Talk:Shell corporation/Archives/2013
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Shell corporation. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Requested move
- Shell corporation → Shell company — more common name — Talk:Shell corporation — Ewlyahoocom 12:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Survey
- Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
- Support per discussion below. Kafziel 14:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Discussion
- Add any additional comments
- I don't really think "shell company" is significantly more widely used. Google hits are much, much higher for "Shell company", but that's largely because a tremendous amount of those pages are for the Shell Oil Company, very commonly called the Shell Company. I think the "Shell corporation" article should stay where it is and "Shell company" should actually be changed to a redirect to Royal Dutch Shell. Kafziel 12:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Not true!Googling on "shell company" -oil -shell.com -petroleum returns about 293,000 hits, "shell corporation" -oil -shell.com -petroleum returns about 78,900 hits. Furthermore I think we could all agree that all corporations are companies (in the general sense of the word company), but not all companies are corporations. Could a general partership be a "shell corporation"? (To my ear "shell corporation" sounds more like it might refer to Royal Dutch Shell, however I suggest the hatnote is enough and we redirect neither link there.) Ewlyahoocom 13:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)- How can you say it's not true? Removing those keywords causes a loss of 162,000 hits. I said there were more hits for "Shell company" than "Shell corporation"; I just said that a tremendous amount of those hits were for the oil company, and 162,000 google hits is certainly significant by any standard. Besides, I'm not voting in opposition of the move, just making a suggestion. Kafziel 13:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- My sincere apologies for my tone. Allow me to rephrase: with or without the subtractions, "shell company" has about 4x as many hits as "shell corporation". Ewlyahoocom 14:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. And rather than abstaining from the vote, I'll add my support. Kafziel 14:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- How can you say it's not true? Removing those keywords causes a loss of 162,000 hits. I said there were more hits for "Shell company" than "Shell corporation"; I just said that a tremendous amount of those hits were for the oil company, and 162,000 google hits is certainly significant by any standard. Besides, I'm not voting in opposition of the move, just making a suggestion. Kafziel 13:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Might I suggest "Shell (company)" or "Shell (corporation)"? It fits better with Wikipedia convention to parenthetically note the context of the title when the common title alone is ambiguous without such context. --Davidstrauss 10:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- I've moved it to Shell (corporation). —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 10:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Is such a venture simply called a shell, or is it called a shell corporation? If the latter, parentheticals are incorrect as they do not reflect the common name. bd2412 T 23:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
currency
That $50 billion - what currency is that? And there should be a link to oxfam citing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.122.215 (talk) 03:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm working on a flier that says 125 billion euros a year, which is apparently a figure from a 2008 Christian Aid report "Death and taxes" JJ (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Abuse of shell corporations for fraud section
I added a section with minimal content, and will come back and add RS. Please check for UNDUE, SCANDAL, and NPOV, and reword as needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.121.31.183 (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)