Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconCompanies 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.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Neutrality discussion on Conagra Brands[edit]

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]

Seeking review of NerdWallet Products and services changes[edit]

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]

importance assessment of Rockstar Games[edit]

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]

Split proposal at Canadian Pacific Railway[edit]

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]

Help updating the Edelman article's recent history[edit]

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]

Dahua Technology's minority state ownership[edit]

 – 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]

The Office Group: not accurate, doesn't reflect recent merger with Fora[edit]

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]

MOS:EGG in Template:Infobox company[edit]

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]

Good article reassessment for EVA Air[edit]

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]

Le Cordon Bleu[edit]

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]

Discussion at Physics Wallah[edit]

 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]

Help with Infillion Engagement advertising section[edit]

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]

2023 Starbucks strike at AfD[edit]

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

Full company names and lead references[edit]

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]
Per WP:SILENCE I'll be reverting out the excessive lead citations being added and will have to defer to local consensus on the plc issue. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:37, 9 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]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Stellantis Italy#Requested move 18 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 15:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category hierarchy[edit]

I recently requested a number of categories

  • Category:Industrial companies
  • Category:Companies involved with consumer staples
  • Category:Companies involved with consumer discretionary goods

All three requests were declined.

The intention was to recreate the actual hierarchy used by real-world schemes such as Industry Classification Benchmark and Global Industry Classification Standard, where 8 of the 11 top-level categories already exist. See

Category:Companies by industry

An example branch would be

Companies by industry ≫ Consumer Discretionary ≫ Consumer Products and Services ≫ Household Goods and Home Construction ≫ Household Furnishings ≫ {all the companies}

Any thoughts on how we can move forward?