This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Companies and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcut WT:COMPANIES

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 90 days

Companies Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the ((portal|Companies)) template Tag company talk pages with the ((WikiProject Companies)) project banner Answer requests for comments

Six Flags and Cedar Fair are merging, and the combined company will be called Six Flags. Both articles have extensive histories. Merging both articles would be difficult to do. Need some ideas on how to best proceed once the merger is complete in 2024. Please see Talk:Six Flags#Merge with Cedar Fair. Thank you! --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The best approach (IMHO) would be to rename Six Flags to Six Flags (original) and use the Six Flags title for a new article about the merged company (umm, riffing off the top of my head here). Six Flags (original) and Cedar Fair would remain but would indicate an appropriate 'fate' value. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a good suggestion, however, I am concerned with the fact that Six Flags has been owned by multiple companies over the years so the "original" ceased to exist many years ago. Perhaps a name like Six Flags prior to Cedar Fair merger might be more appropriate — although kind of wordy for a page title.—JlACEer (talk) 03:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, at least the suggestion is similar to what I've been harping on at that linked discussion above: renaming the original Six Flags article. Probably shouldn't be that wordy for the title, but that's the right idea. I brought it up here, because it's probably pretty rare see two large companies form an "equal" merger but retain the exact name of one of the merging companies. I envision a similar approach to what was done at Sirius XM, which is to briefly summarize each former company's history and link back to the original articles for further detail. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where is the move discussion you're referring to? User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe something like Six Flags (before 2024) or Six Flags (pre-2024)? User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the interest and feedback. The linked discussion posted above is a preemptive one, meaning we are not looking to perform an action now. The merger is still in its early stages and has a ways to go before completion; plus it can still fail. The goal is to understand how a merger of this magnitude would be handled, and also when one of the merging companies' previous names is being selected for the new company. I like those suggestions as well as the one offered in the linked discussion above: Six Flags (1956–2024). It would be great if you could add your thoughts/suggestions to that discussion, so we have everything in one place. Thanks! --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! I'm a Canada Goose employee working as a COI editor to improve the company's article. On the Goose Talk page, I've asked independent editors to review a new Products section that I have drafted. The purpose of this draft is to strengthen the article by providing concrete details about the goods that Canada Goose manufactures and sells. My intention is for this section to replace the existing Marketing one, which isn't terribly substantial and has lots of content that I think most editors would deem promotional. The article has a "written like an advertisement" tag at the top, and I believe that cutting the Marketing section will fix (or at least ameliorate) that problem. If anyone here would like to take a look at my Products draft, use this link to view my Talk page post. I'm open to any and all feedback, so please don't hesitate to reach out. Thank you Canada Goose Isabella (talk) 15:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Shaw Media#Requested move 5 November 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans (talk) 04:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Please note that 3dfx, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI teamReply[reply]

Hello wiki community, I am trying to create a company page and it was declined. I would like to understand the feedback in detail. Which of the citations are reliable and which are not reliable. I tried adding 11 citations which found to be reliable. What are the main issues you see in the content? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mercans_(company). Is there anyone who would like to contribute to the page? How do I invite editors to review the content and contribute? I appreciate your help in advance. Vbhavanisankar (talk) 09:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If we look at Category:Companies by stock market index, most of the world's major indices are listed, except for a few, listed on the talk page. Please can somebody add the missing ones? 92.71.60.61 (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see Talk:FTSE 100 Index — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.71.60.61 (talk) 08:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Nintendo#Date format.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Quarterhill page needs to be updated. Specifically, the industry, key people and subsidiary sections. There have also been some recent updates that could be added to the history and the business focus has changed. Quarterhill (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quarterhill

Rusty Lewis (Chair of the Board)

Chuck Myers (CEO)

Subsidiaries: https://www.quarterhill.com/Our-Companies/default.aspx Quarterhill (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi editors, I'm Rachel and I work for Conagra. I was hoping to get some additional feedback on a request I made of the Conagra Brands article related to due weight in the Product incidents section. I'd really appreciate any insight folks here could offer! RWConagra (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello there! Would anyone at this WikiProject be interested in reviewing a few changes I'm proposing to the opening paragraph of the NerdWallet article's Products and services section? I'm a NerdWallet employee operating as a COI editor, so I can't make direct edits myself.

If you follow this link to the NW Talk page, you'll see that I had been talking to an independent editor about these changes, but they dropped off the thread. I tried reaching out to them once, to no avail. I feel that's all I'm entitled to do, since I'm operating as a paid editor and they're a volunteer. They should use their time as they see fit, but it does leave my changes stuck mid-review. If someone here would pick up where the previous editor left off, I'd really appreciate it. And if you've got further feedback for me, I'm all ears. Thanks! KB at NerdWallet (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I'm requesting consensus on how "important" Rockstar Games should be considered according to this WikiProject. It was previously ranked "low", but I don't see how this is in alignment with the published importance scheme. Can I get some feedback please? Pdubs.94 (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Geräte- und Akkumulatorenwerk Zwickau#Requested move 6 December 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 13:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a splitting proposal discussion at Talk:Canadian Pacific Railway about the creation of a History of the Canadian Pacific Railway page that may be of interest to members of this Wikiproject. RetroCosmos (talk) 10:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey there. I'm an employee of Edelman, a communications firm. I'm operating as a COI editor on the firm's behalf, and I'm trying to make some updates to the company article's History, specifically the subsection that covers its activities from 2000 up to the present. A lot of what I'm proposing is reorganization, making the section more coherent and easier to read, but I'm also proposing additional content about relatively recent developments at Edelman.

If any editors here are interested in taking a look at my request, it's on the Edelman Talk page. Thank you in advance to anyone who takes the time. MichaelBush48 (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Neff GmbH#Requested move 6 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Dahua Technology#Incorrect terminology in infobox and lead - Additional input requested from editors on how to refer to a Chinese company with 11.67% state ownership. This has been a two-party dispute, in which I offered a third opinion, but both parties think additional voices would help settle the question.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, I've been trying to update The Office Group page, but there's a conflict of interests blocking me. However, the info on there is outdated. After merging with Fora, the latest version is on their official website: https://www.theofficegroup.com/. Can someone take a look at the Wiki page and make sure it's updated? Thanks a bunch! Sharubi90 (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've proposed updating Template:Infobox company's documentation to avoid a potential MOS:EGG issue. Please give your thoughts in that discussion. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 01:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

EVA Air has been nominated for a 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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We have a main page for Le Cordon Bleu but doing some gnoming edits on culinary company pages I see we also have several of its individual locations such as Le Cordon Bleu College of Culinary Arts Scottsdale, Le Cordon Bleu Institute of Culinary Arts – Dallas, and Le Cordon Bleu Institute of Culinary Arts in Pittsburgh to name a few. I do not see these as individually notable as many don't have the coverage required under WP:ORGCRIT to show standalone notability. Prior to doing any merging or possibly AfD nominations, was hoping to get feedback from others in the project. CNMall41 (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Physics_Wallah#Proposed_merge_of_Alakh_Pandey_into_Physics_Wallah, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Sohom (talk) 09:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm looking for an independent editor to review an edit request I've made on the Infillion Talk page. (Link here.) I'm an employee at the company, so I can't edit the article myself. My request concerns the Engagement advertising section, which is in need of a few changes to bring it more closely in line with Wikipedia's content guidelines. If that interests anyone at this WikiProject, please take a look at what I'm proposing and let me know if it's up to code. Thanks, CM with Infillion (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Starbucks strike

---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi WikiProject Companies, I'd like to raise a run of edits by an editor on British company pages that could do with some discussion. Strugglehouse is interpreting guidance at MOS:TM#Multiple,_changed,_and_former_names to mean that all company articles must start with their full legal name including "plc" "or ltd.", "limited" etc., exactly as per the documentation from companies house, and with two references added to each lead to support this name. (Some examples, [1], [2] or see Talk:Butlin's#Title) This, even when the trading name and article common name are different, which contradicts MOS:FIRST which says: If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence. It also runs agains MOS:LEADCITE and WP:OVERCITE in that we are gaining 2 lead citations in every lead simply for the first bolded word. This appears to me to be unnecessary lead clutter.

To my mind, the Multiple changed and former names guidance is making the point that we should always use the company's current legal identity before any previous one. The guidance does suggest that plc/ltd. etc. should be included in that description, but many (most?) company articles across Wikipedia don't include those in the first sentence. Is there additional guidance on this? Has the matter been discussed before? What are the thoughts of project members here? Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Part of this dispute can be viewed in the edit history at Whitbread, where--outside of this policy discussion--the company seems satisfied with the name "Whitbread"...that name appearing eight times on the front page of the company website, while "Whitbread PLC" appears just once. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any thoughts from the members of this project, please? What is the equivalent to "plc" that we should be adding to American public traded companies? Is it "inc."? Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello everyone! I would like your input on a discussion at Talk:Criticism of the Walt Disney Company#Splitting off content to Criticism of Walt Disney Animation Studios about whether to split off content from five sub-sections about Walt Disney Animation Studios to the Criticism of Walt Disney Animation Studios, in order to ensure that the page complies with WP:SIZESPLIT. Consensus in this discussion is important to determine whether such a this split is warranted or not. Thanks and I hope to see your comments. Historyday01 (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]