Talk:Mercury Energy

NPOV tag removed

I removed some POV content and the associated tag. It would be good to have afactual account of the proportions of energy this company derives from various sources. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 11:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Same trading name but different entities in different times

It must be beared in mind that Mercury Energy prior to 1 March 1999 and the one that was the supplier during the 1998 Auckland CBD power crisis was a different company. The "original" Mercury Energy sold its retail division along with trading name to the then Electricity Corporation of New Zealand in the aftermath of electricity market reform legal requirements in 1998. The "original" comapny renamed itself Vector Limited.

Inappropriately emotive addition

The section entitled "Death of Folole Muliaga" is inappropriate for inclusion in this article, as the Police have confirmed that Mercury Energy were not culpable for her death. Even some of the less emotive news reports make it clear that neglect by health providers, neighbours and family contributed at least as much towards the death as the electricity disconnection, which could have occurred for a number of other reasons. This section should therefore be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.9.107 (talk) 07:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I have toned that sentence down and made it more neutral. Leaderofearth 07:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Money Hungry Merciless Mercury Energy Kills A contractor hired by State Owned Enterprise (SOE), Mercury Energy, cut off the power to the home of Folole Muliaga, despite being told by her children that she was required to use an electric power pump , due to her health problems. The contractor, according to the family, said "I'm just doing my job" and then cut off the power. In two hours Mrs Muliaga was dead. The family owed $168.40 to the energy company but had been making regular payments to catch up. Finances had been stretched since Mrs Muliaga's poor health had forced her to leave work.

The story has received media attention around the World.

Community activists and unionists in Auckland have called for the sacking of Mercury Energy's directors, who took several days to even offer the most simple apology to the family. Solidarity Union organiser, Joe Carolan, said:

"Yet again we see a so-called State Owned Enterprise put profit before people in New Zealand. Mercury Energy should be renamed Murder Energy- they are corporate bully boys who prey on the weak, old and vulnerable of South Auckland, and are no better than the corrupt money lenders who plague our communities."

A group of 50 people staged a rowdy picket outside Mercury Energy's HQ in Greenlane Auckland. The demo was addressed by Mrs Muliaga's relative and family spokesman Brendan Sheehan. [ Pictures | Video ]

A condolence book was signed by a huge number of people at Otara Markets yesterday and the whole market observed a minute's silence in memory of Mrs Muliaga. Demonstrators also picketed the Electricity Commission in Wellington.

Since the neo-liberal reforms, pushed by both Labour and National Governments in the 1980s and 1990s, essential services such as water and electricity have been run on a completely commercial basis, without any regard to the impact this has had on poor communities. We shouldn't just blame Mercury Energy and its parent company Might River Power - the political and business leaders who have been pushing these anti-human economic policies over the past 20 years have blood on their hands too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.157.108.25 (talk) 00:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Government owned??

Then why do I get dividends each year? Eddaido (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Mercury is owned by Mighty River Power, which is half owned by the government. Other owners of MRP shares (the other half) will get dividends appropriate for their shares. --Pakaraki (talk) 05:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

OK then it is quite wrong to categorise Mighty River and Mercury as government owned. Right? Eddaido (talk) 00:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

It would be wrong to say MRP was wholly owned by the government. However, there are many entities which the government part owns and are included in the government-owned category even though they have some non-government shareholders. Examples include Air New Zealand, Genesis, Meridian, Powershop.

And is that not wrong? Eddaido (talk) 03:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

It would be appropriate for the approach that is taken with New Zealand companies to be consistent with that applied elsewhere in Wikipedia. For example, a State-owned enterprise is defined as being "fully owned or partially owned by government". As another example, the Category:Government-owned companies of the United Kingdom is for companies that are "fully or partly owned by the UK Government". Or, what are you suggesting? --Pakaraki (talk) 04:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Just that it is simply untrue to describe something partly owned as wholly owned. Skips the whole privatisation thing. Is there any other country with SOEs? Eddaido (talk) 04:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there is a category for Category:Government-owned companies by country. --Pakaraki (talk) 07:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Which are known as SOEs? Eddaido (talk) 07:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

You may feel I am being difficult about this. May I point out this is an encyclopedia and readers are entitled to receive information as accurate as possible. Reading through related material has taught me major points about the industry I am pleased to know, including that the Government might control it (to stop potential ransom by foreign investors?) but does not own it all. Eddaido (talk) 07:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

You are right. Wikipedia should be as accurate and unambiguous as possible. I note that the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986 legislation, in Schedule 1, lists the state enterprises. This list does not include the partly owned companies like AirNZ, MRP, etc. So these partly owned companies are not NZ state enterprises, but they are under the Wikipedia definition for government owned companies. It would be possible to split all this into several different categories (such as SOEs, partly government owned, Crown agencies, etc) but this might be making things unnecessarily complex, especially for readers who are not familiar with details of NZ state ownership. Also, it appears that this would not be consistent with the approach taken in Wikipedia for other countries. --Pakaraki (talk) 08:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that's nice. I should think the following may need much development but how about starting with: on Category:Government-owned companies of New Zealand adding a note at the top that some of these enterprises may be up to 50 percent privatised. Then somehow making it clear at least in the lead of articles about (SOEs) the proportion of the ownership not in government but in private hands. I just glanced at Air New Zealand and in the infobox it says "Parent company New Zealand Government (!) immediately followed by (53%) and the lead mentions "majority government ownership". I think that is just fine. I bet there will be WP editors very familiar with the way the government views the ownership and financial structure of its various holdings, wish they'd speak up. I'm wondering if the 1986 list you refer to above now 30 years old might be based on outmoded concepts. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Company name change, merge Wikipedia articles

MRP has announced that it will change it's name to Mercury Energy on 29 July 2016. I propose that the article (Mighty River Power) be merged with this Mercury Energy article on or about that date. --Pakaraki (talk) 03:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. What's important is that a reader can come to WP, search for MRP get to the merged article and still be able to understand the previous ownership structure(s) from the merged article. Agreed? Regards, Eddaido (talk) 04:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Part of the merge process is to leave the source article as a redirect to the merged article. So anyone searching for MRP in future will get to the Mercury Energy article. --Pakaraki (talk) 18:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, are you new round here? Not suggesting anything more than it be findable. Will watch and if my point not covered I can just say so or amend it. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 01:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

All is covered in the paragraph headed History then Mercury Energy. Good work, Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 00:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mercury Energy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111004160616/http://www.mightyriver.co.nz/News/Detail.aspx?id=2756 to http://www.mightyriver.co.nz/News/Detail.aspx?id=2756

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The archived page appears to be ok.--Pakaraki (talk) 01:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 20 July 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. The discussion below was rather messy and not really based on WP:AT guidelines. I will create a redirect at Mercury NZ for the time being. No such user (talk) 10:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

---

Mercury Energy → Mercury NZ – Incorrect company name, Mercury Energy merged with the parent company mighty River Power under the Mercury name in 2016. Propose Mercury NZ as the title because this is their official name and Mercury is already taken Elliott2705 (talk) 22:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. DrStrauss talk 12:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). EdJohnston (talk) 02:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm opening a move discussion because the corporate structure is complex, and there is already a talk page thread about merging with Mighty River Power. Apparently this company wants to be known either as 'Mercury NZ Limited' or just 'Mercury' depending on which press release you read. If we call it just 'Mercury' then we'll have to invent our own parenthesized disambiguator, so 'Mercury NZ' could be a better choice. EdJohnston (talk) 02:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Disagree This company was called Mighty River Power, but changed its name about a year ago to Mercury Energy. Mercury Energy is

• the name registered at the NZ companies office,
• the name it trades under and
• the name it is known to the public as.

See the links in the article. Years ago, MRP used the Mercury Energy brand for retail activities, but now the whole company has the Mercury Energy brand and name. The name of this article should stay as Mercury Energy. --Pakaraki (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The justification for the move is incorrect. This company used to have the name Mighty River Power with a retail trading division called Mercury Energy. About a year ago, the whole company name and branding was changed to Mercury Energy. See refs in the article. This article was called Mighty River Power, and changed name to Mercury Energy when the company name changed. Mercury NZ Ltd is a holding company and this is not the name it is known by. The company official name is Mercury Energy. --Pakaraki (talk) 19:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

References

• Comment: The company changed it's name to Mercury NZ Limited. The Mercury Energy companies office page you linked to is 100% owned by Kawerau Geothermal Limited, which is 100% owned by Mercury Geothermal Limited, which is 100% owned by Mercury NZ Limited, which this page is about. All the press I can find about the name change refers to the company as Mercury, but some subsequent media has incorrectly referred to them as Mercury Energy. Agree that the retail trading division was called Mercury Energy, but it now trades under the Mercury retail brand. We would have to use a parenthesized disambiguator to use Mercury which is why i suggested Mercury NZ.--Elliott2705 (talk) 21:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

References

• Comment: Would it not be much better to avoid the very fuzzy meanings of the word "company" and talk about a business? The business is known as Mercury Energy (which belongs to Mercury NZ Limited) and that last fact might be mentioned in the lead paragraph? Eddaido (talk) 11:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: Agreed, the name that customers, owners and other stakeholders of the business see is most important. Eddaido, where have you looked to conclude that the business is known as Mercury Energy? I would argue though that the company is now referred to as Mercury, not Mercury Energy. Their bills, website and most media mentions are all using Mercury. Any recent Mercury Energy references out there are in error. Mercury Energy doesn't exist as a 'business' any more and disappeared when the customer and generation businesses merged, much like 'Mighty River Power' doesn't exist as a business any more. Elliott2705 (talk) 22:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I see that's right but then you also must agree that for many years they must have had the most Stunningly Arrogant management in New Zealand. They should just name it Sun or Nirvana. Eddaido (talk) 09:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Disagree Mercury (energy) instead of Mercury NZ or if deemed essential Mercury (energy NZ) would be more informative and more useful for a reader hunting for an article about this er venture. Eddaido (talk) 08:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Redirect From the above it seems that Mercury NZ Ltd is a holding company and Mercury Energy Ltd is owned by them. In common usage in NZ Mercury Energy is better know simply because that is the electricity supplier that most people deal with rather than Mercury NZ Ltd. If the article is primarily about Mercury NZ Ltd then change the name to Mercury NZ Ltd and set up Mercury Energy as a redirect or alternatively the other way around if the article is mainly about Mercury Energy. If that is acceptable please comment below and I will arrange it. NealeFamily (talk) 09:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: It was pointed out to me above that if you look at your last bill you are now dealing with Mercury and no longer with Mercury Energy. Its public face is just the one word. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 10:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: In it's own literature, the company refers to itself as Mercury. The other power companies do the same (ie Contact, Genesis, Meridian just use the one word name when referring to themselves). But the single word name is not going to work in Wikipedia. Mercury NZ is the holding company and the entity traded on the stock market, but would probably not be recognised by most of the general public. Mercury Energy as a name is simple, unambiguous, widely recognised and consistent with how the other NZ power companies are named in Wikipedia (Contact Energy, Genesis Energy Limited, Meridian Energy).--Pakaraki (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. The correct name for the article is the one supported by Wikipedia article naming policy, which the proposal and the following meandering discussion quite simply ignores. No case to answer. I considered relisting again but there seems little point, suggest wait until the dust settles a bit more and meantime rely on redirects... and if a new RM is eventually proposed, please read WP:AT and base arguments on it, as contributors are asked politely to do in several places. Andrewa (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

• Response I am unsure what you are opposing. The naming convention is being adhered to here. The difficulty is that Mercury is generally referred to in NZ media as Mercury Energy, as per User:Pakaraki, but its legal name is Mercury NZ Limited, as per User:Elliott2705. Both are correct and both are in use in different contexts. For a reader from either context to find the article the standard Wikipedia process is to have a redirect page. I note that it is regular practice for articles where there is a scientific name and a common name Giant cockroach and Blaberidae for example. This use of redirects enables readers from either a scientific or a lay perspective to find the item they are interested in. I hope this explanation is useful.

As to the suggestion by User:Pakaraki that the name Mercury be used, then a note on the Mercury disambiguation page would suffice. NealeFamily (talk) 23:47, 11 August 2017 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move Review

This article should be titled Mercury NZ, with redirects at Mighty River Power and Mercury Energy. Disclosure: I work for Mercury. Someone, if agreed, should raise a move review.

It is simple to establish that the true, correct, and accurate name of the business is Mercury NZ Ltd.

The question about the name change is whether or not Mercury NZ is correct. The examples section from the correct essay is relevant. The preceeding references could all be considered primary sources, but they are more reliable than news media. There is no reliability among secondary sources. The same author may refer to the company as Mercury or Mercury Energy at different times. When reporting on annual results Stuff and NBR use different names. In any article where it is used, Mercury Energy is used to introduce the company, then Mercury is used thereafter.

Using the article title naming criteria shows that 'Mercury' is likely the best title. It is recognizable, natural, and concise. Precision is most important here: using Mercury NZ distinguishes the current subject from the previous Mighty River Power and Mercury Energy. Consistency is slightly different: Mercury Energy used to be consistent with other NZ companies, but the name change means that this point is no longer applicable. The redirect guidance simple points back to article titles.

See also name changes guidance, which suggests that the common name should continue to be used, unless reliable sources use the new name. Considering title changes adds a little extra information. The title has not been stable, and should have been changed to Mercury NZ in 2016. We can also refer to company naming conventions. The Ltd should be left off Mercury NZ. The first sentence should be changed to Mercury NZ Ltd. Pupper abc (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

References

@Pupper abc: Let me provide a procedural advice: you're welcome to start a WP:Move review, but it traditionally focuses on procedural issues of a completed requested move discussion, and it is not a place to re-litigate the substantial arguments for or against. Having re-examined the previous discussion and my close, I don't think I made a procedural error: there proposal to move the article to "Mercury NZ" did not receive any support, with opponents expressing concern whether "Mercury NZ" is a recognizable, common name for the business in whole, as opposed to legal name of its parent company, so I think the close of "no consensus" was rather fair. The close of "no consensus" is traditionally taken to open the possibility of starting a new RM soon after, with hopefully better arguments expressed for or against (I'm not too impressed with quality of the arguments above, which are supposed to provide evidence in form of search result analysis and common usage). Since the name "Mercury" is obviously unavailable due to the planet and the chemical element, the key policy here is WP:NATURAL: Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. The answer whether it's "Mercury NZ" or "Mercury Energy" is unclear. For a model discussion, see e.g. Talk:Amazon.com#Requested_move_15_August_2017 (not that it yielded a definitive result, either).
In a nutshell: I suggest that a better way forward is that you simply start a new WP:Requested move. No such user (talk) 08:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@No such user: Thanks, that's good advice. Point: there is no difference between the business and the parent company. That was the purpose of the name change in 2016. I would agree that disambiguation and precision are most important in this case: Mercury NZ is clear and in common usage and differentiates from the previous names of the two separate but related entities. I'll open RM. Pupper abc (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Pakaraki: @Elliott2705: @Eddaido: @DrStrauss: @NealeFamily: Would you support a move to Mercury NZ if I was to raise it again? See new information above. Main argument is that 'Mercury' is in common usage, and Mercury NZ provides disambiguation and precision in comparison to the previous names of Mighty River Power and Mercury Energy. Thanks! Pupper abc (talk) 02:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

That would be ok with me - have Mighty River Power and Mercury Energy as redirects to Mercury NZ. NealeFamily (talk) 03:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I guess "Mercury NZ" is probably the more correct choice for name, with redirects from Mighty River Power and Mercury Energy. The company refers to itself as Mercury or Mercury NZ, but I suspect few members of the public would immediately recognise "Mercury NZ". The media still uses "Mercury Energy", for example. The other electricity companies mostly refer to themselves with one word, and general use is two words (ie "Genesis" and "Genesis Energy" and same for Contact and Meridian) and this is how Wikipedia names them. A google search on "mercury nz" returned 82,600 hits, mostly relating to shares, business and financial articles. A google search on "mercury energy" returned 225,000 hits, although many of these relate to older articles about the retail company. So a simple search result count would indicate "Mercury Energy" as the more frequently used name. However, the company itself appears to be very definitely not using the "Mercury Energy" name, so it could be argued that Wikipedia should use the current official name "Mercury NZ" instead of the colloquial "Mercury Energy" which might be in common use as a hang over from the previous retail company. --Pakaraki (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mercury Energy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140810115910/http://www.mightyriver.co.nz/Media-Centre/Latest-News/Mighty-River-Power-takes-direct-control-of-geother.aspx to http://www.mightyriver.co.nz/Media-Centre/Latest-News/Mighty-River-Power-takes-direct-control-of-geother.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)