Talk:ULMA Group

Proposed merge with ULMA Architectural Solutions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

These articles largely duplicate material and I do not think the individual branches pass WP:NCORP independent of the parent organization. shoy (reactions) 17:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed merge with ULMA Handling Systems

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

These articles largely duplicate material and I do not think the individual branches pass WP:NCORP independent of the parent organization. shoy (reactions) 17:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support both mergers. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
• Against both mergers. I think the ULMA Group and it’s cooperatives need separate wikipedia pages. Even though they are all called ULMA, the 8 cooperatives are independent businesses run each one by it's workers and they will remain together in the same group (but not the same company) only as long as the workers decide so. Some of the cooperatives joined the group only recently and in the past, they did decide to run separate from Mondragon Corporation, for example. That kind of decision making shows that they are different and should have their own pages, considering they could even decide to separate at any moment. In that sense, they are far more independent than, say, Inditex (the group) and Zara or Massimo Dutti (some of the its businesses) and they all have separate Wikipedia pages. Same with Google and it’s parent company, for example Alphabet INC. Wikipedia has one page for Google INC and one for Alphabet INC. --Ikerm (talk) 13:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

That is basically an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, if you feel that other articles about company divisions should be merged then feel free to propose a merge. The depth of coverage available for the ULMA Group articles is nowhere near the depth of coverage available for Alphabet Inc. and Google, for example. Each article is full of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources about that company specifically. Each company needs to pass WP:NCORP on its own merits (because notability is WP:NOTINHERITED) in order to have a separate article on WP. shoy (reactions) 13:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, no, I was not trying to propose changes or mergings in other articles! My mistake. In the example I used earlier I think every company I mentioned has its merits to have its own article. What I was trying to say -not very brigthly!- was that I think that every cooperative in the ULMA Group is certainly each own business. They are juridically different, they were created by different people, they sell different products and have businesses in different parts of the world (Ulma handling, for instance, seems to run projects in Spain and France and Ulma Construction is very much a global company). Each of them is a worker’s cooperative with its own history and from one moment on they decided to either create the group (that’s what happened with the original “Ulma” or “Enara” as far as I understand) or to join the group. Since they have never lost their independence they could easily decide to leave the group at any moment. In that sense, I see them more as a replica of the same system that works with Mondragon Corporation and its cooperatives (like Eroski that has always reamined or Irizar that decided to left). Even with the ULMA “surname” I think they are more independent and thus deserving of its own pages than your usual Main Company - Subsidiary Company structures. Which can also have enough significance for the readers to merit their own pages, of course (that’s what I was trying to say before, but like I said, not very well). So, considering each business is so independent and it’s the “group” that’s more abstract (with no marketable products, for instance, just a parent company for all of them), maybe it’s the group the one that doesn’t have enough interest for the readers? I think they all do but it’s the one I could consider less important, from an encyclopedic point of view. --Ikerm (talk) 14:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

For what I've read, we are talking about independent businesses here and I think they should have individual pages. And since it's pretty unusual that worker's cooperatives end up being so big, going global and forming some kind of "federation" between them, I'd say the group merits it's own page, too.--Astokilo (Astokilo) 14.29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Content rewritten in a neutral point of view

The former version was too long, specially the history part. I have made a shorter version. The history part was too detailed and as far as I understand it the most interesting part was underlining its link to the Mondragon Corporation (Arizmendiarrieta’s influence, to be exact, the priest that founded this cooperative movement), since that’s what it gives ULMA its particular characteristics as a worker cooperative with a worldwide dimension. I have get rid of the certificates and qualifications part since I think it was too technical for the Wikipedia reader. The projects sections is far shorter, too. Just enough information to show its worldwide dimension which, again, it’s what I think makes ULMA particular, considering its nature as a worker cooperative which is usually linked to small businesses. --Ikerm (talk) 13:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)