Talk:Royal Dutch Shell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Royal Dutch Shell article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Wrong Revenue sum

I'm not sure where the person who added it got their figure, but the revenue they listed was overstated by about $70 billion dollars. Revenue for the year was actually $306.73 billion dollars. I'm not sure why there is such a big difference between the Shell website and others, but I think for the time being it would be safer to go with the multitude of sources that state it's revenue in the $306 billion dollar range. --Mrowlinson 14:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC) http://www.marketwatch.com/news/yhoo/story.asp?source=blq/yhoo&siteid=yhoo&dist=yhoo&guid=%7BCCBBD7E4%2DF44B%2D46DD%2DB2F9%2DE6F6169CE361%7D http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=RDS-B


It's just a matter of which number you use. Here: http://www.shell.com/static/nl-nl/downloads/res/nl_q4_05.pdf. I see both numbers. I'm sorry it's in Dutch, I'll keep searching for an English version. It says that their total revenues were 379 billion dollars, and that they payed araound 72 billion on taxes thtoughout the year, so that their net revenues were 306 billion. I'm no economist, so Í don't know which number is more commonly used, but they're both correct for 2005. Knijert 12:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I originally added the $379 billion figure. This is where I found it: http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=investor-en&FC2=/investor-en/html/iwgen/quarterlyresults/2005/zzz_lhn.html&FC3=/investor-en/html/iwgen/quarterlyresults/2005/q4_2005_keyfinancials_02022006.html. jacoplane 14:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Did anyone look at this? It seems to say pretty clearly that revenue was $379 billion. It's from a pretty authorative source. Would anyone object if I changed the figure back to this? jacoplane 00:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
ping? jacoplane 20:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History and Discussion gone...

Thanks to the person who moved Royal Dutch/Shell to Royal Dutch Shell we lost all the previous article history as well as lengthly discussions. Also, this article has gained a lot of POV since I last looked circa January 2005. --129.173.105.28 00:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry abut that, but the new company name doesn't include the slash and I couldn't perform a direct move. Go to the no-redirects version of Royal Dutch/Shell (direct link: [1]). My apologies about the "lengthy discussions", although I can't understand why some comments would remain and some wouldn't. Small consolation, I know. Stickguy 12:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Maybe ask an admin to do it next time if you can't. Sometimes it's best to seek advice from above before doing major edits. --129.173.105.28 18:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Corrib gas field

I'd like to see some examples of unrefined gas being piped ashore, especially if it is done in inhabited areas.

Lapsed Pacifist 06:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The [www.soep.com/ Sable Offshore Energy Project ] comes to mind. Also, much of the Gulf Coast gas comes ashore through pipelines, but I don't know which specific prospects are refined onshore. Offshore gas processing is usually done when it is cheaper than doing it onshore, usually it is cheaper to process onshore. In some countries offshore prospects fall under federal jurisdiction instead of local jurisdiction, if local regulations are too demanding, they may opt to process offshore. In some environmental aspects force offshore production, icebergs in northern regions are a good example of this. I will be happy to come back in a couple of weeks if you want more info. --129.173.105.28 13:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

There's another gas rig in Ireland, off the south coast, where it's processed offshore. Does the Nova Scotia pipeline go through an inhabited area?

Lapsed Pacifist 18:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes --129.173.105.28 19:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
I am guessing this is a contentious issue in the community. Some things to consider: Where is the field located in the south in relation to land. I used to live in Alberta, and I can tell you that unprocessed gas is not always refined at source. It can move through hundreds of kilometres of pipe before it gets to a refinery. I'm only changing things based on the facts I know. It is more expensive to build a processing facility offshore than onshore, until you consider things like political climate onshore and some other factors.--129.173.105.28 19:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
I just improved the Corrib field article. It is a small field 1 TCF; this may be the reason why they are processing it onshore.


The Corrib field is not that much smaller, 70% of the Kinsale volume according to http://www.offshore-technology.com/projects/corrib/. I'm just wondering if it's common to transport unrefined gas through inhabited areas. The Kinsale field is 50km from land. Both are in the jurisdiction of the Republic.

Lapsed Pacifist 22:02, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

To many in the energy industry a 1 TCF gas deposit ofshore would be considered small. I did not mean small compared to Kinsale. I already aswered your other question, yes it is common to process gas from offshore developments onshore. Take a look through the pages I linked to in the Corrib field wiki page, and see how many are processed onshore. FYI - the SOEP fields are ~200 km offshore and are processed onshore. The gas at Corrib appears to be sweet, with little H2S contamination. Refining then piping it won't change what goes through the pipes significantly. --129.173.105.28 18:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


The main issues seem to be the lack of ethanethiol or a similar chemical to warn of any leak, and the high pressure the unrefined gas is being piped at, compared to its pressure when it is refined, which the residents of Rossport consider significant. When I asked how common it is to refine onshore, I was looking for a ratio, i.e. are half of refineries for offshore gas onshore? A quarter? And what proportion of these have the gas piped through inhabited areas?

Lapsed Pacifist 18:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

129.173.105.28 has provided you with a link where you could put together the statistics and work out your own ratio; browsing through the site I can quickly see that there are many projects where gas is refined onshore. There are hundreds of offshore gas projects, you are asking someone else to do a significant amount of work for you. Based on your edits you I feel you have a POV on the issue. Can you provide the actual numbers for the pressures. All gas pipelines are "high pressured". --Csnewton 19:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


I'm given to understand that the pressure is much higher before the gas is refined. I'm not looking for exact offshore/onshore or inhabited areas/uninhabited areas ratios, a rough estimate from someone more familiar with the industry would suit me fine. Based on my edits, exactly what POV do you think I have?

Lapsed Pacifist 05:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think many people would have a rough estimate of the numbers you are looking for. You could try asking other places in wikipedia. You seem to be searching relentlessly for evidence that onshore refining is not the norm or common. The pressure of a pipeline depends on its use. For instance, a transport pipeline for refined gas would likely be at a similar pressure to the pipeline originating at the platform. A distribution pipeline would have less pressure. --Csnewton 12:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
The pressures in all gas pipelines are decided by the desired flowrate, the gas consistency and the terrain over which they must pass. Unrefined NGL is sent by underground pipeline from St Fergus to Mossmorran a total of 212km. It passes close to many properties and nearby Aberdeen and Perth. There is no odoriser and the pressure in the pipe at it highest (lowest elevation) is similar (probably greater) to Corrib. Unprocessed gas arives at St Fergus and at Bacton in the UK from offshore. Unprocessed gas is collected thoughout Northern Netherlands from the Gronigen field and piped through hundreds of km of flow lines to gathering stations. There is no change in the safety position for odorised gas compared with unodorised gas. A leak remains equally likely and equally problematical. Use of odoriser would provide little value.--Rjstott 03:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Surely the odoriser would warn anyone near the pipe that there was a leak?

Lapsed Pacifist 06:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Given the number of explosions in houses caused by leaking gas where odoriser is obviously present it seem that detection by smell isn't effective and too late by far to have any purpose. As the pipeline passes through a largely unpopulated area detection by smell is not somethin any responsible operator would rely on. It is much more important that all precautions are taken to ensure the pipeline is properly maintained and protected. Other important safety solutions requires leak detection, the capability to shut down, isolate, depressurise and act quickly. All responsible Gas pipeline operators will have clear plans in any emergency which will be regularly tested.


That's fair enough. Should'nt blast radius be a factor if the pipe passes close to houses, though?

Lapsed Pacifist 04:12, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

The radius is quite small even for gas mixed at precisely the right proportions. Gas explosions are also considered soft (slow), especially unless constrained. At around 50 metres from a gas release point, there is considered to be little risk of ignition. However, lots of factors need to be considered such as prevailing wind and weather, terrain, pressure, leak size, pipe depth, leak detection capability, temperature etc.

This discussion would be better on the LNG talk page if it is to have any general value.--Rjstott 10:30, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

This discussion has very little to do with LNG. --24.137.104.16 02:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Founding 1907

The article states The Royal Dutch/Shell Group was created in 1907 when Royal Dutch Petroleum Company (legal name in Dutch, N.V. Koninklijke Nederlandsche Petroleum Maatschappij) and The "Shell" Transport and Trading Company plc merged. But this cannot be correct since there were no PLCs in 1907. Was it a Ltd? -- SGBailey 23:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The Dutch Wiki says they didn't become one company in 1907. Shell and Royal Dutch Petroleum were two companies, which worked very close together. They became one company in 2005. (Don't mention my bad English)

[edit] Factual inaccuracy

The folllowing sentence in the summary is factually incorrect, I believe and I will remove or re-write it today unless somebody provides references.

"Shell operates in over 140 countries worldwide, the biggest country being the United States where its subsidiary is Shell Oil Company, which has its head office in Houston, Texas."

Shell also operates in East-Russia,I read in the newspaper De Volkskrant Russia is a bigger country than the USA. I also have problems with the weight given to the situation in the USA in the summary. Why is the USA so important for Shell or the readers of Wikipedia? Andries 17:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The sentence does appear to be a bit inconsistent - I would imagine it means that the USA is Shell's biggest customer, not that it is the biggest country. QmunkE 17:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
You are probably right and I should have thought about it. I changed it accordingly. Nevertheless, I would appreciate it if somebody provided references for the assertion that Shell USA generates the biggest revenue of all countries. Andries 20:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Litigation

I'm not sure on how to view the section "ASSOCIATED LITIGATION: CIVIL ACTION 04431 IN THE US DISTRICT COURT OF NEW JERSEY ..." to "... all non-U.S. purchasers of Shell stock in the qualifying period). Court documents". This seems to be rather too detailed for an encyclopedic document, but I'm not sure how to proceed to rectify this. Can anyone point me to a reference or show how to get help on this? Mnbf9rca 19:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whistleblowing and accountability?

Let's take no lectures on ethics from a company incorporated in the UK but headquartered in Holland so it doesn't have to pay UK corporate tax nor any future 'windfall' tax as previously mooted. All the while mere common UK folk pay more and more personal tax to make up the Treasury's increasing shortfall. Nearly as bad as News International which famously a few years ago was discovered to have paid less company tax in 11 years than a village corner shop despite UK turnover of seven figures. Capitalism rules! 86.7.208.240 22:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No Section On it's Criticism

I'm shocked to see that there is no section on the criticism of Shell, one of the largest corporations in the world and one of the biggest polluters, they've killed protesters (see the corporation's wikipedia article), they're helping to kill the earth. Come on guys - your not even going to mention how they are DESTROYING THE EARTH. the very air you breath.......222.155.61.4 05:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there's an entire section dealing with environmental issues surrounding Shell. It's even broken down by country.

ManicParroT 15:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually ManicParroT, the section you are referring to has been conveniently removed to its own ghetto, under the title, Royal Dutch Shell Environmental and reputational issues. So, unless you were reading this article very carefully you would probably miss it altogether, drastically skewing the POV of the remaining article. --Betamod 08:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity how skewing? The rest of the article is mainly factual and doesn't particularly trumpet "good deeds" or anything AFAICT. However you are welcome to put a summary (not copy and paste) back in of course.--BozMo talk 21:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I am busy rewriting the main article removing some of the content whioch was either biased or not really relevent to a summary article on Shell. I would prefer that the cricticism was returned to the main article, but don't feel that strongly about this. What do others think? Stephen Parnell 10:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Depends on the length and quality of content. As an economic entity Shell is the same size as Belgium roughly and listing every petty squabble would imbalance the article. I think a separate article is a good place for that stuff but some sort of longer summary section here would be good. --BozMo talk 12:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the sub-article would be overwhelming if re-introduced to the mainspace unless it was drastically summarized - it's actually quite a bit larger than the rest of the material. It seems to function quite well as an article on its own, but I'm a little confused by the overly NPOV title - it is indeed easy to miss. I would prefer "Criticism of Royal Dutch Shell" ala Criticism of Microsoft. Kuru talk 15:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I have added back two sections dealing with the Royal Dutch Shell Plc domain name litigation and the still suspended Tell Shell Forum - both sections could be considered critical of Shell. I am a long term critic of Shell but surely the point is whether what is stated is factual and balanced. I use my real name to contribute to the article not a pseudonym, so everyone knows my background and can take take it into account. With the greatest respect, it is surely the overall content which must be fair and balanced. This objective is not obtained by deleting negative but true content. JohnaDonovan: 06 Jan 2006.

The content that you originally included, and which I removed, was controversial, particular and clearly part of your personal campaign against Shell. Wikipedia is not the right forum for such campaigning. There are thousands of stories about Shell which could be included - but the main article must be not only factually correct, and written from a neutral POV, but also significant and relevant. There is a separate entry where reputational issues in respect of Shell are described. You may wish to consider taking your input to this entry - but I would recommend that you rewrite carefully it if you do. Stephen Parnell 18:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The content you removed was displayed on the article for several months without anyone taking exception to it. With respect, it only appears to be controversial as far as you are concerned. Most of the section relating to Tell Shell was in fact contributed by someone else, "Paddy Briggs", if I recall correctly. I am not using Wikipedia for campaigning as you allege. I am an expert on Shell and have contributed negative and positive sections including the entire original material on the Shell Whistleblower facility, Live Wire and The Shell Foundation. All three contained purely positive information about Shell at the time of posting. That is a fact. You have the advantage over me in that you know who you are discussing this with. From the tone of your comments and what appears to be either advice or instructions, I assume that you are in a position of some considerable authority within Wikipedia, as you appear to be the judge and jury in regards to what is published on this article. I would welcome your response and will take no further action until you have had an opportunity to reply. User: JohnaDonovan: 19.33, 6 January 2007.

I thought I'd removed these sections before because they weren't noteworthy. Anyway I agree they do not merit inclusion in the main article on a $300bn turnover company. --BozMo talk 20:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
If you check below we did discuss the issues you raised at that time and you appeared satisfied with the answers I provided. At that time the sections now in question were already displayed. Of course you are allowed to change your mind. Comment addressed to Stephen Parnell: Am I write in assuming that you are not a journalist with the initials DB? If you are DB, you will know why I have asked this question. User: JohnaDonovan: 20.32, 6 January 2007
Hmm. Ok. I haven't really taken a huge interest in this article and I do think it is a mess. I remember much more discussing the links to your site (where you were technically outside the rules on Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest ) and there I thought the end point was ok. --BozMo talk 09:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I was not the source of any input in this entry on the Tell Shell forum - as far as I can see this originated on 2 June 2006 from John Donovan. PaddyBriggs 09:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The comment from Paddy Briggs is noted and accepted. I was the original contributor for the Tell Shell section. Someone then deleted a large section dealing with Tell Shell censorship. A revised version covering the same matters, including a reference to John Hofmeister, was subsequently posted (not by me). This will all be in the record. A contributor subsequently edited the end of the section and it ended up being accurate but unsatisfactory (in my humble opinion). I do recognise the point about transfering less important information to the subsidiary page, but could the link not be more prominently displayed on the main page? My guess is that many visitors do not notice it in its current form. User: JohnaDonovan: 10.30, 7 January 2007

I would like to explain why I have asked "Stephen Parnell" if his real initials are DB. A few months ago a person with these initials who can properly claim to be a journalist wrote a newspaper article about the Internet (his speciality) which mentioned Shell. I subsequently complained to the editor that DW had failed to disclose a commercial relationship with Shell. An agency DB works for has Shell as a client in regards to the Internet. I corresponded with DB and it was obvious from his comments about my contributions to Wikipedia (strikingly similar to those expressed by "Stephen Parnell") that DB had carried out research here, but had not apparently realised that I had also posted substantial content entirely positive about Shell. It may well be the case that "Stephen" is not DB, but if he is, then it would seem wrong for him to undertake a major rewrite in which entirely factually based content critical of Shell is removed, bearing in mind the effort made to post it in the first place, without being upfront, as I have been, in disclosing my connection with Shell. User: JohnaDonovan: 14.30, 7 January 2007

I am NOT DB (whover he/she is).!! Stephen Parnell 15:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that confirmation which of course I accept. I apologise for raising the question. User: JohnaDonovan. 6.06, 7 January 2007.

[edit] General article assessment

I like this article quite a lot. It seems pretty balanced, it adresses the issues, and it gives you a lot of very professional 'at a glance' information. I'm not so sure about the later parts (it seems to get slightly weak towards the end), but I think with some really good hard pushes it could be on its way towards good article or even featured article status. What do you think?

ManicParroT 15:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


we would have to do something about all the royaldutchshellplc.com links which seem to have been added by the site owner, and are being used with anchor text I guess to try to drive google (perhaps leave one). Otherwise it is not bad--BozMo talk 09:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the insertion of royaldutchshellplc.com links, I use a link for the original publisher whenever that publisher makes the relevant articles accessible permanently without charge. Unfortunately most publishers of news articles only keep them on line for a few days. They are then removed and in some cases only available thereafter by payment. I would point out that the site in question is entirely non commercial. All articles are searchable and permanently accessible without charge. There are no subcription charges nor paid adverts. User: JohnaDonovan 26 October 2006.

That's fair enough. I tried to find a bloomberg article and couldn't. Don't you have a problem with copyright? --BozMo talk 15:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

With regards to copyright, we have explained to publishers who have approached us (e.g. the General Counsel of Dow Jones Company) that we are entirely non-commercial, as indicated above, and that the website is directed towards a very narrow audience - people interested in Shell. This was accepted by Dow Jones and another news publishing organisation. The correspondence which mentions the USA "Fair Use" doctrine on copyright is available on request. No publisher has asked us to remove articles after we have explained the background circumstances. User: johonadonovan: 21 November 2006

Cool, well done. --BozMo talk 10:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that this article should only really cover the main elements of Shell's structure, history and operations. It should not duck the more controversial matters - but there is a separate article on reputational issues which is the logical home for the detail (e.g. the “Tell Shell” stuff and the Domain name controversy). I would welcome input from others who know Shell well and hope that the article can be as balanced and objective as Wiki requires. There is a fair way to go yet I think! Stephen Parnell 14:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Can I respectfully draw your attention to the paragraphs in the section above addressed to "Stephen Parnell". If you would prefer not to answer then I would not press the issue further. User: JohnaDonovan. 14.56, 7 January 2007.

On 2nd October user "ManicParroT" said that the article "could be on its way towards good article or even featured article status." His entire comments can be read above. This was before the article was decimated with major deletions and with all information critical of Shell removed to a secondary page. Does anyone know how many visitors actually click through to the secondary article? The changes which have been made are beneficial to Shell and in my view no longer present a balanced overall view of the multinational. "Stephen Parnell" says that he would welcome input from others who know Shell well... If this means someone other than me redrafting the deleted sections I have no problems. Indeed, I would be happy for him to do this as we are then more likely to end up with an acceptable draft. It is the easiest thing in the world to delete information. It takes time to contribute information and install appropriate links. I will do nothing on the matter so that there is time over the coming week hopefully for a consensus view to form on the merits of having a secondary article, rather than one article. I recognise that the article must be balanced, accurate and objective. No individual contributor should be able to dictate such matters. That includes me. User: JohnaDonovan: 18.00, 7 January 2007

The WP stats pages don't down into such detail so I cannot answer your question. Part of the problem is that the article is WAY too long. Reinstating long sections which have or are being peeled off into other pages is not helpful but writing concise summaries of them would be helpful, in my view. Also suggesting other parts of the article we could move elsewhere would be helpful. I repeat the oft quoted saying that as an economic entity and (shockingly?) as a producer of CO2 Shell is about the size of Belgium: in my view silly stuff about internal HR or a few local protestors shouldn't be in the main article but stuff like Sakholin or Nigeria certainly should. --BozMo talk 21:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The "shift in POV" issue is a bit more complex. In principle where the article sticks to financials or objective facts it is always NPOV. Where there are subjective bits I think we need to keep both sides of everything. e.g. it would be unfair to talk about sponsorship of wildlife photos without talking about negative things or equally to quote FOE's assessment of Shell's record without also quoting the official company response. --BozMo talk 09:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "ant-Shell" website just added

I am removing this latest link. It seems to be an anti-globalisation site (with many URLs), not even be cached by google and only have a small amount of stuff on Shell. On top of which the adding IP had added versions of it to a dozen WP pages and done nothing else. --BozMo talk 14:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2004 reserves problems at Shell

It seems that the reserves overstatements would still be an issue to mention. Anyone interested to give it a try? Stephan

See Royal_Dutch_Shell_Environmental_and_reputational_issues#Oil_and_gas_reserves_recategorisation--BozMo talk 21:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

Any chance of a link to www.shelloiledwildlife.org.uk?

Thanks,

MMnajb 15:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New link?

Hi,

Any chance of a link to www.shelloiledwildlife.org.uk?

Thanks,

Mnajb 15:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Should be on the repute page not here. I will put it there --BozMo talk 10:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] dispute

Remove this para which self contradicts:

An original investor, and the largest single shareholder in Royal Dutch Shell, is the holding company owned by the Dutch Royal Family [citation needed], which was set up by Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands. Although a persistent myth in the USA, it has been denied that this is still the case. While king Willem III initially had 5% of the shares of Royal Dutch, those have been sold over the years and the royal family does not own direct shares any more.

Can anyone find the truth of the matter (with a reference please)?--BozMo talk 10:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jimmy carr in management section?

It's seems out of place for the anecdote about Jimmy Carr working for shell and the top gear quote being in the management section. Also the William Hague inclusion is slighlty strange. I'm not saying it should be removed though.Just doesn't seem the place for it when seriously discussing the current management.--Eisner 12:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

D'Accord ! Stephen Parnell 14:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] M&E Corporate Social Responsibility rankings

Someone added the following under the reputation section: -

"The company has topped the M&E Corporate Social Responsibility rankings for four years in a row.[5]"

There are two points I would like to make. Firstly the link does not work. Secondly, in my humble opinion the ratings cannot be correct as they take in the worst year in Shell's history, 2004, when its reputation hit rock bottom as a result of the reserves scandal. After publicly challenging the survey results, I received an email from Dr William Cox, the MD of the survey company, Management & Excellence SA. I replied asking if Shell is a client. There was no response. His email and my response can be found on this webpage. Under the circumstances, I believe that the reference to the survey results should be removed. Johnadonovan 14:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't find any reference to this either and have taken the liberty of removing the statement! PaddyBriggs 14:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I've now found the reference to the 2005 study and have made a link to it which works. Best to let people make up their own minds I think. PaddyBriggs 12:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restructuring of entry

My restructuring is "work in progress"! Comments very welcome. PaddyBriggs 17:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Headquarters

Royal Dutch Shell's headquarters are in The Hague. The article plainly states this and so the summary on the right should reflect that. The fact that the company is incorporated in the UK and some divisions are directed from there is not relevant in this matter. 217.149.210.16 20:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Dutch Shell

Originally posted to Talk:MrZaius, moved here to open up the discussion a tad more, if there are any other interested parties.

Well done having a go at RDS, it looks to me like it is heading the right way. Please do not americanize spelling. Policy is that we use both British and American English and changing from one to another is considered edit warring. Thanks --BozMo talk 09:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for any inconvenience I might have caused, but I was on a major spelling blitz after correcting numerous errors on the Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell page. Basically got to the point where I was automating the process and running an American English dictionary spellchecker against both documents. Now, please note that it is actually policy to write an article with a single standard spelling technique in mind, be it British or American, to allow for computers to check the article. Take particular note of the Manual of Style's section: "Articles should use the same spelling system and grammatical conventions throughout." Thanks for the feedback, - PS: Will copy over to the RDS talk page. MrZaiustalk 15:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Yep. However I think the original author of the article used British English, the article was in British and also its more of a UK company than American. Shell's website uses British English and one of the words changed was a direct quotation off the website which definitely shouldn't be americanised. --BozMo talk 15:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm surprised that another user should rename the page in a contrary way to what I had proposed and others had endorsed. But I don't feel that strongly about it and am happy with the "Controversies" descriptor. I would encourage MrZaius to follow the courtesy that those of us active on the Shell entries have put in place which is to use the talk pages before making substative revisions. PaddyBriggs 17:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Please note that, at the time, the page had only ever been edited by one user, as it had been moved manually, rather than using the Move function (which would have moved the talk & history, and kept it from showing up in Special:Newpages). I spotted the article in question while trawling the Newpages queue, which, again, wouldn't have happened if it had been moved normally. Thinking it was a new article, I reflexively sought to remedy the rather clunky phrase "reputational issues", the astandard capitalization of Environmental, and the general length of the Newpage's title. Unfortunately, I did not see that the page was copied and pasted from a far older page until after my move. If it should be moved back, or to another name, I would be happy to remedy the situation. I meant no discourtesy, and apologise for the misunderstanding. It would seem that Talk:Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell would be a more appropriate place to discuss reverting the move or some other remedy for the situation. MrZaiustalk 19:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/o/y/Talk%7ERoyal_Dutch_Shell_4c75.html"