Talk:URS Corporation
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
August 2012
editShouldn't there be some discussion of the major projects, including large successes and large failures (MN bridge collapse) that this company had? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andythechef (talk • contribs) 20:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- You mean like the part that mentions the MN bridge collapse? --Golbez (talk) 20:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
August 2013
editWhy is there this penchant for redirecting old companies into whatever they've been aborbed/morphed into? For instance, Dames & Moore was its own entity for years, with a history and projects and... existence. Now it's just a footnote to URS. This is not being very true to the idea of preserving information.Cellmaker (talk) 08:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- If you can make an article with sufficient history and project information, go for it. But as it was, it was two paragraphs saying that it existed and was a pioneer, without any sourcing. Redirecting to its new owners was the correct thing. But it's not always the only thing - articles on First Union and Wachovia both exist, despite being ancestors of Wells Fargo. In fact, I would say what damned the Dames & Moore article was no sourcing of its assertions of importance, more than anything else. --Golbez (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- I want to add that, "preserving information" is not why Wikipedia exists. There is no such principle at work here. If you start at Wikipedia:Five pillars and work your way through all the fundamental principles and policies that guide it, there's nothing about preserving anything. In fact, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not makes clear at several points that Wikipedia is not here as an archive, a memorial, a repository, or an indiscriminate collection of information.
Many failed or acquired or merged companies end up as Permastubs, and in many of those cases it is better to fold that material into a broader article. That said, there's no reason why the there can't be more detail on Dames & Moore in this article, if the sources exist to support it. And the old article is always around, in the history, so it can be recovered if need be. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- I want to add that, "preserving information" is not why Wikipedia exists. There is no such principle at work here. If you start at Wikipedia:Five pillars and work your way through all the fundamental principles and policies that guide it, there's nothing about preserving anything. In fact, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not makes clear at several points that Wikipedia is not here as an archive, a memorial, a repository, or an indiscriminate collection of information.