Talk:Cogan, Berlind, Weill & Levitt

Acquisition history

Can someone change the direction of the acquisition history chart? It goes right to left. As this is English wp, where writing goes left to right, that direction would be appropriate. Cf. tennis ladders, etc., which also go left to right. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Two points

First, it is not Wikipedia style to link the same thing repeatedly through an article. Once is generally enough, a second time may be appropriate if there is a repeated reference much later int he article. Linking the same person or the same company name twice in a paragraph or even in sequential sections adds unnecessary clutter to the article. See WP:OVERLINK for further discussion of Wikipedia policy on this.

Secondly, while a company may chose to call its former employees "alumni", "Beluga whales", or even "Georgia peaches", they are not any of those things. Wikipedia does not follow corporate speak -- it follows the normal rules of the English language, so let's not call former employees "alumni", since that word means former students of a university, college or school. See WP:TRADEMARK for further discussion. Ground Zero | t 01:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• That's fine you can call them former employees - I think alumni is closer than "beluga whales" and the usage of the term "corporate alumni" is fairly widespread. I don't know what that has to do with trademarks. Separately, your removal of links on the other hand was excessive in the first pass hence certain add-backs. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 04:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Please take a look at alumni and WP:OVERLINK. Companies likes to use "alumni" to refer to their former employees, but that doesn't mean an encyclopedia should. Ground Zero | t 10:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Since you have add a fourth link to Sanford I. Weill yet again, and in the sentence immediately after the first link to him, it seems clear that you are unwilling to look up WP:OVERLINK for yourself. To assist you, here is the relevant text, which you can also access directly through WP:REPEATLINK:

"Repeated links

"In general, link only the first occurrence of an item. This is a rule of thumb that has many exceptions, including the following:

• where a later occurrence of an item is a long way from the first.
• where the first link was in an infobox or a navbox, or some similar meta-content.
• tables, as each row should stand on its own.

I think this should be very clear. Ground Zero | t 13:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

With respect to the corporate use of "alumni" to mean "former employees", I am drawing an anology to WP:TRADEMARK in which Wikipedia rejects corporate styling and sticks to standard English capitalization, punctuation and orthography:

"When deciding how to format a trademark, editors should ... choose the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner."

I think it is reasonable to apply this general principle to a corporation's (or many corporations') attempts to co-opt a word with a specific meaning for its own purposes. Wikipedia need not support that. Ground Zero | t 13:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cogan, Berlind, Weill & Levitt. 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/20081007193631/http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_39/b3700006.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_39/b3700006.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 12:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cogan, Berlind, Weill & Levitt. 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/20120227032708/https://www.loebcap.com/timeline/index.html to https://www.loebcap.com/timeline/index.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 07:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)