Talk:Procter & Gamble
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Procter & Gamble article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
This level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
P&G's satanic issues
editThe way that Amway was very nonsense to P&G, the 1930 logo was very satanic. Apollo C. Quiboloy fans (talk) 02:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- "the 1930 logo was very satanic".
- How? -- Rhombuth (talk) 13:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Pay ratio -- add to info box
editI would like to see the pay ratio, and possibly associated data like median pay and CEO pay added to the infobox. I have mentioned this article where I requested a "pay ratio" parameter be added to the infobox for that purpose: Template_talk:Infobox_company#Pay_ratio. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Failure to Maintain an Impartial Tone
editThe section Toxic shock syndrome and tampons references facts and makes claims that are related to the subject matter, but are not pertinent to addressing the controversy. Their use in the section is reminiscent of a corporate statement, not an objective encyclopedia article. This is my first comment in a long time, I apologize for not knowing the proper flags. Thanks! L. --Logzzen (talk) 08:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Is the carbon footprint section just marketing?
editThe section about the companies carbon foot print is very short, and only cites sources directly written by P&G.
Is it really important information or just marketing non-sense? 2A02:810B:C040:1DF4:C074:BFC2:1572:9F31 (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Interestingly, it was added by a short-term editor who added carbon footprint info to dozens of corporate pages; I guess that was their area of interest. On one hand, it could be argued that it isn't significant enough to include if independent sources haven't noted it. On the other, it could be argued that it's basic corporate information that readers these days might expect to find in an article. I don't have an opinion either way, actually. Schazjmd (talk) 22:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
List of brands
editNo mention of the brands owned by this company? MightyArms (talk) 14:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: First Year English Composition 1001
editThis article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2023 and 30 November 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CheyenneGreen (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by CheyenneGreen (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
p&g has another cleaning company
editwhy is there no febreze in this article but just the companies list? Best writer and typer (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)