Talk:Wayne Enterprises

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

-

	This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Edit the article attached to this page or discuss it at the project talk page. Help with current tasks, or visit the notice board.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Wow, this a really detailed article. I wonder if somebody could add references? That would be great. --Destron Commander 02:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

With the various retcons in the comics, how much of this is supported by curent continuity. -- Beardo 06:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Merge 1.1 Merge 2 Revert? 3 Restructuring 4 Cleanup

[edit] Merge

I wholeheartedly support the merge of Wayne Foundation into Wayne Enterprises -mordicai. 20:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Moved from Wayne Foundation's talk page. Lincher 01:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

I wholeheartedly support the merge of Wayne Foundation into Wayne Enterprises -mordicai. 20:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge -- I went ahead and pulled the (very small amount of) information that wasn't already on Wayne Enterprises to that page. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 15:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead & turn this page into a redirect then, & remove the merge tags. --mordicai. 15:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert?

I don't want to get into a revert war, but I'm curious why User:24.4.253.8 reverted my edits. While I don't think the article was in final shape, I do think that my edits were a step in the right direction (they were my edits, of course I think that!) All of the Wayne Subsidiaries, for instance, are better catagorized under one heading. Also, the creation of a "Batman" catagory is needed like nobodies bussiness. It might seem like something to be taken for granted, but we shouldn't assume that the encyclopedia goer knows that Wayne Enterprises is the Batman's alter-ego's bussiness without making mention of it. Lastly, my changing "the city" to "Gotham city" was in there because with an article of this length, leaving dangling definate articles without specifying the proper noun is nothing short of confusing. Without clean-up, this article stands as a bit of a mess. -mordicai. 13:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restructuring

Based on ideas from mordicai, I've restructred the article to better reflect the corporate structure of Wayne Enterprises and Wayne Foundations, added an Other media section and rewrote the intro to better indicate it's a fictional company and it's context. CovenantD 20:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I tried, but this article is way to messed up. It looks like just a random assertment of "facts" with no direct citations. Every other sentences seems to be some sort of Peacock statement. Worse yet, it gets redundant. I mean...really redundant. Like...Mojo Jojo redundant. Then there's the sectioning and data management. I fear each section is almost acting independantly of ther others. Plus, we have almost data on the supposedly "failed" branches. It's not the worst article I've seen, and that's the problem. This could be really good, but I fear I can't fix it alone. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this thing is a mess. For all I know, some Wikipedian made all this stuff up off the top of his or her head. It reads like an attempted company brochure. Most of it needs to be gutted. Doczilla 08:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Dividing into sections by specific years (1) made it look like you'd added more than you did (sorry) and (2) doesn't fit how we treat comic book time. Doczilla 08:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Much like Robin in other media, the timeframe refers to real life, not fiction. We're supposed to decribe the events in mostly out of fiction sense. Plus, the article itself mentions a date. As for WayneCorp versus Wayne Enterprises, it'd be better to refer to the company by the original name, then mention the change. Arbitrarilly mentioning it in the history is pointless. Might as well just remove it or add it to the intro.

I'm also not to fond of the severe content removal. While a lot needed work, you seemed to strip out some good parts. The section linking wasn't a bad idea, either. I'd like help in fixing what's there, not a complete overhaul/rewrite or excessive content removal. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 10:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I noticed you changed the section titles back as well. I understand you have this weird love of adding "Fictional" to the front of a section title, but it;s redundant and fairly ugly. I also find any section titled to match the article title utterly inappropriate. How is "Wayne Enterprises" better than "Branches"? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 10:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the claim in your edit summary that I "added more unsourced information". I worked with was there and only changed the wording, as it sucked before. "The history of Wayne Enterprises is longer than the history of Gotham City." This is a random, almost nonsensical statement. It reads as a conversional/confrontational assertion, not an encyclopedic beginning. "The history is longer" would seem, however, to indicate that it existed longer. Follow that up with the statement about it starting in the seventeenth century and the meaning seems very clear. Gotham City's land formation probably existed back then, but it wasn't known by that name or even visibly similar, I imagine. I'm sorry, but I'm gonna have to revert a lot of your work. I'll try to be more considerate than you seemed to be, but really...you just didn't seem to help. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 10:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: "I don't appreciate the claim in your edit summary that I "added more unsourced information" That's why I said "(sorry)". Your section heading moved some material where it looked to me like you'd wholly added it. Very sorry for my mistake there. Sorry #2: Sorry for not making sorry #1 clear. Doczilla 00:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I like where the article is now. If we could just finish off the "later years and present" section, we'd at least have a decent history. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)