Talk:Stellar (construction company)

Citation templates

No citation templates were used and all references were footnotes. Fixed this with the view to using the citation-fix-tool-thingy to populate the relevant citation templates (the one linked to in the linkrot template) however the tool doesn't appear to currently be working... Will fix when it is! Nikthestoned 15:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Done, Nikthestoned 16:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved to Stellar Group (construction company). Of the various names considered below, this one seems to enjoy a combination of precision, conciseness, and support from editors. - GTBacchus^(talk) 18:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Stellar (design, engineering, construction and mechanical services) → Stellar Group — Restoring the original name for the article is less promotional/advertising than the current one added by COI editors - better reflects the name (added by company employees) listed in the infobox. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support: The current article name is pretty bad – but I suggest that "Stellar Group" is not necessarily the best name for it. Better names might be "Stellar (company)" or "Stellar Group (company)". —BarrelProof (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Alternative suggestions: In an edit comment about a month ago, it was stated that "Our company is moving away from Stellar Group and we would like our wiki page to reflect this". The name "Stellar Group" is also not really very prominent on the company's web site. It might be nice to know what is the actual legal name of the company, but in any case, it sounds like "Stellar Group" may not be the best name for the article. In that same edit, the article name was changed to "Stellar (Construction Company)". So I suggest "Stellar (company)", or "Stellar (construction company)", or "Stellar (engineering and construction company)", but not "Stellar Group". —BarrelProof (talk) 18:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose given the above reasoning that the company does indeed appear to be moving away from this name. Would support either "Stellar (company)" or "Stellar (construction company)". Nikthestoned 09:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Follow-up comment: Noting my new discovery (recorded below) that "Stellar" seems to be a very common name shared by many construction companies, I think we need a name that distinguishes this company from the others. My best guess at this point is "Stellar Group (construction company)", even though the company itself seems to be de-emphasizing the "group" part of its name. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Seems logical to me! Nikthestoned 23:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

stellar group would be an astronomical concept. Unfortunately, an editor deleted the hatnote, without bothering to answer questions about his edit. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I just did a little web search on "stellar construction". I discovered that there are lots and lots of construction companies with this same basic name that seem to be entirely different companies than the one that is the subject of this article. For example, there is http://www.stellarconstructionltd.com/, http://stellar-construction.com/, http://www.stellarconstruction.net/, http://stellarconstructioninc.com/, http://stellar-const.com/, http://stellarbuilding.com/, http://stellar-corporation.com/, http://www.stellarconstructions.com.au/, http://www.stellaradvisors.com/, and http://stellarconstructionco.com/. (That's not an exhaustive list.) They are all construction companies named Stellar, and they all seem to be entirely different companies. So I think "Stellar (company)" or "Stellar (construction company)" might not be sufficiently disambiguating. Perhaps we need something like "Stellar (Jacksonville construction company)"? —BarrelProof (talk) 05:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

In fact, they're not even the only Stellar construction company in Jacksonville, Florida. Another one says it has an office there too: http://mtstellar.com/. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposal for deletion

This article was proposed for deletion at 03:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC) by Jasper Deng (talk), who said "This page is nothing but a WP:COATRACK advert. Many of its promotional claims are unfounded (unsourced). I see only borderline notability. Clearly it needs to be rewritten."

Comment: I'm not especially fond of the article, but I think that after some of the edits that I have made to it in the last few days, it is substantially less bad, and therefore may not really merit deletion. However, I want to clarify that I do not actually object to deleting it. I don't think that WP:COATRACK is a correct accusation – the article doesn't reall digress substantially from its topic. But I think there may be some unresolved issues of WP:CORP, WP:NPOV, WP:SPAM, and basic lack of quality due to inadequate attention by disinterested editors. I have certainly seen worse (of course, that is just a matter of WP:OTHERCRAP). —BarrelProof (talk) 18:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Edits made to respond to proposal for deletion

I work in Stellar's marketing department and therefore have a conflict of interest as defined by Wikipedia regarding Stellar-related content. I'm here to contribute factual and verifiable information regarding Stellar. After this article was proposed for deletion, I did a substantial amount of research to educate myself on Wikipedia’s policies and am committed to abiding by them. While I realize that editing a page where I have a COI is not encouraged, I have done so here to correct the promotional tone and lack of verification that was rightly identified. I have deleted that text and replaced it with factual, neutral and verifiable information. I look forward to any additional edits or suggestions from the Wikipedia community. If you want to contact me, please leave a message on my talk page, or e-mail me at SHerrin@stellar.net. ShanaHerrin (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Your edit removed the proposal for deletion tag from the article. I think it was not proper for you to do that, and I have restored that part of the content. You also removed another tag identifying problems in the article. You also made other substantial modifications of the article. I'm not sure whether those other edits improve the content of the article or not, but at a minimum I think they don't use the correct referencing convention for identifying sources. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Oops. After reading what the tag said after restoring it, I see that it says that someone who disagrees with the suggestion can remove the tag. So I guess it may not have been improper for ShanaHerrin to remove that tag after all. Sorry for saying that it was. However, I kept the other "multiple issues" tag, and I think it should stay. I don't think that the problems with the article have really been fully resolved. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I want to also retract what I said about reference formatting convention. After looking at that again, it looks OK. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi BarrelProof -- can you help me understand how the article reads like an advertisement and needs copy editing? I'm obviously new at this, but the content seems very straight-forward and factual... the kind of information you would expect to see on any company by an independent source: what it does, number of employees, headquarters and other locations, the industries it works in, etc. The Engineering News-Record and Florida Trend references are third-party lists based on numbers (revenue) that provide context re: the size of the company as compared to its competitors in various areas. They are not accolades or awards. I look forward to your thoughts. ShanaHerrin (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The tone with which they are written could've just as easily been written by public relations - in other words, things like "Founded in 1985, Stellar now..." are not appropriate tone.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I actually think the tone is not bad at this point. However, I would prefer it to be someone who has no direct connection to the company who makes the decision about whether the tagging should be removed. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts Jasper Deng. And I completely understand your point BarrelProof as I realize that editing a page where you have a COI is not ideal. I would welcome other editors to weigh in, as I believed I was avoiding any issues regarding tone by making the sentences very simple and straight-forward with no value judgments, and by only providing information that I believed one would find about any company (in other words, not a long list of awards but basic/standard information). I'll be honest (not complaining, just trying to understand) that I'm not sure how else to phrase the year the company was founded. Any suggestions? Or is having the year it was founded what is incorrect? I look forward to yours and others' thoughts and suggestions. ShanaHerrin (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I removed the tag requesting copyedit. But I added a tag questioning notability. Please see WP:CORP regarding what is needed to establish notability for a company. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi BarrelProof: Stellar is regularly covered by the media, including national trade and business publications. I believe many of those media articles were cited in an earlier version of the page but then were deleted due to concerns that by listing them it was promotional in nature. I will gather some of the links and post them on the talk page for your and other editors' review. Also, many of Stellar's direct competitors are on Wikipedia, including The Haskell Company. Thanks again for your review of all of this. ShanaHerrin (talk) 12:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing -- June 2011

Hi BarrelProof and Jasper Deng -- Below is information for your consideration regarding your concerns about notability. In addition, I would still welcome clarification on the tone of the article and how it can be improved in order for the tag (written like an advertisement and neutral POV) to be removed.

As you’ll see from the news articles below, Stellar is regularly featured in the media. Here are two profiles in the Jacksonville Business Journal on Stellar’s leadership:

• Jacksonville Business Journal – Foster constructs his career from ground up
• Jacksonville Business Journal – Witt inspires with compassion and leadership skills

Stellar’s clients include some of the largest companies in the world, including:

• Heinz: National Provisioner – Heinz Co. partners with Stellar
• Nestle: Jacksonville Business Journal – Stellar to build Nestle plant and Refrigerated & Frozen Foods: Stellar completes Nestle R&D center
• Starbucks: Food Engineering – Starbucks Goes from Green Beans to Green Plant (the plant that Stellar built for Starbucks won Food Engineering’s Sustainable Food Plant of the Year)
• Keystone Foods:Food Engineering – Plant of the Year: Keystone Foods Puts Its Best Food Forward (the plant that Stellar built for Keystone Foods won Food Engineering’s 2010 Food Plant of the Year)

Stellar also works with many local companies and organizations, including:

• Ring Power Corporation: Jacksonville Business Journal – Stellar finishes one project for Ring Power, starts another and Jacksonville Business Journal – Stellar completes Ring Power expansion
• Brumos Motor Cars: The Florida Times-Union – Brumos feels need to shift into larger location
• Hendricks Avenue Baptist Church of Jacksonville: Florida Real Estate Journal – Stellar wins AGC Horizon Award for Hendricks Avenue Baptist Church and The Florida Times-Union – Stellar wins awards for Jacksonville’s Hendricks Avenue Baptist Church.

Stellar is involved in the Jacksonville community.

• The Stellar Foundation Golf Classic is held annually to raise money for charity: The Florida Times-Union – Foundation gives $25,000 each to hospital, shelter
• In 2006, Stellar established the Stellar Academy of Engineering at Allen D. Nease High School in St. Johns County, Fla., which provides on-site instruction by a Stellar employee to engineering students.

Many of Stellar’s employees have achieved accreditation in sustainable building practices: Food Logistics – Stellar professionals achieve LEED Accreditation

Thanks in advance for your consideration. I look forward to your thoughts. ShanaHerrin (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I just looked at three of those: the Starbucks, Heinz, and "accreditation" articles. They all looked like they were written from company press releases. The Starbucks article seemed to be more substantial than the others, but it was really much more about Starbucks than Stellar – it barely mentions Stellar at all – the construction company seems roughly incidental to the discussion. The Heinz article is only a very brief description of a project (only 3 paragraphs – about eight sentences total), and is just listed as "supplier news" with no author identified. The accreditation article looks like a press release – and again has no author identified. I'm sure lots of companies have gotten various types of accreditation – that also doesn't look very notable to me. Perhaps bundling together several of these that discuss the "green" angle of the company's work may add up to something. The articles about Foster and Witt may also be something. But overall, I don't see lot of true interest being shown here by objective reliable sources. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I just looked at seven more of those articles: the ones about Foster and Witt, the two about Nestle, the one about Keystone Foods, and the two about Ring Power. The articles about Nestle and Ring Power seem like useless fluff – just contract announcements that probably came directly from the companies involved – not objective reporting with substance and independent analysis. The one about Keystone foods is more extensive, but it barely mentions Stellar at all – it is focused on Keystone, not Stellar. The articles about Foster and Witt look somewhat better. Overall, I am surprised that a company of this size and breadth has not attracted more attention. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I'm a memeber of Wikipedia:WikiProject Jacksonville, but I had no involvement in this discussion until I was asked to provide an opinion on notability. I have been aware of the company for many years, but had not even read the article. After doing so, I agree that the article needs work, but oppose deletion. I will attempt to address some of the criticisms in the next week or so. Mgrē@sŏn 12:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I have added formatting (mostly) per WP:TALKPAGE to aid with readability and discussion. If you don't agree with my changes (especially those added to your comments), please change or revert as you see fit. The discussion and links were getting a bit unwieldy (at least for me). Flowanda | Talk 02:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with comments above; the Jacksonville Business Journal profiles are probably enough to meet WP:CORP and could be added to the article to source basic information, but I wouldn't go overboard with descriptions and links for projects and customers. I'd scale back on the descriptions in the info box -- it's not meant to be an exhaustive list of meta tags or keywords, but an overall description. ShanaHerrin, you're really going about this in all the right ways, so kudos -- and thanks. Flowanda | Talk 04:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)