Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject Companies (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
Project This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Requesting Assistance With Newfold Digital Draft and Endurance International Group Article[edit]

Hello there! I am hoping to get the assistance of an editor with more knowledge and experience than myself (I am quite new to all of this) with improving Draft:Newfold Digital. This article is intended to provide up-to-date information on Newfold Digital for the interested reader. Endurance International Group (EIG) was merged with Group to form Newfold Digital, and Newfold Digital has since acquired several other companies, as seen in the sources included in the draft. Several editors have proposed moving/renaming EIG to Newfold Digital (and, in fact, it was moved/renamed to Newfold Digital previously until another editor, recognizing these issues, reverted the move). There are several inaccuracies and issues with the EIG article, which I believe provide a strong basis for the creation of a new article, and I have outlined those issues on the EIG article talk page.

I have no interest in using this as a marketing opportunity, nor do I view Wikipedia in that light. I simply would like to see accurate, up-to-date information provided for readers who are interested in learning more about this company, and I believe the company is notable, and that the sources provided bear that out. I am open to any and all feedback, as, again, I am at best completely green when it comes to Wikipedia. I believe this article will be of interest to many readers and I want it to simply be an unbiased and factual description of Newfold Digital. Would anyone be interested in partnering to help get Draft:Newfold Digital over the hump? Zach at Newfold (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The issue I see is the references for Newfold Digital do not meet WP:ORGCRIT. If you can point out the ones that are in-depth about Newfold and not just routine announcements, I will be glad to have a closer look. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:LABOR Edit-a-thon[edit]

Please consider joining the closely related WikiProject WP:LABOR Edit-a-thon Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized Labour/Online edit-a-thon February 2023. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft: Brainchip[edit]

could someone review the Draft:Brainchip page? Birdmanoftech (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Birdmanoftech:, it has been reviewed and declined twice. Since it has been resubmitted, it will be reviewed in due time. In the meantime, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID and make the applicable disclosure. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@CNMall41: can you explain what you want with this disclosure about conflict of interest and Paid contribution? I am not connected with this company. Birdmanoftech (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(talk page watcher) @CNMall41: Just pinging again because the previous one, added after that post had been signed, won't have worked AFAIK. PamD 13:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For now I will WP:AGF, although I believe there is some connection to the article based on the tone and the fact you have no other edits outside of a promotional draft. Please note that if you have any connection with the company whatsoever you would be required to disclose it. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@CNMall41: could you point out some places with this promotional tone so I can change it. Birdmanoftech (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You were already given an example on the page by the previous reviewer. Look at that example and apply it to the rest of the draft. If it isn't something you would normally read in an encyclopedia, it is likely only there to benefit the company. Unfortunately, I don't completely believe that you do not have a connection with the company so I would not be interested in assisting. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Classification of record labels and recording studios[edit]

Please consider comment on discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Categorization_of_notability_requisite_for_record_labels,_recording_studios,_art_collectives_and_like about application of notability standards for record labels and recording studios. Graywalls (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:Sisal (company)[edit]

Hi everyone! A few months ago I created a draft dedicated to Sisal (here), an Italian gaming company, starting from the translation of the article already in Italian. I thought it might be interesting to have an article in English given the recent acquisition of the company by Flutter Entertainment.

I was wondering if someone could give me an opinion. Since I work for the company and want to be fully compliant with Wikipedia rules, I thought to write here to get some feedback on whether it might be okay and what needs to be improved. Thanks in advance! Roberta Patrizio (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Roberta Patrizio:, thank you for full disclosure. However, I am unsure of what you are asking for. An editor has reviewed and declined the draft. Are there specific questions you have regarding the draft or the decline? --CNMall41 (talk) 05:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unreviewed Featured articles year-end summary[edit]

Restoring older Featured articles to standard:
year-end 2022 summary

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:

  • 357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR).
  • 222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
  • FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.

Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.

Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

Examples of 2022 "FAR saves" of very old featured articles
All received a Million Award

But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

  • Biology
  • Physics and astronomy
  • Warfare
  • Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

  • Literature and theatre
  • Engineering and technology
  • Religion, mysticism and mythology
  • Media
  • Geology and geophysics

... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area
FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2022 (VO, O)
Topic area Delisted Kept Total
Kept to
(overall 0.62)
Remaining to review
2004–7 promotions
Art, architecture and archaeology 10 6 16 0.60 19
Biology 13 41 54 3.15 67
Business, economics and finance 6 1 7 0.17 2
Chemistry and mineralogy 2 1 3 0.50 7
Computing 4 1 5 0.25 0
Culture and society 9 1 10 0.11 8
Education 22 1 23 0.05 3
Engineering and technology 3 3 6 1.00 5
Food and drink 2 0 2 0.00 3
Geography and places 40 6 46 0.15 22
Geology and geophysics 3 2 5 0.67 1
Health and medicine 8 3 11 0.38 5
Heraldry, honors, and vexillology 11 1 12 0.09 6
History 27 14 41 0.52 38
Language and linguistics 3 0 3 0.00 3
Law 11 1 12 0.09 3
Literature and theatre 13 14 27 1.08 24
Mathematics 1 2 3 2.00 3
Media 14 10 24 0.71 40
Meteorology 15 6 21 0.40 31
Music 27 8 35 0.30 55
Philosophy and psychology 0 1 1 2
Physics and astronomy 3 7 10 2.33 24
Politics and government 19 4 23 0.21 9
Religion, mysticism and mythology 14 14 28 1.00 8
Royalty and nobility 10 6 16 0.60 44
Sport and recreation 32 12 44 0.38 39
Transport 8 2 10 0.25 11
Video gaming 3 5 8 1.67 23
Warfare 26 49 75 1.88 31
Total 359 Note A 222 Note B 581 0.62 536

Noting some minor differences in tallies:

  • A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for.
  • B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 + 72 = 222.

But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.

Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.

  • Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
  • Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
  • Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
  • Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
  • Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.

FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject[edit]

If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. If comments are not entered on the article talk page, they may be swept up in archives here and lost. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. BAE Systems
  2. Slate industry in Wales

Draft: Identiv, Inc.[edit]

This is just to check if whether there might be any editors here willing to review Draft:Identiv? The draft has been created by me on their behalf. Any input or comments would be greatly appreciated. Best, /Urbourbo (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On first glance, I would say take out the awards. They don't serve any purpose except for the company to promote itself. I normally don't include any industry awards for companies. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks @CNMall41: for looking into the draft. I contemplated to merge the awards into the products section, what would be your take on that? I'm thinking that maybe the awards do at least add some notability to the products. Would it be worth editing the draft towards that goal, in your opinion? Any other edits you'd say would be beneficial? Thanks again, /Urbourbo (talk) 09:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"I'm thinking that maybe the awards do at least add some notability to the products" - How so? --CNMall41 (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm just thinking that a product that received an award is probably more likely to be notable than a product that did not. Also, that maybe the name of the award and of the awarding organisation could add some context and understanding for the nature of the product. /Urbourbo (talk) 11:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I took a closer look and would say to read over the referencing requirements at WP:ORGCRIT. You will see that references such as Forbes (if written by a contributor and not a staff writer) cannot be used for notability (see WP:RSP). The only reference that I believe would be considered acceptable for notability is the WSJ article under the old company name. The rest of the references can be used to cite content within, but showing notability is the first hurdle. The Fast Company article is good, but from experience I know editors would be 50/50 about that one since it is promotional about its award and not really in-depth. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the input. There's a wealth of articles written about them in publications of various sizes so I might not have been able to distill the most relevant for sourcing. I'll make sure to reach out to their team to see if I might have missed any articles compliant with the criteria. In the meantime, any further other input would of course be appreciated. /Urbourbo (talk) 11:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@CNMall41: Just a note that I took the time to add a revision to this draft based on your input. Any further input would be greatly appreciated. /Urbourbo (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Were you able to look at the guideline here at WP:ORGCRIT? Let me know how the new sourcing you added meets this criteria. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are such entities inherently notable? Drmies (talk) 15:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Drmies:, I have never seen them to be. To me, that one looks like a CFORK and isn't necessary anyway. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kosmos Energy help[edit]

Hello, I'm here on behalf of my employer, Kosmos Energy. I've been working with editors to make updates to the article and thought editors here might be interested in taking a look at my request. I don't edit the article myself because of my conflict of interest. Thank you. TGKosmos (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like your edit request was made and is in queue. Someone should be along to review the request in due time. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CNMall41, that doesn't look so bad to me, but I haven't looked at the actual article. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You referring to the Fed page or the Kosmos page? @Drmies: --CNMall41 (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kosmos. As you saw, I agreed with you on the Fed page. The COI edit seemed reasonable. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Drmies and CNMall41: Thanks both for your consideration. A quick question for Drmies, when you said "The COI edit seemed reasonable" were you referring to my suggested edit? Thank you. TGKosmos (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes--I was speaking to all the other editors, so to speak. Drmies (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Drmies: I appreciate the clarification, and good to know I'm on the right track. If you find yourself with time to implement the changes, I'd welcome the help, but no worries if not. Thank you. TGKosmos (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good article reassessment for Blackstone Inc.[edit]

Blackstone Inc. 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. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 13:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiProject Petroleum[edit]

Hello, there is a proposal to form WikiProject Petroleum, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Petroleum. Jerium (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Based on the discussion taking place there I am not sure if this notice is asking for support, our opinion, or what. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Could we get some more eyes on this RfC. NickCT (talk) 13:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Riot Games Criticism and controversies draft[edit]

Hello! I'm a Riot Games employee looking for help with an edit request I've placed on the company Talk page. I've assembled a draft, which you can view here, that reorganizes and adds fresh information to the article's Criticism and controversies section. New content that I've added to the existing section text is green.

My initial edit request for that draft, which you can view here, summarizes the substance of my proposed improvements. After realizing that asking editors to review a lengthy section draft might be unreasonable, I closed the full section edit request and opened a new one that deals specifically with Riot's response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. You can see that request here.

It would be great if somebody had time to look at the entire Criticism draft, but the open edit request right now is for the Ukraine part of it, which I hope is relatively straightforward. Any help I can get with this would be deeply appreciated. Thanks! JHixson at Riot Games (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saw there is a draft for Box Tops for Education. I thought it might be interesting to the members of this project. Thriley (talk) 05:33, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Thriley:, thanks for the note. First company draft in a long long time that I have seen that may be worth saving. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:02, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In fact, I just updated it and resubmitted. I will leave it for another reviewer but I believe notability is more than established. Don't want to WP:REFBOMB but there are a dozen or so more books that talk about it in great detail. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Page is now live. Could use expanding as its a stub but there are a ton of articles out there which can be used for expansion. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update to TelevisaUnivision executive officers.[edit]

Hello! I work on the communications team at TelevisaUnivision.

I noticed the Corporate governance section has an outdated executive officers list, so I've disclosed my conflict of interest and submitted an edit request to bring the list up to date. Could another editor please review this request and update the list of executives on my behalf? Thanks! CT at TU (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@CT at TU:, thank you for properly disclosing your conflict of interest. I looked at the request and it seems to be tagged properly so someone should be around to review it in due time. Thanks again. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello everyone,

I am trying to work on the Draft:Meesho and have made quite improvements. I have read many suggested policies and I do think the company is notable enough to get accepted. There are so many companies on Wikipedia that are far less notable but still got accepted. I have also requested for WP:THREE on the Draft talk:Meesho. Can editors from this project please check the references and let me know what can be done? Thanks Everbethesame (talk) 00:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment left on draft talk. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:DPDgroup#Requested move 13 March 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 18:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion at MFE - MediaForEurope[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:MFE - MediaForEurope#MFE ≠ Mediaset (Italia S.p.A.), which is within the scope of this WikiProject. JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 13:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request to update Patrick Mavros[edit]

I have opened a Talk in Patrick Mavros as there is an updated needed. The brand has been featured in many magazines and online articles. @Abecedare Bonjour et co (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@AbecedareI have requested the update as a High conflict of interest as I currently work for the brand, and would require this information to be reviewed for update. I have kept all information as a source of knowledge and insight as Patirck Mavros opened a new store in Namibia in 2022 and also launched a new collection in collaboration with the Tusk Trust and The Big Life Foundation. I have included my reasoning for update. Thank you again! A2509p (talk) 10:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@A2509p Please take the trouble to format the references in your edit suggestions properly, so that anyone wanting to update the article according to your information can easily add properly formatted sources. Thanks. PamD 11:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PamDI have updated using the update guidelines. A2509p (talk) 12:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]