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 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

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)

 Completed

Hello, my name is Jenny (User:JLD at Walmart). As one of Walmart’s official representatives on Wikipedia, I have been respectful of Wikipedia’s financial conflict of interest guidelines and posted a request on the Walmart article Talk page requesting basic updates to facts and figures in the entry. An editor there completed a portion of the request, yet some items remain. Can someone take a look at my request? To avoid possible confusion with the partially completed request, I have added the remaining issues here. As you will see, I’m mainly hoping to fix, source or update existing content. I am happy to answer any questions. Thanks, JLD at Walmart (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The bank (or the holding company) was officially known as Hypo Alpe-Adria-Bank International until 2014, which some the Balkans subsidiaries were spin off as Hypo Group Alpe Adria (a holding company that purchased by Advent International), Italian subsidiary as HBI-Bundesholding AG in 2014. The parent company was renamed into Heta Asset Resolution, so how to properly rewrite the articles the reflect the new and old bank, good and old bank? The history of old Hypo Alpe-Adria-Bank should include in which article? in bad bank or good bank, or create another one? (Hypo Alpe-Adria-Bank International, Hypo Group Alpe Adria (possible adding Yugoslavia or (2014-) in the namespace?), Heta Asset Resolution)Matthew_hk tc 19:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a Request for Comment at Talk:American_International_Group regarding whether or not the content about the FCIC's findings should appear in both the lead and bailout sections. Any feedback is greatly appreciated.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've created and proposed a new draft of the DriveTime article. The existing article that has evolved over the years is currently tagged as reading like an advertisement. In fact, the article contains unencyclopedic language and focuses a lot on DriveTime's predecessor, Ugly Duckling. I'm hoping editors will see that my draft eliminates WP:POV issues and is neutral and well-sourced. I'm new to Wikipedia and I've studied the site's guideline on conflict of interest and policy on paid editing. As an employee of DriveTime Automotive Group, Inc., I won't edit the article directly. The draft you'll see in my user space is essentially a complete rewrite. I originally posted an edit request on the DriveTime Talk page. While an earlier editor seemed interested in taking a look at my request, they had to excuse themself because they just don't have the time.

Additionally, I have uploaded a logo (File:DriveTime_logo.png) that can be used on the article. I received an automated message pointing out this will be deleted unless it's added to an article, so I hope someone can help before that happens.

Can somebody give a look?

Thank you, CP at DriveTime (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I work for Point72, and have been making a few changes to the article with input from uninvolved Wikipedians. But I have a more substantial edit to propose, and I have not gotten much response thus far: splitting the article in two. If somebody could take a look, I'd appreciate it. Thanks for any input! -AlexReads (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeking input regarding an author adding a large list of employee salaries to an article. I am unable to find any guidelines outside of infobox templates that would refute or validate these additions. Please see the talk at:

• Talk:WNYC#Staff salaries
• Talk:WNYC#Most Recent Reported Staff Salaries

--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again thank you for raising my edit for discussion when I requested.

Though I believe it is out of scope of this project which covers for-profit companies. The 12 line list in the edit is legally exclusively required of non-profit companies for public scrutiny. The cultural activity surrounding this information tends to overwhelmingly focus on non-profits. Formulairis990 (talk) 12:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have been building a basic article about my employer, Team One (advertising agency). I am working to avoid inserting bias or treating this like a marketing piece, in accordnce with WP:COI; I recognize that direct editing is discouraged, but I am doing my best to approach it in a neutral way. Any feedback or edits welcome. -PenaCynthia (talk) 17:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

On behalf of Hilton Worldwide, I'd like to request an update to the article's infobox. I've proposed three updates, which are described here. I've requested updates to: 1) the revenue figure, 2) number of employees, and 3) removal of the parent company.

These should be easy edits to complete, and I've provided formatted referencing, but I prefer not to edit the article directly because of my conflict of interest. Is someone able to respond to this request? Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks for your consideration. -Inkian Jason (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marking this section as resolved since the request has been answered. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know how many of you have noticed, but an editor, User:XyZAn, has started adding diagrams (cladograms, if you like) to articles about companies with complex M&A histories; the diagrams show the M&A history graphically. You can see a couple of them here: Valeant_Pharmaceuticals#Acquisition_history (you have to click "show" to expand it) and at GlaxoSmithKline#Acquisition_history. I'm opening this because another editor, User:Leprof 7272, has some concerns, and moved the one for Shire to the Talk page, here: Unsourced, undated, unverifiable presentation of company information. You can see their thoughts, there.

What are folks thoughts about these? Jytdog (talk) 03:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there's no particular problem with using cladograms/tree structures for representing hierarchical relationships (although note that the current templates cannot cope with companies that have merged, then subsequently split). For what it may be worth, for company mergers having time proceed left-to-right would be more intuitive for people not used to the conventions of phylogenetics. Left-to-right presentation would be appropriate for a company, where mergers are occurring (as opposed to speciation events splitting biological lineages). NB. reproduced from original post. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 05:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I like this idea. My first thought was that some of these are unwieldy to read in horizontal format and maybe something like the {{Chart}} template would work better, but the left-to-right orientation might also help. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the {{Chart}} template could be used--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jytdog for putting this discussion in one single place. I suppose it's a matter of perspective, to me coming from a scientific & financial background reading horizontally, ie predecessor to the right, successor to the left is intuitive - but i can understand how someone with a different background may see vertical presentation easier to follow. As Jytdog as said, M&A in the pharma/biotech sector is notoriously unwieldy and complicated - see for example Allergan, Inc, Allergan, Plc & Actavis - that took a lot of work unpicking the 'story' and I believe the diagrams give a neat summary of the history of a company. More-so when we include details about what type of transaction was performed. I do like the presentation given to the reader using the chart template, however my only concern is the size it will become on screen. For example, look at how Pfizers digram is, could using the chart template may make this massive on-screen?? From a referencing point of view its unimaginably easy - as shown by myself on the Shire page yesterday. XyZAn (talk) 17:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

XyXAn please do consider the left-to-right flow thing. I think that is useful feedback. The charts do reflect historical events unfolding and I at least think about time flowing from left to right....Jytdog (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog absolutely, I'm more than up for having them go from left (predecessor) to right (successor) - i see the logic in both - i'm just not sure with that markup how you'd do it. I taught myself how to use that markup when I first saw that diagram style being used on JPMorgan Chase#Acquisition history. If someone could show me, I don't mind flipping them all around XyZAn (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Leprof 7272: You are making this way more complicated than it is. Cladograms can be used either qualitatively or quantitively. There is nothing wrong with a qualitative application. No one else that has posted here sees any problem with this application either. If it bothers you that much, just add "branch lengths not drawn to scale" to the figure caption and be done with it. Why are you making such a big deal out of this? Boghog (talk) 10:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved my discussion to a separate new section at the bottom of the page, to clarify the actual issue in the Section title (since Jytdog did not accept a collegial edit to properly state and direct attention, by the one who initiated the objection in the first place). Leprof 7272 (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Street Press (ASP) is an electronic academic database publisher. Its "Academic Video Online: Premium collection" includes videos in a range of subject areas, including news programs (like 60 minutes) and newsreels, music and theatre, speeches and lectures and demonstrations, and documentaries. This collection would be useful for researching topics related to science, engineering, history, music and dance, anthropology, business, counseling and therapy, news, nursing, drama, and more. For more topics see their website.

There are up to 30 one-year ASP accounts available to experienced Wikipedians through this partnership. To apply for free access, please go to WP:ASP. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! There's an ongoing RfC concerning Paul Singer and WP:NPOV in a broader sense, that you might care to comment on. Thank you, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, My name is Madison (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MadisonfromStanding) I have submitted an edit to the page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maritz,_LLC) and was wondering if someone wouldn't mind reviewing and incorporating the proposed changes to improve the page. I'm following Wikipedia's guidelines by requesting this here (due to a COI) and also because this group is focused on company pages. Please let me know if you have any questions about the proposed revisions MadisonfromStanding (talk) 17:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

On behalf of Hilton Worldwide, I have another request to update the article, this time within its history section. I've identified some corrections/updates that should be made, which should be pretty painless to complete since the information all comes from a single website and does not require reference formatting or the inclusion of additional inline citations. However, because of my conflict of interest I would prefer not to make these edits directly. Is there a WikiProject Companies participant who is willing to review my request here? Thanks for your consideration. Inkian Jason (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: My request has been answered, so I am marking this section as resolved. Inkian Jason (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to request to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_Industries#Guardrail_controversy, all edits will be within Wikipedia guidelines and will be cited by third-party sources. I'm requesting a Wikipedia to ensure there's no COI. Thanks.--Robphilips (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted requested revisions on the talk page of this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:ET-Plus_Guardrail. Can a Wikipedia editor review the changes to confirm that everything adheres to Wikipedia guidelines and there's no COI. Thank you. --Robphilips (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrara Candy Company has recently undergone a rewrite by someone. I've added a few tags to it, but I don't usually do companies so it could use someone to take a deeper look. BlueSalix (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looked at it; the old version seemed significantly superior. I've reverted to that and started addressing the sourcing. Kuru (talk) 00:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kuru, had a suspicion it might be a paid editor but wasn't sure. BlueSalix (talk) 00:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kuru I don't think they liked your changes. :) [1] BlueSalix (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone, I'm a representative of Smithfield Foods and would like to request some assistance in updating this article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smithfield_Foods). In particular, there were a series of edits made on March 29th that are unsourced and inaccurate. I am respectful of Wikipedia's guidelines concerning conflict of interest and have made no edits myself but wanted to encourage others to make this article accurate. The infobox is also very out of date in many areas including financial figures and leadership. Thank you for your help and consideration. (Jeremy Smithfield (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Chrysler#RfC: Reception; rankings in independent surveys and ratings of quality, reliability, and customer satisfaction. Should the following content be added to the article?

Since at least the late 1990s, Chrysler has performed poorly in independent rankings of reliability, quality, and customer satisfaction.^[1][2] In 2011, James B. Stewart said in The New York Times that Chrysler's quality in 2009 was "abysmal," and cited that all Chrysler brands were in the bottom quarter of J. D. Power and Associates' customer satisfaction survey.^[3] In 2015, Fiat Chrysler brands ranked at the bottom of J. D. Power and Associates' Initial Quality Study, and the five Fiat Chrysler brands were the five lowest ranked of 20 brands in their Customer Service Index, which surveyed customer satisfaction with dealer service.^[2][4] Chrysler has performed poorly in Consumer Reports annual reliability ratings.^[5][6] In 2009 and 2010, Chrysler brands were ranked lowest in the Consumer Reports Annual Auto Reliability Survey;^[7] in 2014 and 2015, Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram, and Fiat were ranked at or near the bottom;^[8][9] in 2015 five of the seven lowest rated brands were the five Fiat Chrysler brands.^[10] In 2016, all Fiat Chrysler brands (Dodge, Chrysler, Jeep, and Fiat; Ram was not included) finished in the bottom third of 30 brands evaluated in Consumer Reports' 2016 annual Automotive Brand Report Card; Consumer Reports cited "poor reliability and sub-par performance in our testing."^{[1][11][12][13]} Chrysler has consistently ranked near the bottom in the American Customer Satisfaction Index survey.^[14]

Please comment at Talk:Chrysler#RfC: Reception; rankings in independent surveys and ratings of quality, reliability, and customer satisfaction. Thank you! Hugh (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Hi, I'm Shari and I'm here on behalf of my employer Smile Train to update the article. I've proposed two updates at Talk:Smile Train.

The first request is about co-founder Brian Mullaney's departure from the organization in 2010. The second proposes a slightly trimmed and less contentious re-wording of the relationship between Smile Train and Operation Smile, and puts the content in chronological order.

I know that making direct edits to Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, given my conflict of interest. Is there someone who is willing to respond to these two requests? Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! SM at Smile Train (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone take a look at Magellan Solutions for me? I'm not convinced that this is notable but am not quite up on company articles enough to make a definitive judgement. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog:, @Evolution and evolvability:, @Opabinia regalis:, @Ozzie10aaaa:, @XyZAn:: Having been away, I see that the discussion is sidelined (few, if any quantitative phylogenetics folks involved). The pending questions, posed elsewhere, but largely unaddressed here, are:

• (1) Is it appropriate to use this quantitative tool, which is intended to convey quantitative information in its line lengths? (Asked based on a professional period of 18 mos. I spent in a molecular phylogenetics laboratory many years ago.) THat is, is it appropriate to present qualitative information, where transpired time is not reflected in segment lengths, etc.? At the very least, to be true to design, the meaning of the ordinate and abscissa segment lengths would be somewhere defined, and the line segments connecting the M&A events would be proportionate to the time elapsing between them (or to some other stated parameter, that reflects this type of "evolution.". Were this to be the case, the tool would convey, e.g., that a companies aquistion activities were few and far between, and clustered in short periods (or whatever). It seems not to convey this, so as it stands, it seems to me that the presentation is simply inaccurate and misleading. (Use of alternate parameters to time elapsed between chance, such as company size or valuation, could conceivably also be used. The point is, the lines in trees mean something.) Specifically, the way in which passing time is represented seems to me to be tremendously misleading.
• (2) Is the application to business history, in this way, a good match or a mismatch of the tool's design? In phylogenetic setting it is sophisticated and elegant (graphical presentation of the genetic distances that underpin the relationships between organisms, hence two elements, name and segment lengths, with computational generation of the trees that best fit the whole of the inter-species distance data). Whereas here, the tool fails, as it seems to present no information in the distances, and to otherwise struggle with how to handle (and therefore either ignores or oversimplifies) the complexities associated with various specific historical M&A events. In this regard, genetic distance and organism name/label, as sophisticated as the tool is in application to these, are vanishingly simple concepts/categories, relative to the wide array of event details and other information that the application to business M&A is trying to describe.
• (3) Otherwise, is it likely that editors in general can add information easily to this format? The question is both one of true ease, and perceived ease of editing—over the earlier tabular forms, which have no pretense of the graphical, and allow (in this editor's opinion) greater flexibility to record historical events. That there would be greater ease in a future editor's adding to the continuing record, for a table over this image, is hard to argue (see also next point). For the markup used, see this image, clicking on on the Edit tab.
• (4) What are the sources of the information, and is the image accurate to the source? This bullet is not highlighted, because the initiator of use of these images has expressed willingness to populate the images with the source of the information. Accuracy to image is a second matter, one that has to be checked, image by image. For an example in addition to the question of handling merge-split (already raised), see this image, and consider what is implied by the unexplained differences in presentation of information at various points of the tree.

In summary, I do not think I am alone among people who have actually generated phylogenetic trees (e.g., based on sequence information, applying them to the evolution of the stars, etc.), in perceiving this as largely being a misuse/misapplication of the tool. (Can such experts on the meaning of this representation not be brought in?) Nor do I think, if this or other groups give it any thought, that you can conclude that this clade form of presentation of complicated historical information makes the editing by individuals, in general, less difficult, and therefore articles and M&A content more likely to be maintained. (Anyone willing to wager that when XyZAn becomes too busy in life to attend to these, that the M&A activities of companies ceases to be kept up to date?) Bottom line, real quantitative phylogenetic input is needed, and by making the venue here, this is avoided. As for practicality, if use of this tool/presentation continues in this way, I look to all the positive responders here to learn the apparatus, and commit to keeping articles up to date through its use. Otherwise, you are thrusting it on those of us who otherwise would contribute to maintaining tables. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources list, for all respondents to contribute to:

• A proper cross-application, presented in understandable fashion: Fraix-Burnet, Didier; Choler, Philippe; Douzery, Emmanuel J.P.; Verhamme, Anne (2006). "Astrocladistics: a phylogenetic analysis of galaxy evolution I. Character evolutions and galaxy histories" (PDF). Journal of Classification. 23: 1–16. Retrieved 23 April 2016.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) [See for instance, Figure 2, and its explanation of what distances mean in this application (and text leading to this).]
• WP article, as starting point to meaning and methodology: "Cladistics". wikipedia.org. Retrieved 23 April 2016.. [This article is better than Cladogram, for sources, and as source of a lay understanding.]
• Sample article, journal Cladistics, note methods section: "Phylogeny of Molossidae Gervais (Mammalia: Chiroptera) inferred by morphological data". wiley.com. Retrieved 23 April 2016.
• Entire sample volume, same journal, to allow checking of foregoing as representative: "Cladistics". wiley.com. Retrieved 23 April 2016.
• A book analyzing historical origins of cladistics, bringing that history forward in readable form. Wägele, J.-W. (2004). "Henning's phylogenetic systematics brought up to date". In William, D.M. & Forey, P.L. (ed.). Milestones in Systematics. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. pp. 101–126. ISBN 0203643038. Retrieved 23 April 2016.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
• Seminal, late article by Willi Hennig: Hennig, Willi (1965). "Phylogenetic Systematics". Annu. Rev. Entomol. 10: 97–116. Retrieved 23 April 2016.(subscription required)
• Important article of Farris, see "Lengths" section (inherent meaning assumed): Farris, James S. (1983). "The logical basis of phylogenetic analysis". In Platnick, Norman I. & Funk, Vicki A. (ed.). Advances in Cladistics (PDF). Vol. Vol. 2. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. pp. 7–36. Retrieved 23 April 2016. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
• A Berkeley graduate/advanced undergraduate reading list on the subject, containing several of the foregoing citations. Lindberg, David R.; Mishler, Brent & Will, Kip (2012-01-20). "IB200A, Printable Reading List" (PDF). Integrative Biology 200A, Principles of Phylogenetics: Systematics. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved 23 April 2016.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: year (link)
• Brief comment: Source.
• Brief comment: Source.
• Brief comment: Source.

In addressing the matter here, please address the arguments raised, in points (1), (2), and (3) above. Please provide sources supporting use of variable-independent distances in image (current practice, vs standard expectations of cladograms that are meaningful), and sources to rebut other main points of my argument. My goal is to arrive at a "best practices" type of assessment—not can this continue, but whether it is wise and best for the encyclopedia for it to do so. It obviously can continue; anything that garners a vote of popular support can continue, regardless of how non-rigourous, or antithetic to principles it might be. We clearly stand at a point of popular support. Please engage regarding the rigour of application of cladograms to M&A. In doing so, please provide examples from reputable publications regarding their proper use in business (as one can do in microbiology, astronomy, zoology, etc.). Leprof 7272 (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I do not have time to read all this, nor do I think most of it is relevant. The basic question is how valuable it is to graphically represent these corporate relationships, not the details of how the visualizations constructed. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC) ——[Thank you for replying, respectfully disagree that method is not important. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC) ]——[reply]