwise it could lose its FA status. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Mr. Lady Records
The article, Mr. Lady Records, has been reassessed as part of the GA Sweeps project. The article has been found to not be meeting the GA Criteria. As such it has been put on hold and may be delisted if work is not done to bring it up to the GA Criteria. My assessment can be found here. I am notifying the interested projects and editors of this eventuality. If you have any questions please discuss them on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hill Samuel
Should the above article belong to this WikiProject? Griffinofwales (talk) 04:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

List of mergers and acquisitions by Expedia
nominated List of mergers and acquisitions by Expedia for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.-- Crzycheetah 21:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Company in soputh Africa
I have a business idea and I want to start a company in SouthAfrica.It will grow in a couple of years and we will take in Venture Capital. What is the best form of starting a company. Is it Incoporated (Inc. or Limited (ltd.) or anything else? and what are the demands for own capital for a start up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.82.224 (talk) 10:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move Ford Motor Company to "Ford"
FYI, Ford Motor Company → Ford - a WP:RM rename request has been filed. The discussion is occuring at Talk:Ford Motor Company. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 13:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Dell mergers/acquisitions FLRC
nominated List of mergers and acquisitions by Dell for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move of Ducati Motor Holding
Ducati Motor Holding is an Italian motorcycle company. It is being proposed that the artile be renamed to "Ducati" by the same person who proposed and failed to get Ford Motor Company to Ford. I would appreciate some insight from the members of this project into the proposed renaming of a company-related article being moved from the company's actual name to a common name applied to one of its products. See Talk:Ducati_Motor_Holding --Biker Biker (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Notability re CRA International
I jut placed a notability tag on this and created the Charles River Associates redirect to it; it does have notability, or rather notoriety, due to its connections to the questionable dealings in re the BC Legislature Raids-related sale of BC Rail to CN Rail, in which it issued a fairness report which has since been discredited, but has disavowed any responsibility/refused comment on the premise that the consultants who wrote that report are no longer with the company. That's only one news item, not three, although more than one news cite can be produced for it. The article itself reads like an ad, or a summary for a stock portfolio; if it remains at all it should be seriously culled and notability references provided. See Talk:CRA International and note the previous section from the page's creator...Skookum1 (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Law firms using Wikipedia as marketing tool
User:KenWalker has drawn my attention to this legal marketing/SEO blog advising law firms to exploit Wikipedia as a way to garner more attention and web profile. This is a common pattern lately in other sectors, and I would seem that consultants of all kinds are approaching Wikipedia with mercenary goals, and encouraging others to do so. User KenWalker has undertaken to put PROD and other tags on various law firms, mostly local within our region but doubtless there are others in need or PRODding... see KenWalker's user contributions with dates June 30 for a listing. IMO some counter-media is needed from the Wikimedia Foundation to confront these marketing campaigns/strategies and also a mini-taskforce should be busy deleting all those that do not belong, and/or which clearly are corporate spam.Skookum1 (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A good idea would be to go through the "law firm" categories and weed out obvious bollocks. I'll make an attempt at that this evening. Also watchlist the general "law firm" articles, say, for attempts to link. Ironholds (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

American Historic Society (Inc.) - cats needed
Maybe it's a Ltd I don't know, but it's not a historical society; I found that page by following a link from a historian who was a member of the American Historical Association, so likely there are other links taht also wind up at the company page. I added the company stub and changed the category, but only to the raw Category:Companies, as I didn't see anything immediately that fit; they're TV retail on the one hand, and mag/catalogue on the other ,and they're small manufacturing and marketing; I didn't wee a "Merchandising companies" category which might have summed it up. I'm not familiar with the companies subcategories so leaving this here for someone who is. Or is interested in buying a genuine commemorative silver-plated Wikipedia barnstar embossed with Presidents Obama and Washington. It's of the highest-quality workmanship and is mounted in a keepsake heritage template design your grandchildren will cherish, only $17.95 plus shipping. Comes in three colours, not available in Canada.....Available while supplies last....Skookum1 (talk) 02:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Dispute on notability, sourcing, and contents of DreamHost
has had a dispute running for quite a while now. Could I have some extra eyes helping us determine what's notable positive information, what's notable negative infmoration, what's straight advertising (if anything), what requires iron-clad sourcing, and what's non-controversial enough to be held to a minimum standard of sourcing? We really need uninvolved people here, because we're all too sure of ourselves. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking for some guidance on Products sections
I've noticed that in comparing articles about well-known companies there is sometimes a wide disparity in what is said about their product lines, even as they are relatively similar. I have been unable to find any guidelines related to what is considered useful information and what is considered advertising. If anyone can offer pointers here, I'd appreciate it greatly. Thanks, NMS Bill (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Guideline discussion: historical non-free logos of companies
I am asking the members of this WikiProject to take a look at this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content - There is a debate over the criteria of including historical, non-free logos of companies. Please see it here. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia market research survey
There is a quantitative market research survey about to get underway, now being discussed at Meta Wikimedia. Personally, I consider the effort thus far to be scattered and amateur, and I am trying to lend a hand with re-design of the drafted plan. If there are any Wikipedians here with experience in the design and execution of population research studies, please come help me try to get this on a right and steady course. -- Thekohser 19:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Notability of shopping malls
Is every shopping mall notable by definition? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

List of companies deletion discussion
See Articles for deletion/List of companies of Georgia (Country) that might have an impact on the future of the various List of companies of...-articles. 76.117.1.254 (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Name of Production Mgr at MGM 1978
Does anyone know where I can find the name of the 1978 Production Mgr. at MGM Studios in Culver City? I need it for a business report. Thanks if any help is found. Carolyn Krupp ckrupp2@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarolynKrupp (talk • contribs) 19:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Former logos
Two previous logos for the airline Qantas are up for deletion at FfD. In my view they are being used appropriately in their article, are legitimate fair-use per U.S. law, and are in conformance with Wikipedia's WP:NFC policy. But then I was the one who objected to them being speedy-deleted, so you may or may not agree.

So far there has been very little interest in the FFD; it would be useful to get some wider views before it closes. Jheald (talk) 10:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

NOTICE. Request For Comment: Changes to Naming policies which may affect WikiProject naming conventions.
Following recent changes by some editors to the Naming conventions policy page, a Request For Comment, (RFC) is now being held to debate the removal of the passage specifying that individual WikiProject and other naming conventions are able to make exceptions to the standard policy of using Common Names as the titles of Wikipedia articles.

This WikiProject is being notified since it operates such a specific naming convention. Editors are invited to comment on the proposed change at this location.  Xan <font color="00A86B">dar  01:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The above "notification" is a grossly biased misrepresentation of the changes under discussion. The old version of the naming conventions policy tried to lay down binding rules; we don't work that way, so it was necessary also to make explicit exceptions. The new version articulates principles, and allows for consensus to establish how they should be applied. Thus there is no longer any need for exceptions. In fact, making exceptions is nonsense, since there are no rules to make exceptions to. These changes are good for specific conventions. Xandar is trying to induce moral panic in those who stand to gain the most from this. Xandar is only opposed to the new version because he thinks the wording, not the general thrust, weakens his position in a dispute unrelated to this RfC. Don't be fooled. Hesperian 02:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Don't be fooled. The proposed wording change is shown at the RFC linked in my post above. The removal of the "exceptions" phrase is a very significant change. The policy never stated that it consisted of "rules" before, and it still doesn't. However it remains policy. Simply stating a personal view that titling a section "principles" changes the status of the policy page, is one not even accepted by many editors on Hesperians side. There is already an attempt to use the principle of no exceptions to the "use common name" policy to radically change the Naming conflict page, and one of the proposers of this change has indicated that the guidance on flora is also targetted. The change is in my view an attempt to impose a rigid, top-down policy on naming which ignores what wikipedia editors on the ground find most useful.  Xan <font color="00A86B">dar   03:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

British Columbia Electric Company needed
This was a subsidiary of the British Columbia Electric Railway - more or less the same company in fact though with a different operating infrastructure - which was nationalized in 1961 to form BC Hydro, or the main building-block of it anyway. The railway itself is now the Southern Railway of British Columbia, while the transit system is now run by TransLink. Please see Talk:British_Columbia_Electric_Railway. If someone knows much about the company succession or knows how to start a basic company outline I'll add things when I see them....also will post at WP:Energy.Skookum1 (talk) 00:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Archive Link in EL at Central Park Media
There is an on-going dispute over whether an archive link to the old website of a former company should be used in the EL section, since the old site is now down. Despite seeming agreement at WP:EL that the link is not appropriate, the editor wishing to add it has started a third discussion on the issue. Additional views from related projects would be appreciated at Talk:Central Park Media. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 04:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am the editor that AnmaFinotera refers to. There is not an agreement that the EL is not appropriate. The agreement is that such ELs are to be discussed individually on their own merits, and that one should discuss it on the article's talk page. Because there is not a 100% ban on web.archive.org links, each instance is a local article dispute to be resolved on the article's talk page. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Company Infoboxes Discussion
For those interested, there is a discussion here regarding company infoboxes that might be relevant for members of this project. <font color="#3950A5" size="1">|► <font color="#000070">ϋrбan <font color="#4D4D4D">яeneωaℓ • <font size="0" color="#BFA137">TALK  <font color="#3950A5" size="1">◄| 13:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Tag for articles with COI-type references?
Is there a tag to mark articles where the only sources provided are company press releases and similar bumpf (similar bumpf would include government press releases meant to promote the project)? Or is only "refimprove" all there is? I come across these regularly, currently at Plutonic Power Corporation and the Toba Montrose General Partnership linked on that page (Toba Montrose had only one link, no stubs, no categories, just a sentence, and the link was a company press release about its entry onto the TSX; the creator of that page needs a "welcome" template....) Too many companies are using Wikipedia as a secondary webpage for their own hype/reports; no display of WP:Ownership yet but certainly of COI, there also as on BC Hydro and other related articles. Toba Montrose, for example, is notable for various reasons, which I won't get into here because it's very political, and the project under development is also notable; but if only cites from the company building hte project are evident, tha'ts not right huh? Need 3rd party sources, right?Skookum1 (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Usually I use primary sources for that, along with advert and/or coi as needed. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I just added primary sources to the Toba Montrose article and added it and advert to the Plutonic one. There's not enough yet on Toba Montrose to warrant advert/coi at this point.Skookum1 (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Popular pages
I have requested a list of popular pages for this project at. --Ysangkok (talk) 10:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Canadian National Railway name now only "CN"
Please see Talk:Canadian_National_Railway. I'm not sure how to deal with this, since CN is a disambiguation page....maybe there's CN Inc. or CN Ltd.? There's lots of cites out there about this name-change, which is meant to reflect/target American marketing and to downplay the company's Canadian background and technical-registry. It may be registered in Montreal, but it's widely considered/perceived to be a US company now; how that works and how it should play out in the company article (which needs renaming as noted) I'm not sure....Skookum1 (talk) 15:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless its legal name changes to CN Inc. or whatever, a move to that sort of title is out. As far as I can see, the company's formal name (rather than brand/trade name) is still Canadian National Railway Company (it is still listed on the stock exchange as such). CN (company) might be a possibility, but I wouldn't call this an uncontroversial move. Gr1st (talk) 17:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Pageview stats
After a recent request, I added WikiProject Companies to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at WikiProject Companies/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! <font face="Broadway">Mr.Z-man 00:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion discussion template

 * (item below is transcluded)

Articles for deletion (AfD)
This section is for notifying the project of any articles within our scope that have been nominated for deletion. In order to facilitate prioritization of expending effort on these articles, the WikiProject Banner with class and importance parameters filled can be added to the talk page of the nominated article.


 * Nobody seems sure why this business unit needs a separate page from BAE Systems Inc.. If anyone has insight please come join the discussion.  - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Some trouble with anonymous vandalism of discussion on project page as well as one user deleting sections on main article that may help support some level of notability as well as provide what some may consider valuable and relevant reference material. KrugerK (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I am the Deputy Director of Sustainability and Stakeholder Engagement at Asia Pulp & Paper (APP). I am new to the Wikipedia editing process and I recognize that there exists an inherent COI with me making any edits to the page about the company I work for. If I have made any procedural errors I apologize in advance and ask that someone direct to the proper venue for this complaint. In an effort to approach this in an honest and upfront manner, I have not made any edits to the page. I recently came across the Wikipedia entry on APP and I believe it meets the Wikipedia description of an “Attack page.” I recommend that the article be reduced to a neutral “stub” immediately and a more appropriate, neutral and encyclopedic article be created over time and added. I would like to submit some suggested material for consideration in the article to the WikiProject Companies and allow for it to be reviewed and edited by neutral editors with no COI. I believe that a simple reading of the article will show that it is clearly meant to disparage the company it is about. I recognize that there is a high level of controversy regarding APP and certain issues, including the environment and financial issues. I respect the rights of any and all to express their opinions on these subjects freely, but as I understand it, Wikipedia is to be a source of neutral and encyclopedic information and not a soapbox for the views of individuals or organizations. An article on APP should certainly include mention of the controversy and the issues, but in a more balanced and accurate way. Additionally, a more encyclopedic article might include more information on the history of the company and the area in which it operates. I would also, like to make clear my specific concerns with the article, the following are quotes from the article and my specific concern with them and a suggested neutral change:

•	“their record of consistent breaches of environmental laws and agreements has lead many companies to terminate contracts with them[2].” – Even in the article quoted “consistent breaches of environmental laws and agreements” is not mentioned. The article says, “large paper sellers in the U.S., Europe and Asia, including Office Depot Inc., stopped buying from APP in recent years because of alleged environmental misdeeds.” The entry should use the wording from the quote which would be an acceptably neutral phrasing, “alleged environmental misdeeds.” In fact, APP does not have a record of consistent breaches of environmental laws and agreements.

•	“has been convicted of being involved in Illegal Logging in Cambodia, Yunnan province in China, and in Indonesia, and has breached agreements with three major environmental organizations.” – First, there is no citation for this sentence and claim (though similar claims later in the entry quote sources). Second, APP has never been convicted of Illegal Logging anywhere. There have been allegations and even investigations into Illegal Logging, but never has the company been convicted of Illegal Logging. I believe that stating that APP has been convicted of such a crime could be considered libel. Finally, none of the articles quoted in the entry claim that APP has ever been convicted of Illegal Logging, they discuss investigations or allegations of Illegal Logging, but none say that these allegations or investigations have resulted in any kind of conviction. An appropriate phrasing would be to say that “APP has been investigated for Illegal Logging,” or “there have been allegations of Illegal Logging by APP.”

•	“The company is also well known for defaulting on debt repayments in 2001, leading to a collapse in confidence of South Asian assets.” – The company is well known for defaulting on debt repayments in 2001. However, it is difficult to make the claim that this lead “to a collapse in confidence of South Asian assets.” Again, the source quoted to back this claim does not say or imply this. I would recommend removing or at the least attributing the claim that the default lead to such a collapse in confidence.

•	In a broader context the “Environmental Issues and Illegal Logging” section presents the views and opinions of environmental NGOs and groups with a long record and history of attacking APP without contextualizing it, or presenting other views on the subject. The entry seems to present these views as fact and uses Wikipedia as an outlet to promote these opinions. A more balanced article would note the controversy and contextualize it appropriately, possibly presenting the APP view on the subject.

I have other more specific complaints with language and tone, but prefer to limit this initial post on the topic to the major issues. I believe a neutral party would agree that this article meets the “Attack page” requirements as described by Wikipedia and should be reduced to a neutral stub while an appropriate, encyclopedic article is developed. I am posting this on the entry’s “Discussion” page and the WikiProject Business “Talk” page. I have also alerted the editor who added this information to the entry to alert him/her of my concerns. If more experienced Wikipedia editors and users believe there is another, more appropriate venue or method for this discussion or I have in any way breached standard procedure please let me know. As mentioned earlier, I am new to this aspect of Wikipedia and would appreciate any guidance. My goal in this is not to use Wikipedia as venue for promotion but simply to ensure that a balanced, neutral and high quality encyclopedia article is created for APP.

Dewi bramono (talk) 11:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "...largest independent Apple retailer in the U.S...." Needs sources badly. I have admitted a personal coi, but as a long time editor in good standing, I'm attempting on-page rescue. I invite others to make sure any bias is kept out of the page by assisting or reverting me as appropriate. BusterD (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved AfD discussions
Items below are listed in day-order of nomination; for items with the same day of nomination, those with later closing dates are listed first (i.e. two open on 01-04 and one closes on 01-09 and the other on 01-20, the 01-20 close is listed first). (section has not been discussed in detail)







































Proposed deletions
''Rather than discussing PROD-nominees here, it is better to contribute to the talk page for the article nominated for deletion. If you agree with the proposed deletion, you don't have to do anything or you may second the nomination. If you think the article merits keeping, then remove the template and make an effort to improve the article so that it clearly meets the notability and verifiability criteria.''

AfD/PROD Archives

 * 2007
 * January 2008
 * February 2008

GA reassessment of Burger King
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article following this request. You are being notified as your project's banner is on the article talk page. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Burger King/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 03:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Tellabs entry needs updating
Much of the information on the Tellabs page, which was identified as being in the scope of this project, is out of date and the page definitely could use an update. A lot of information is available at http://www.tellabs.com, including information on new products and services and the company's recent acquisition of WiChorus. Updated financial information is available in the 2009 annual report at: http://www.tellabs.com/investors/annual/2009/. Anyone willing to take this one on? Notashortstory1 (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Any reason you are using a second account instead of your original? In either case, if its dated, feel free to update yourself, unless you have a COI issue? --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 15:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Somehow it got deleted. Weird. I would update myself, but I work for the company and therefore consider myself biased. I'd like to respect Wikipedia's policies.Notashortstory1 (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Accounts are never deleted. Its still there :-) And thank you for not just editing as you work for them (much appreciated). If none of the article's usual editors get to it before me, I'll see if I can update it this weekend. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 22:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Article for H-E-B & disclosure of potential conflict
I'd like to make some improvements to the article for H-E-B, but I think the page needs a significant overhaul that will likely require the input of some other editors. I previously posted a note a month ago on the H-E-B talk page and got a minimal response; I'd like to get some additional input on some key issues affecting the page.

H-E-B is a client of my employer, so others should be aware that I have a possible conflict of interest. I will closely follow WP:NOR, WP:SPAM, WP:NOT as well as WP:COI, and I want to let be known that my main goal is to make this article more accurate and informative, while cutting out the information that may not be appropriate for Wikipedia.

I would like to make some uncontroversial edits, that I will make sure to explain thoroughly - I will likely be toning down NPOV language, removing inaccurate and unsourced information, and adding some sources to the article to cite some unverified info; however, there are other larger edits that I wanted to discuss with the community as we work to make the H-E-B article more encyclopedic.

That being said, how do people feel about the fairly significant "Markets" section of the H-E-B page? I don't think it's particularly encyclopedic to list all the markets and locations (and possibly stands in violation of WP:DIRECTORY), especially in a section that goes largely unsourced. I can't think of any articles for other companies or corporations who have so much space devoted to locations and markets; are there any other regional store chains who follow a similar format? No mention of regions or markets in the WikiProject Business content standards for companies, corporations, and economic information. Should the section be pared down, or simply removed? Looking forward to hear what you guys think. Thanks, Nanorlb (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Timex Group USA, Inc. – looking for reassessment
Hi, I have just completed a brand new extensive update of Timex Group USA, Inc.. The article has been rated as a start-class for quite some time. Can someone from this project please review and assess the article accordingly? Thanks. dtgriffith (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Reassessed to a C. The lead is too short per WP:LEAD and the history section is way overly subsectioned. I'd drop all the level threes. Each individual paragraph really doesn't need a section. The gallery is unnecessary as is the seeming random image of a watch coming after the infobox (even if non-free). Reference formatting has a few inconsistencies. The section on Timex Group B.V. seems odd. Does Timex Group B.V. not have an article? If not, the first sentence should be moved to the lead, the rest pretty much dropped. As someone else already noted in reviewing your sandbox version, the article is improved (I did not check NPOV language, trusting the other reviewers opinion on that), but as all it has is history, is not comprehensive enough for a B at this time. Also, I noticed the other reviewer mentioned you work for the company? It seems he's already worked with you regarding COI and all, so no issues there that I can see, but thought I'd note that one image that would be great to add to the article is a picture of the headquarters (if you have one that meets Wikipedia's free license requirements) :-) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the quick response. I realize there is a lot more to do, but it's a huge improvement over the former content. I left the photos intact which were added quite some time before I worked on the article, though I have no problem with someone removing it. I made every attempt to incorporate all of the pre-existing content. Yes, I work for the company as disclosed on the article's Talk page, though I actually started on the project before my employment. I opened the content for review for COI and NPOV check for the past three weeks. I will be creating a new page for Timex Group B.V., so I will remove that section very soon. I will take all of your recommendations into consideration as I further develop this page. I hope that other editors watching the article will contribute as well, the article was in bad shape for a very long time. I appreciate your feedback. dtgriffith (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. If it helps, Hershey Creamery Company is a semi-private company (only on pink sheets), and its article is currently a good article. In addition to the history, it has what reliably sourcable information is available re business model, financials, and a general product summary. For a company the age of Timex, I suspect there may be more sources with financials for at least some of the earlier history, even if they are more reticent to share that info now. :-) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 21:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

COI/Advert/Cleanup etc needed on Finavera Renewables
Because of a news item/headline in http://thetyee.ca I checked Wikipedia for the presence of a company article on Finavera and found it; as is all too typical of company articles it's written as a stock prospectus and has as references only press-release type material of a COI/advertorial nature; and needs cleanup/formatting and item-specific citations for various promotional claims....perhaps I should have added teh peacock switch too, come to think of it. I'm trying to stick to history and geography articles, for the most part, lately so don't want to get into British Columbia energy politics and corporate-government collusion controversies (for which the province is a hotbed right now, to teh point where "parliamentary plutocracy" is a rough description of what's going on....). Anyway I realize there are wording/layout standards for company articles so leaving this in your able hands, whomever, to tidy it up; and add in some of teh news and/or controversy, in NPOV fashion of course, found in this Tyee article.Skookum1 (talk) 22:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Your banners draw attention to the relevant issues.  I don't plan to tackle it: I hope someone will pick up the baton.  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Reassessment of Mechel

 * I've been doing some work on the Mechel page, hoping that I could get it upgraded from the Stub-Class on the quality scale; so, I would really appreciate if whomever is in charge of this could please take a few minutes to review the updates to the page. Thanks, Brandon A. Blosser (talk) 19:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Marginal articles task force?
Hey guys, I know that this project is only semi-active, but I wondered if a new activity is something that might get people more involved. One of the most common problems I encounter in new page patrolling are articles created on marginal, non-notable companies, evidently and sometimes openly by employees. These articles do a real disservice to Wikipedia by putting at a disadvantage companies that do not engage in such activities. I wonder if it might be valuable to form a task force to go through articles that may have fallen through the cracks, and PROD where appropriate?

The initial problem, as I see it, is that the vast majority of such articles probably don't have any kind of Wikiproject tag, so they may be hard to detect once they fall off the "new pages" radar screen. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Seeking input on proposed section for Domino's Pizza
Over the past few months I've been making substantial improvements to the Domino's Pizza article, establishing clear community consensus as I've gone about it; I have a potential conflict in that Domino's is a client of my employer. I've just posted to my user sub-page a proposed new version of the Products section -- User:NMS_Bill/Domino's_Pizza -- and opened it up for discussion on the Domino's Talk page, with an explanation of my goals for the section. I think this level of detail fits the scope of the WikiProject Business guideline Companies, corporations and economic information, which I believe WikiProject Companies also follows, and have followed that. However, considering the relative length of the proposed new paragraph, I'd like to invite anyone who's involved with this project to have a look and let me know what you think. Thanks, NMS Bill (talk) 02:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Myriad Genetics
I'd appreciate it if a few people could add Myriad Genetics to their watchlist and perhaps get involved in it. The article has varied significantly over the years with versions created both by people likely associated with the company to versions which are at best borderline attacks. There is currently an editor attempting to expand the article significantly but with no sources, some material which is probably not of encyclopedic value, and with loss of some references.

There is certainly some middle ground between the current version and the expanded one, but I have no time or interest in trying to find sources for the new material.- gadfium 20:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The article has been reverted to the expanded but unsourced version again. Can I have some feedback, please.- gadfium 21:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

British Airways request
British Airways is under your scope and has just received A-Class status under the quality scale used by WP:AVIATION and was wondering if it needs three editors from the Companies WikiProject to say its A-Class under your criteria as well or if it can just be changed to A-Class since it has gone through the required screening. The, now archived, review page is here. Thanks, Plane Person (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC).


 * Thanks for the notice, and congratulations! I am an infrequent contributor here, but as far as I can tell we don't have an active assessment drive.  The basic promotion method of unopposed support from two uninvolved editors at the articles talk page applies to us.  More at Talk:British Airways.  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 06:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking for help to further develop Timex Group USA article
I have posted a similar message on the Timex Group USA talk page. In my effort to maintain COI and NPOV compliance, I am seeking other editors experienced in contributing on business articles who would be interested in further developing Timex Group USA. Currently, the article is heavily focused on history, which is has its significance, but little is said about the company today. I offer a wealth of knowledge on Timex Group and able to fill in the blanks on many details. As disclosed on the article's talk page and my own user page, I manage corporate communications for Timex Group - and I want to go about this the right way. Thanks! <font color="#663300">dtgriffith <font color="#003366"> [talk] 17:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I replied (offering a little help) at the article talk page. You could also try WikiProject Business to recruit more pairs of eyes or hands.  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Petrovietnam
There is a discussion concerning the name of Vietnam Oil and Gas Group (Petrovietnam) in English. The common name of this company is Petrovietnam, however there are two options for spelling, both options (Petrovietnam and PetroVietnam) in use. E.g. Reuters have used in different news different form ( and ). Same goes with other websites. The company's English website uses spelling Petrovietnam. I would like to ask your input which form should be used in the Petrovietnam's article. Beagel (talk) 04:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Input requested on inclusion in scope for List of McDonald's products
The article McDonald's products (international) has been noted as a High-importance List-class article for this WikiProject. I would argue that this article is not really in scope for this WikiProject as it deals with the products of a company rather than the company itself. The designation was made by User:Jerem43 in Feb 2008; Jerem43 is not a participant in this WikiProject. I am interested in removing this article from the scope of this WikiProject. Thoughts? Support? Opposition? Thanks for your input. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 00:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

nominated List of mergers and acquisitions by Red Hat for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --<font face="Calibri"> K. Annoyomous  (talk)   09:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Concern about ZAP (motor company)
I'm becoming increasingly concerned about the quality of ZAP (motor company) which is being frequently edited by - a single purpose editor who it seems to me may have a conflict of interest. Most of his edits have been to expand the article with relatively trivial content sourced largely from the company's own press releases. I'd appreciate some of the experienced editors in this project taking a look with a view to pruning and/or improving. --Biker Biker (talk) 12:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for Eonon
Dear all, I'm requsting an article for a famous car audio brand Eonon. I'm already to submit this article about the organization Eonon now, could you please review for it before I submit? User:Silena/Eonon Any change needed to make it list in the companies catalog? :) thank you! Silena (talk) 08:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Featured list removal candidates/List of mergers and acquisitions by Condé Nast/archive1
nominated List of mergers and acquisitions by Condé Nast for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --<font face="Calibri"> K. Annoyomous  (talk)   10:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Companies articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Companies articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (&diams;) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Chuck Taylor All-Stars
Not sure if this is the correct place to leave a notice, but currently Chuck Taylor All-Stars, which fall under Nike Inc, a C-Class article, is having an active discussion regarding the content on it's talk page. Thank you, Phearson (talk) 00:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Help completing Lewis Advertising page
Page was deleted immediately by Orange Mike after submitting for editorial review citing not notable enough... All the while his place of work, an obscure book store is enjoying the spoils of a small wikipedia listing. And all the while another 232 or more agencies are allowed listings as well. With most nothing more notable than what I have cited and referenced on the article. I was going to just give up but what fun would that be. You can view the Talk at Orange Mikes Talk page if you'd like to review. The article is back in the userspace here. Any help would be appreciated to complete the post. It is hard to discern what is 'notable' when the editors do not follow the guidelines they are forcing on others. --Lwsellersjr (talk) 03:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I always use the general notability guideline as a yardstick: "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Let's look at the eight cited references in the article as it stands: as far as I can tell, the LexisNexis Redbooks (#1, #4) constitute a business directory, rather like an advertising Yellow Pages. That doesn't confer notability. Ditto for the mere act of holding membership of a trade body (#2, #3). The N.C. Advertising Hall of Fame citations and trade body awards (#5 - #8) are no help either (even putting the questionable significance of the honours to one side) - they concern the founders of the business, not the business itself and notability is not inherited. To justify the inclusion of the article you need to come up with substantial (i.e. more than fleeting) treatment of the company itself in reliable sources, e.g. newspaper or magazine articles. Even a paragraph or two in the Rocky Mount Telegram probably won't be sufficient. Gr1st (talk) 15:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think then my question would be what would make this editors' post about his employer Renaissance Books any more notable as it only sites .coms and one call to a WSJ article. While I do not know first hand, I would venture a guess that this was regional print as WSJ is fully regionalized and I do not believe they cover a full 7 states with geographic targeted releases. I will double check with my Media Director Monday but I am thinking this is the case. And then what would make this post Mullen Advertising more notable? That they have an article about their cafeteria? See, here is the thing. In the advertising industry, notability is absolutely inherited. When a clients advertising does its job, other clients follow. This company has been working on the Hardees account since the first store opened in Rocky Mount. And CenturyLink, has been a client since they were Carolina Telephone... And the notability of those accounts has surely passed on to the company as it stands today. And how can Redbook not be notable as it has been in circulation forever and has been the goto publication for thousands of marketing execs to find company indices to determine the rights to propose or present when accounts are in review. These references are just that, references to indicate truth in article.
 * Finally, why in the hell would Facebook and Wikipedia do a deal knowing full well that the vast majority of community pages for Employers will never get a description?
 * Don't get me wrong, I get it, Wikipedia is trying to clean things up to be more respected or something... but what I don't get is the categories and projects in existence only to serve a certain few individuals or corporations.
 * That being said. I know full well there are articles available, just probably not online and most likely pre-web when the company had an internal PR dept. Thanks for your input. It is appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lwsellersjr (talk • contribs) 01:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What about stuff like this? [|Ad Week - BDC] or this [|Ad Week - Oil] or this [|Ad Week - HFS] or this [|Ad Age - EMB]--Lwsellersjr (talk) 02:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll try and answer all of these in turn:
 * 1) As someone may already have pointed out, don't point to other articles on Wikipedia as justification for this article's existence - see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you don't feel that the articles on Renaissance Books or Mullen Advertising meet the Wikipedia general notability guideline, then feel free to take them to Articles for deletion. You will, of course, have to ground your deletion rationale purely in Wikipedia's guidelines and policies.
 * 2) Again, notability is not inherited on Wikipedia. Significant coverage of Gene Lewis or Don Williams - the men themselves - in reliable sources (if they exist) would justify the inclusion of a Gene Lewis or Don Williams article but not a Lewis Advertising article.
 * 3) I didn't say that Redbook isn't notable, I said it doesn't confer notability upon those institutions listed within. Unless you can show me otherwise, I don't believe there is any threshold to be cleared or editorial decision to be taken in order to obtain a listing. It is a business directory. Anyone can get in. Your argument is a bit like saying Joe's Corner Shop should get a Wikipedia article because it is listed in an edition of the Yellow Pages which was distributed to 500,000 households.
 * 4) As for the four references you gave above: #s 1 and 2 are the sort of thing we're looking for, if a bit short (although I'd weight their significance down a bit since they are from a trade journal); #3 less so since the coverage of Lewis takes up a smaller part of the article; #4 not so good as it only mentions Lewis briefly. Still, keep searching, you seem to be heading in the right direction. Gr1st (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, last set then I won't be such a bother... clearly I have more rewrites to do. And again, thanks for all your feedback. So, how about these?
 * THE MEDIA BUSINESS: Advertising; A Fast Change in The World of Fast Food: Hardee's Decides to Divide Its Account.
 * http://www.nytimes.com/1993/08/25/business/media-business-advertising-fast-change-world-fast-food-hardee-s-decides-divide.html


 * Quick 10 Oil Changes to Lewis
 * http://www.allbusiness.com/marketing-advertising/4218691-1.html


 * Hardee's Selects Advertising Agency
 * http://www.qsrmagazine.com/articles/news/story.phtml?id=2799


 * Sprint picks N.C. ad agency for local spinoff
 * Kansas City Business Journal
 * http://triangle.bizjournals.com/kansascity/stories/2005/12/05/daily21.html
 * Thanks. --Lwsellersjr (talk) 12:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Got around to this eventually: the NYT article only mentions the company very briefly, so doesn't go very far towards establishing notability, #2 is OK but is from a trade paper again, #3 mentions them in passing so no good, #4 also has little context. I think by now you should have a fair idea of the criteria Wikipedia is looking for. Best, Gr1st (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

DLA Piper
There is a discussion taking place in Talk:DLA Piper/Archives/2012, as regards whether it is appropriate to use flag images to represent all the locations of this company - in DLA Piper.

Please could others voice their opinions within the discussion, to help form consensus. Many thanks,  Chzz  ► 16:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

List of companies by revenue
Hi, I'm mostly working alone on this article. It's priority is classified as High, and I didn't even join this WikiProject. Will appreciate any help. Also, I would like to take out market cap and CEO compensation from the list. Please give your thoughts and help on the artice update (which is 80% outdated by 2 to 3 yrs). Jonathansuh (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Requesting help with an article for a company recently added to WikiProject Companies
The Article in question is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MonaVie

This article was added to WikiProject Companies recently. however it has been around for a few years already. I have read all the sources used for this article of this company and found that it has quite a bit of POV. Most of the Statements in the Lead are not at all Factual. Here are some examples of the statements made in the article.


 * "MonaVie has been the subject of controversy, as health benefit claims for its products have not been scientifically confirmed or approved by regulatory authorities,"

There are no sources that provide any proof of the MonaVie company making any claims that were not approved by regulatory authorities. The sources state there was an independent distributor who created his own website and posted some health claims that the FDA warned him about .However the MonaVie Company was never warned directly nor did the FDA say anything about any claims the actual company had made.


 * "its CEO was previously involved in false health claims of another beverage" I cant find any mention of the CEO of MonaVie Dallin Larsen being involved in any false claims. The only facts I can see in the source articles are that he had a senior post in Usana and left the company a year before the FDA shut it down according to the newsweek article.


 * "the business plan is similar to a pyramid scheme" after discussing with some editors about the article I was told that this sentence is justified by the wording of "“Team is one step ahead of all these juice selling schemes. It is a pyramid atop a pyramid. It is selling motivational aids to help MonaVie vendors move the juice" in forbes and these statements here ”In a 1979 regulatory action involving [Amway], the Federal Trade Commission attempted to draw lines between legitimate and fraudulent pyramids. The ones that are legit focus on getting revenue from consumer goods sold to retail customers. The FTC did not, however, define ‘retail’ in that case. That leaves plenty of wiggle room for guys like Orrin Woodward; he counts the vast majority of people in his pyramid, who seemingly try but fail to make money, as retail customers.”
 * The source used mainly for calling this company a pyramid scheme was this article here http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/0811/050.html The problem with using this article to call the company of MonaVie a pyramid scheme is that this source is an article about Orrin Woodwards TEAM company and not of the Company of MonaVie. And I cant find anything in the article that makes calling anything a pyramid scheme possible.


 * "and very few distributors actually make a profit" This statement may need updating with new information about the income of distributors as a few of the articles used to source this are old however one source article mentions 1% see a profit however in another article we have numbers like 45 percent and 37 percent seeing profits. about 45 percent of the company's distributors earned an annualized average check of less than $1,600, while 37 percent took home about $2,000. About 2 percent earned an annualized average check of more than $29,000, according to a company statement. And just seven of MonaVie's 80,000 distributors took home the big money, more than $3 million. This information is from 2008 it appears and the company started in 2005 so this is still a young company. It is also possible many of these distributors are merely customers who are only using the products and are not interested in building a business. New information for 2010 needs to be found to update this article however it still is only a 5 year old company.

Thank you for taking the time to read this and please offer any assistance you can to give this young company of MonaVie a more Factual Article worthy of WikiProject Companies. DavidR2010 (talk) 04:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010DavidR2010 (talk) 04:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:ExxonMobil sponsorships
Category:ExxonMobil sponsorships, has been nominated by another editor for deletion. I'm concered because, if passed, this is likely to lead to the deletion of all corporate sponsorship cats. Regardless of whether you agree with me or not, please add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Merger advice
re: COMSA merged with EMTE to form COMSA-EMTE (2009) - how should I deal with this - I've come up with two plans Which is the best way to proceed?
 * Make a new article COMSA-EMTE and leave the old COMSA article in the past tense, covering history to 2009
 * Rename the COMSA article to COMSA EMTE and add more info about the other company.

Also some of the links have gone dead (Reference_desk/Computing) - if anyone knows an easy way to get the old webpages please let me know. Thanks.Sf5xeplus (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If anyone has any advice please comment on the COMSA page.Sf5xeplus (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Request review of new article
Hi there, I've recently researched and written a new article about Florida-based real estate developers Kitson and Partners. The draft of the article is in my user space here for the moment while I look for feedback from other editors. I'm a little cautious of immediately posting the article as I do have a working relationship with Kitson and Partners, which I'm aware means that I have a WP:CONFLICT. While I don't believe that the article is at all controversial and I've taken great care to follow Wikipedia policies such as WP:VERIFY, WP:RS and WP:NPOV, I would greatly appreciate some input from any other editors. I believe it easily meets WP:NOTE, based on substantial coverage of the company in WP:RELIABLE sources (which are included in the article). The article is (I feel) thoroughly researched and follows the MoS for articles about companies. If you have any feedback, please don't hesitate to reply here or on my talk page. If there are no objections to the draft within several days, then I will most probably post it up. Thanks, Brushfoot (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've now posted the article, having received some good feedback on the draft's talk page. If there are any questions or comments, please get in touch. Thanks, Brushfoot (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Automate stock information through RSS feeds
Village_pump (proposals) - please see this proposal and voice your opinion. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  07:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiExperts.us selling editing to corporations
Participants in this WikiProject may be interested in the following link. (I am adding this talk page to my watchlist, and I will watch here for a reply or replies.) —Wavelength (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WikiExperts.us Capitalizes on Pent-up Demand for Wikipedia by www.thehostingnews.com


 * Is that a press release? See


 * http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/wikipedia-experts-call-for-no-donations-to-wikipedia-111911964.html
 * Thanks for the warning.
 * --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not sure whether that external page in my first post is a press release to its readers. I saw the external page to which you linked, and I thank you.  Reading it made me think of the challenge in finding expertise without bias and without charge.
 * I did some Google searches for wikipedia entrepreneur, wikipedia business, wikipedia company, and wikipedia marketing, and I found the following 26 pages.
 * Entrepreneur.com Daily Dose - 5 Dos And Donts For Securing A Wikipedia Entry For Your Or Your Business  [sic]
 * New Entry ("Your company's arrived. Now let everyone know by getting on Wikipedia.")
 * Entrepreneur's Journal: Does your business need a Wikipedia page? - BloggingStocks
 * How To Use Wikipedia For Traffic | A Famous Internet Entrepreneur In The Making | DatMoney.com (The noun "setup" should be changed to the verb phrase "set up".)
 * SEO: Can Wikipedia Help Your Business? | Practical eCommerce
 * Should a Small Business have a Wikipedia article?
 * YouTube - How to Get Your Business Listed in Wikipedia - Mike Svatek (7:28)
 * Wikipedia and Your Business
 * Using Wikipedia for Your Business | NetBusinessBlog (When I was closing that window, a pop-up window offered me the option of downloading a $297.00 value Forex system absolutely free. I declined that offer.)
 * How To Create Your Own Wikipedia Page
 * Use Wikipedia as a Marketing Tool -- Wikipedia -- RLM PR -- Wikimedia Foundation
 * 01-15-2011 - How Wikipedia can help your business
 * Wikipedia and You: Best Practices For Businesses and Marketers | Oxford Media Works
 * http://kiwi247.com/business/sales_marketing/dos-and-donts-of-featuring-your-business-in-wikipedia
 * How to Get Your Company Listed on Wikipedia, Part I
 * How to Place a Company in the Wikipedia?
 * Use Wikipedia as a Marketing Tool -- Wikipedia -- RLM PR -- Wikimedia Foundation
 * SEO: Can Wikipedia Help Your Business?
 * ciprsm - What is your Wikipedia strategy - Discussion - Making a Company listing on Wikipedia
 * Wikipedia 101 for Marketing
 * "Wikipedia in Search Engine Marketing"
 * Wikipedia Marketing - 5 Steps to Visibility on Wikipedia
 * Marketing via Wikipedia | WebProNews
 * Another great Marketing tool &#8211; Wikipedia | WP Marketing
 * Marketing Through Wikipedia | Marketing Strategies by Studio98
 * Wikipedia for Marketing Communications Professionals (Bookshelf) - Outreach Wiki (by the Wikimedia Foundation)
 * —Wavelength (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Conglomerates
The conglomerates LG Corp. and Samsung Group use Template:Infobox Company. The parameter 'Industry' there says 'Conglomerate' for these articles. How is 'conglomerate' an industry? Wouldn't it be better to say Industry: Various or something and listing conglomerate under the 'Type' parameter? Just a suggestion. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 14:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * By definition, "conglomerate" means it's of various industry types, so I think it's fine. --Icerat (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Content Guidelines
I've posted some proposed Content Guidelines on the Guidelines Talk Page. Comments appreciated! --Icerat (talk) 12:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Split proposal: Virgin Media/NTL
There's a split proposal currently being discussed. The reasoning is to reinstate a lost NTL article. --Trevj (talk) 19:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Kilo-Lima. --Trevj (talk) 12:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for NPOV review
One of the articles was related to Companies: I will not object to any changes proposed, discussed, or implemented.
 * Recently an editor has raised concerns regarding NPOV with some articles I had worked on prior to an extended wikibreak.
 * I have committed to no longer edit or watch these pages.
 * However, I would appreciate it if others could look them over with NPOV in mind, and discuss on their talk pages and make appropriate changes if need be.
 * 1) Corbin Fisher

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you provide a link to where the "concerns" were raised? --Icerat (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Prudential plc page
Hi, I currently work for Prudential plc and it has been pointed out to me that the incorrect logo is on the site for this entry - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prudential_plc. I have been trying to upload the new logo which needs to be taken from this website - http://www.prudential.co.uk/ - but I am experiencing difficulty in uploading it. I understand that I have to have been registered for four days which I have and that I need to make 10 edits. I have made 5 edits so far. Can you give me some advice on how to upload a new logo? Debbie Crowley (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia - You can start reading up on images here: WP:Uploading images - Also, you'll need to get to 10 edits, which you could do some just filling out your bio. Since you work for that company, you'll want to disclose your conflict of interest - Use this as a guideline: WP:COI.  Hope this helps.  Leef5  TALK &#124;  CONTRIBS 14:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Or, you can wait for some bored editor to upload it for you. *trots over to website and fires up the GIMP* --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Stock price movements - Content noticeboard discussion
I have posted a recent debate on the arguments of inclusion/exclusion of stock price movements reported in the news over on the content noticeboard. Since this a public company issue, and falls squarely within the scope of this project, I would appreciate any and all commentary over on that noticeboard.

WP:Content noticeboard

Thank you.  Leef5  TALK &#124; CONTRIBS 14:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Flag icons in infoboxes
I made a request to use a bot to replace flag icons in company infoboxes with country names. Before running a bot for these edits, a clear consensus is needed. You are welcome to make your comments at the relevant template's talk page here. Beagel (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Blackboard Inc.
For anyone watching this board, I've been working with the company Blackboard Inc. for the past few months to evaluate their current article and work on proposing a version that's both more accurate to the company's history and current status, while also fulfilling Wikipedia's goal of describing significant aspects of the company as an encyclopedic topic. The existing article is very much not that; for a long while it has been mostly a couple of bulleted lists naming their products and then some loosely written material about its legal issues. All in all, not a very good Wikipedia entry.

What I've prepared as a potential replacement covers both existing topics in more detail, plus additional relevant aspects of the company verified with reliable sources, privileging Wikipedia's guidelines while also presenting a better company overview. I've posted this proposed replacement to my userspace, here: User:WWB_Too/Blackboard_Inc. (FYI, the company's non-free logo has been commented out, and the categories have been disabled.)

Because of the potential conflict of interest inherent in my relationship to the company, I'd like to ask members of this WikiProject for feedback and, if you think it's ready, to exchange the current, lackluster version, for my more developed draft. If you have any suggestions, please add them to my note on the Blackboard Talk page or, if you think it's good to go, let me know (or move it yourself). As a quick note, I'm posting this to WikiProject Education as well, to seek input there. Thanks for your time, WWB Too (talk) 02:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * With assent from an editor at WikiProject Education (and no objections elsewhere) I've gone ahead and copied the article into the mainspace. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

TOMS Shoes
Hello! The CEO of this organization was involved in a contentious event and the paragraph in the article that describes the event has been changed several times to represent a few different view points. I think the article is mostly in good shape and that the paragraph could use some attention from more editors. The section mentioned is TOMS_Shoes. I started this section on the talk page but so far, no one has joined the discussion (only edited the section). Any help there would be greatly appreciated.  Ol Yeller <font style="color:#827839;">Talktome 13:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Gary Johnson --Excluded from the Washington Post's Presidential Debate ...Why?
The Washington Post is hosting an upcoming presidential debate and has decided to exclude two-term Gov. Gary Johnson. If you're tired of the media trying to play king-makers and deciding on who should or should not be president of our country; join now and take a stand against their unethical journalism.

This media outlet purports to be unbiased, and misleads the general public into believing that they are being exposed to ALL the Republican candidates, when they put up a fraudulent debate. This is biased, yellow journalism at its very worst: crippling the country with only the politicians who support the central bankers and failed economic policies that led to the current recession. The bias is all the worse because so few people know about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.225.140 (talk) 04:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Winton Capital
I've just added the article Winton Capital Management to the scope of this WikiProject, and I'd like to follow up here and see if anyone is interested in reviewing the expanded version I have proposed to replace it. I'm getting involved at the request of Winton Capital, so I'm hoping to find consensus for the change before I make any direct edits. Please add your voice on the Winton Talk page if you're so inclined. Thanks, WWB Too (talk) 22:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

No Lie MRI
I've just tagged No Lie MRI for notability. I'm not where the notability bar sits for a company. I think this one fails, and is a case of self-promotion, but I'd be happy to have a second opinion. Thx. GyroMagician (talk) 14:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This one must be right on the borderline. Two reliable secondary sources (Wired and ScienceInsider) seem to have given it notability based on the almost unique novelty of its business. My attempt at a strict reading of the guideline (WP:ORG) leads me to say keep it, but I imagine there is a good case on the other side. If some say to delete it and create in the future when it becomes more notable, then I would go along with that. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

American Snuff URL
Hey editors,

I'm just dropping in to see if I can get an update agreed upon before submitting it. The update is for the page American Snuff Company. The company has changed the URL of its website to www.americansnuffco.com.

I have a COI disclosed on my talk page. Please advise. Thanks! Caroliny (talk) 20:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Resolved by Caroliny. Looks ok. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Somebody please sort out a lame argument
An editor recently corrected the article Jaguar Land Rover to read "Jaguar Land Rover plc" from the incorrect "Jaguar Land Rover PLC". He was immediately reverted by another editor who asserts that the official version is "PLC" as used by Jaguar Land Rover in all of their publications. My assertion is that "PLC" is merely a marketing affectation (see the article's talk page) and that every article I looked at in a random selection from Category:Companies listed on the London Stock Exchange uses "plc" in the article (even when the article's title contains "PLC"). This editor isn't giving up, so I would appreciate members of this project weighing in (even though it is rather lame) and provide other opinions. Thanks. --Biker Biker (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I am the editor in question and am disappointed by the lack of neutrality in the above canvass. The 'correct' approach is disputed.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I also agree that this argument is pointless, if I had known someone was going to revert it back I wouldn't have made the edit in the first place. There should be some guideline in regards to company type abbreviations. It appears that the UK Government also agrees with keeping it as p.l.c. in lower caps because they passed a law in 2006, ensuring that new companies would all have the same abbreviation. If anyone has anything to add to this discussion they can do so, this will be my last comment on the matter as I do not know enough of what wikipedia's policies or the government regulation in this area. Gsingh (talk) 01:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed revisions to Peabody Energy history section
Hi, I was hoping to get some feedback on revisions I have proposed to the Peabody Energy article’s history section. I have discussed and posted a draft of my proposed revisions in a collapsible box on that article’s talk page, but as there seems to be a low level of activity there, I was hoping another editor from this project might be willing to help out and provide some feedback. JamesClyde (talk) 15:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Style guideline for trademarks
This is to invite comments at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks (permanent link here). —Wavelength (talk) 06:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination as a United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month candidate
The United States Post Office, an article in this projects scope, has been nominated to be a future United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month. All editors interested in improving these articles or voting for next months collaboration are encouraged to participate here. --Kumioko (talk) 20:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

ITT Corporation
Conflict of interest -- : I worked for ITT from 1970-1981, at STL and at the Advanced Technology Center. (I made a technical presentation attended by all three CEO's!)

I made changes primarily to the post-Geneen years, added a paragraph on System 12(40) which was ITT's bet-the-farm effort to develop a world-wide digital system, and deleted some post-itt historical stuff. I followed a few links to related wikis, and updated them too. Some of the ref's are a bit weak : I'll try to find better ones. Please alert me on my talk page if you want to follow up on this. Alanf777 (talk) 23:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)