Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (companies)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Completed poll 2 Does it matter? 3 New guideline 4 Japanese Corps 5 Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies) 5.1 Potential problems/questions

[edit] Completed poll

Relevant discussion and process behind the naming convention are at the completed poll Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies)/poll --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 17:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Does it matter?

Does it really matter what the actual article title is? Just make sure to create all redirects for the legal names and other variants. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 18:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Given the response from several different people at the poll I think that there is interest. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 19:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice work on the poll, thanks for taking that on! I sort of had expected the guideline to be a bit bigger after the end of it all though... Although I guess it says all there is to say, it seems funny as a page on its own. ++Lar: t/c 15:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and voting on the two naming conventions I've done recently. I'm looking for other "stamps of approval" before officially making it a guideline, but if no one else comes forward to contest it in the next few days, I will make it official and begin the fun renaming process. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 17:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New guideline

As I have begun the renaming process, I have noticed that some of the guidelines that were developed should not necessarily apply and have made changes to the naming convention to reflect those realities. This is intended as a flexible guideline and should reflect the reality of how companies are referred to while maintain an uniform presentation as possible. If you have any questions or objections to a renaming, feel free to let me know. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 15:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese Corps

Yo, Reflex. Be careful on japanese corporations. See Mitsubishi Corporation for an example. Remove the word Corporation, and it becomes a whole different thing. Christopher Mahan 23:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm trying to be careful in the renaming process. If it doesn't "sound right" I usually skip it. If I screw up please let me know! --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 04:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies)

Copied from User talk:Reflex Reaction:

Nobody ever refers to ILFC as "International Lease Finance." They always use "International Lease Finance Corporation." A simple Google search verifies this, but if you knew the industry you'd know this. The company name just sounds weird without the "Corporation" on the end. In this sense, people genuinely use "Corporation" as part of the common name. I suggest knowing the context in the future. The examples given for SAIC and BOAC are apropos here. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 22:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I have also moved back AWB Limited for similar reasons. It is never AWB Ltd. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The referenced poll seems to say to abbreviate the company status only if there is no clear preference for the longer form. The present state of this convention page does not reflect that. User:Reflex Reaction appears to be moving articles for Australian companies that were named ... Limited as that is the preferred form. Examples so far include AWB Limited, Alumina Limited and CSL Limited. Have I correctly understood the poll that the full form is OK for the article name if that's how the company is usually known? If so, could we please update the convention description to make that more obvious, and not rename Australian company articles to the short form? Thanks. --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Potential problems/questions

• Snowy Hydro Limited: Keep long form [1] --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• AMP Limited - states that it is normally referred to as "AMP" - privacy policy says AMP Limited
• Alumina Limited -already reverted - ref logo on front of website
• Aristocrat Leisure Limited - this is formal name, either keep long or drop "Limited" completely [2]
• Australian Egg Corporation Limited - already moved to Australian Egg Corporation web site uses that or AECL
• Australian Submarine Corporation - usually known as ASC. Contact details is ASC Pty Ltd. Other parts of website have ASC Pty Ltd and ASC Pty Limited (even both on same page).
• CSL Limited - keep at current name[3]
• CSR Limited - CSR is preferred. Current name is second choice.
• David Jones Limited - preferred name is David Jones. Current name is OK for company (I found "Limited" on the website eventually, but not "Ltd."). David Jones (department store) is probably best. **
• Elders Limited - Given the range of things linking to Elders, that redirect should change to a disambig. Name should stay at Limited, not Ltd.
• GWA International Limited - keep long form.
• MFS Limited - keep.[4] Second choice would be MFS.
• Nufarm Limited - front page of website contains Nufarm, nufarm, Nufarm Ltd. and Nufarm Limited. Preference appears to be Nufarm for the business and Nufarm Limited for the company. **
• Promina Group Limited - website front page contains promina, Promina Group and Promina Group Limited
• Publishing and Broadcasting Limited - keep.[5]
• Transfield Services Limited - I think Transfield Services is marginally preferred as trading name. [6] **
• Wesfarmers Limited - consider move to Wesfarmers or keep as is. [7] **
• Woolworths Limited - keep based on logo