Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of acquisitions by Symantec
Tools
Actions
General
Print/export
In other projects
Appearance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted 21:48, 2 May 2008.
This list is similar to my other list, List of acquisitions by Google, a recently promoted Featured List. Gary King (talk) 08:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weaksupport. I maintained this list for several years. Gary has done a great job on it, but there is no guarantee it is comprehensive. Some of the company names such as Leonard Development Group and Fifth Generation Systems are redirects to articles which don't mention the name in the redirect. I've discussed this with Gary and he's not creating any more such redirects, but the existing ones leave the list weaker than I really like for featured content. I'll change to full support if these remaining "weak" redirects are fixed by adding mentions of the companies to the relevant articles or the redirects deleted.-gadfium 09:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to full support.-gadfium 22:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those redirects have been deleted or requested for deletion now. Gary King (talk) 09:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
- I'm concerned over the number of red links in the article. In previous reviews I've been concerned with company names redirecting to general articles, not specific to link.
I'd find it hard to support without the red links being resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's hard to find information on a lot of these software companies that have been around for only a few years, and especially the ones before the Internet was around, which made documenting events a lot easier. I doubt I can find any notable information on most of the red link companies. Gary King (talk) 09:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
Shouldn't this list be renamed to List of acquisitions by Symantec, so that it would be consistent with similar lists?--Crzycheetah 20:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah yes, good catch. Done. Gary King (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Short lead. Statements seem padded or unnecessarily verbose. You can find a more succinct way of saying "Each acquisition is for the respective company in its entirety." I'm not sure I believe "If the value of an acquisition is not listed, then it is undisclosed." A company on the stock market has to publish annual/quarterly reports and this information will surely be in them. I just think you haven't looked hard enough. The VERITAS deal is described in the sources as a merger, not an acquisition. Can you define and explain the difference? Colin°Talk 20:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lead has been expanded and copyedited further. Public companies that acquire private companies do not have to disclose information regarding these types of acquisitions, as far as I am aware. I have footnoted the VERITAS deal. Gary King (talk) 20:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. My only suggestion is that you merge the footnote section into the References section and rename it "Notes." That would allow you to streamline the page a little more. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree, especially when there are so few level 2 headers in the article as it is; I'd prefer to keep it so that there are no subheaders :) Gary King (talk) 09:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think you'd need a subhead if you changed it to "Notes", which could include both. It's personal preference, though, so I don't mind not changing it. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd prefer keeping it as it is :) Gary King (talk) 23:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think you'd need a subhead if you changed it to "Notes", which could include both. It's personal preference, though, so I don't mind not changing it. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree, especially when there are so few level 2 headers in the article as it is; I'd prefer to keep it so that there are no subheaders :) Gary King (talk) 09:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - How certain can we be that every acquisition is on the list? Is there an authoritative list which this merely expands upon, or was this list created by searching for acquisitions at their press center. Suicidalhamster (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if there is a company that solely exists to document the acquisitions of other companies; this list was created from press releases and I also looked for other acquisition lists to find company acquisitions that did not have press releases, and then checked news archives to verify their acquisitions. Gary King (talk) 01:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.