Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies
|This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Companies and anything related to its purposes and tasks.
|Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3|
|WikiProject Companies||(Rated Project-class)|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Threads with no replies in 90 days may be automatically moved.|
- 1 Clyde cancer cluster
- 2 Taylor (Firm)
- 3 WikiProject Investment
- 4 link on hybris not working (wallet garden content)
- 5 Help with Kona Grill Updates
- 6 RfC to raise NCORP standards
- 7 Appropriate to add mention of current and former CEOs in company article's prose?
- 8 McKinsey & Company - alumni-related info in lead
- 9 Feedback requested for the Teradata article
- 10 Company histories + Forbes
- 11 Notice
- 12 Relisting of move discussion
- 13 RfC at New York Life Insurance Company
- 14 Film Booking Offices of America Featured Article Review
- 15 YESFX Ltd - alleged "scam"?
- 16 Kohlberg Kravis Roberts
- 17 Discussion Invitation
Hello, people of WikiProject Companies. I've created this message to notify active members of the project, especially to those who know a lot about or are interested in the Whirlpool Corporation. If you are, I need help improving my article about the Clyde cancer cluster, an incident that Whirlpool was sued for; in other words, it was their fault (don't write those words on the article by the way, WP:NEUTRAL). It is definitely not a bad article. It just needs some small improvements. I'm not at all saying minor edits or improvements are bad, but I'm specifically looking for people who can help me long-term with a lot of co-research to improve the article to reach Good Article status. If you're interested in helping, the things needed to be improved are listed on Talk:Clyde cancer cluster#Improvements. In other words, more material needs to be added to improve the article, and I want more people to edit because I feel like I'm the sole editor. Regards, Philmonte101 (talk)
Would someone from WP:WPCY mind taking a look at Taylor (Firm) and assessing it? It was just created and already has had most of its content WP:REVDELeted as a copyright violation. There might be some COI/Paid editing involved since the two accounts primarily editing it are also brand new WP:SPAs. Not sure if it meets WP:ORG since one of the sources seems to be some kind of Harvard Law School student project and the others might be problematic per WP:CORPDEPTH. -- Marchjuly (talk)
Was hoping to collaborate with this project!
Help with Kona Grill Updates
Hello, WikiProject Companies members. I've proposed an update request in the article for Kona Grill and am looking for interested editors to help. I have a COI with this company, so I do not intend to make any edits to the live article and am looking for an uninvolved editor (or editors) to review and make the changes they feel are appropriate, the article is currently a stub, so I'm proposing some additional information be added to make the article more informative to readers. Would anyone mind taking a look at this and lending a hand? Any and all help is appreciated, Deswans1 (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
RfC to raise NCORP standards
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#RfC:_Raising_NCORP_standards Jytdog (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- withdrew it - discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#RfC_discussion. Jytdog (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Appropriate to add mention of current and former CEOs in company article's prose?
Hello. I submitted a request to add mention of the current and former CEOs to the Iteris article's prose. However, my edit request was rejected because the current CEO is already mentioned in the infobox, the reviewing editor used WP:NOTDIRECTORY as a reason for not adding mention of key leadership to the prose. I'm looking for more clarification on the type of information about key employees that is standard for company articles, since there's a variety of ways this is dealt with, even between FA and GA articles, and I've not been able to find any guidelines that give more information on specific content that company articles should contain. Can any WikiProject Companies members confirm what CEO / employee details should be included? To me, it seems like a basic addition, but I want to make sure I'm understanding what's current consensus. Thanks. Inkian Jason (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think there's any guideline on it, but I agree with the reviewer who declined the edit request. A list of non-notable CEO's without any context is vacuous information, it doesn't contribute to an understanding of the article's topic. What would be valuable information would be something about how a particular CEO influenced the company, like "Jane Smith became CEO in 1995 and instituted a new strategy that led to...", or something about how that person fits into the company's history, like "As part of efforts to distance itself from the scandal, the company appointed John Jones, a former Eagle Scout, as CEO." Toohool (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Toohool: Thanks for your feedback. I do understand what you mean, and while I still understand infoboxes to be summaries of content detailed in the article's prose, I will definitely keep your explanation in mind when working on other company articles. Inkian Jason (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I and another editor have a disagreement about the lead content of McKinsey & Company. It would be great, if other interested editors could have a look and offer additional feedback there (see article talk - I have already invited the disagreeing editor to join this discussion aswell). Thanks in advance. GermanJoe (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Feedback requested for the Teradata article
Hello! On behalf of my employer, Teradata, I've been submitting a series of requests to improve the company's Wikipedia article. I am familiar with COI rules and don't edit articles directly. I was pleased when my initial requests were accepted and answered by helpful editors, but my later requests (all answered by the same editor) were unsuccessful, and I've struggled to get them to reconsider my proposed improvements or offer further feedback, this has been disappointing and I am hoping some other editors from WikiProject Companies may be willing to take a look at the proposed updates.
I am seeking additional feedback on two edit requests, for the first, I proposed a simple 3-sentence update to the "Technology and products" section. I was told the first source was advertorial, and additional paraphrasing was needed. I've suggested different sourcing, and provided alternative wording for consideration. However, the editor declined to reply, despite my ping for further feedback.
For this request, I proposed simply moving content related to acquisitions and divestitures to an "Acquisitions and divestitures" subsection. I proposed no major content changes, just grouping related content together, the reviewing editor replied and said they "implemented" my request, but actually they did not. Instead, they changed the entire history section into bullet points. I never see Wikipedia articles written in the form of bulleted lists, so I have to assume this does not comply with guidelines, and I'm afraid the article looks worse than before. I replied to the editor, noting that they had not separated out content as requested, and asking for the bullet point to be converted into prose, but I did not receive any reply.
There was even another declined edit request in between these two, but I'm trying to pick my battles. I am hoping to get additional feedback from other Wikipedia volunteers. Are there any WikiProject Companies participants who are willing to take a look at the edit requests and article history? You might consider looking at the pre-bullet point version of the article, for context. Thanks for reviewing in advance. Dodds_Writer (Talk · Disclosure: Employee of Teradata) 16:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Company histories + Forbes
In working on updates to Broadridge Financial Solutions, a few questions came up that I hope to clarify with editors experienced in editing company articles, as a disclosed COI editor, I requested edits to develop the article's History, however there are a couple places where the reviewing editor and I do not see eye-to-eye (see the discussion here), and I would value additional input.
- What is now Broadridge Financial Solutions was once a division of ADP. The reviewing editor declined to include historical moves they said were "effected by ADP and had nothing outwardly to do with Broadridge Financial Services"; in my opinion, important moves by ADP that created the foundation for what Broadridge is are important details that should be included. Specifically, these are details that have been ascribed to Broadridge in sourcing but took place at the time that it was part of ADP. My question: For companies that were once part of other companies, how much historical information is acceptable to include?
- The reviewing editor says that "Forbes exists as a brand-building platform for journalists, participatory readers and marketers, all existing under the Forbes publication umbrella. Thus, it is not my practice to use them alone as a source". It's true that articles and blogs from Forbes' contributors network are not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia, but the Forbes piece I referenced is written by a staff writer that was published in the November 18, 2013, issue of the magazine, which focuses on the financial industry. My question: Are Forbes articles written by staffers for the magazine reliable sources or no?
- Pinging a few active WikiProject Companies editors. @AmericanAir88, WikiEditCrunch, and Whoisjohngalt: I'm interested to see what you think of the following questions: 1. For companies that were once part of other companies, how much historical information is acceptable to include in company histories? 2. Are Forbes articles written by staffers for the magazine reliable sources or no? I appreciate feedback from any editors! Thanks, Danilo Two (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
In regard to the question about historical information, I tend to put enough information to provide the reader with a good level of background. Keep historical information brief and succinct; in regards to Forbes articles I would give more weight to articles that have been published in the magazine. I've used Forbes many times in the past and I've not known Forbes to be an unreliable source, as usual, if you can find another source, use it. Whoisjohngalt (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Be advised that, on the Smith & Wesson company talk page, there is currently a debate on whether or not to include notation of a firearm illegally used in a recent mass-shooting that was manufactured by the company which is the subject of the article. Should this item be included, then it goes to stand that all of these types of incidents will be included on numerous company articles, in some cases outweighing the total content of the remainder of the article, as this potentially affects multiple company articles, I thought this wiki-project should be aware of the issue. - theWOLFchild 14:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I have posted a proposal regarding this issue at the Project:Firearms talk page that could potentially affect multiple articles under Project:Companies. Please have a look and consider participating. Thank you - theWOLFchild 21:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Relisting of move discussion
Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Hutchison 3G#Requested move 17 February 2018, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, SkyWarrior 20:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
RfC at New York Life Insurance Company
Hello! I invite editors to participate in this request for comment at New York Life Insurance Company about whether it's appropriate to have a section based on a government report. Your input would be most welcome! Thanks in advance, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 13:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hi again! I've posted up a re-worded version of this RfC here. Looking for editors to offer their thoughts on this. Thanks! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 15:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Film Booking Offices of America Featured Article Review
FAR coordinator User:Casliber has nominated Film Booking Offices of America for a featured article review here. This is a procedural review of its FA status due to the discovery of socking at its original FAC. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks, the instructions for the review process are here.
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 "Delist" the article's featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, could an editor with experience in company articles could have a look at that article please? Some comments (see talk and article, now removed from article) claim, that the company might not be registered or might even be an alleged "scam". As I am not an expert in Cyprus company law or company registration in general, any help would be appreciated. There's also the question of general notability for this company, that a knowledgeable editor might be more qualified to assess. GermanJoe (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Kohlberg Kravis Roberts
Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
A merge proposal was made to merge Keith Raniere with NXIVM in November 2017, I have revived the merge proposal. Please see discussion here. Your comments in the discussion would be appreciated since the page is within this WikiProject. -- Waddie96 (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)