Talk:Wittington Investments

Comments

Does anyone know the significance of the word Wittington to the Weston family? The Canadian branch has a company called Wittington Properties, which occupies part of Wittington Tower (Toronto). Wimstead (talk) 01:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Have added in an 'alleged' to the F&M occupation story. UkUncut have yet to provide any evidence of this avoidance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.1.176 (talk) 08:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the section. The linked article doesn't mention Wittington Investments. I doubt that the protestors even knew Wittington exists. Wittington is just a piece of paper. It has no public image and no trading operations so it cannot in itself suffer PR damage, and protesting against it would therefore be pointless. The target was the ABF companies as stated in the text.81.99.182.245 (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I have also removed the postive material which relates to the Weston Foundation. This article should only contain information that is directly relevant to Wittington Investments. 81.99.182.245 (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Issues with Holdings section and possible renaming?

I'm issuing this RfC re: some issues I noticed with this Wikipedia page. Specifically, its Holdings section where it notes, incorrectly based on my interpretation, that Witting Investments, Limited (Canada) is a subsidiary of Witting Investments Limited (United Kingdom). Based on the response to the third question in this FAQ,, it seems to indicate a very subtle difference in naming convention in that the UK-incorporated Wittington Investments doesn't have a comma following "Investments" whereas the Canada-incorporated Wittington Investments does.

So, several questions:

1. Am I correct in my interpretation that the UK-incorporated Wittington is not the parent company of the Canadian-incorporated Wittington?
2. Assuming that the answer to Q. 1 is yes, would it be logical, therefore, for me to initiate a move request to Wittington Investments (United Kingdom) or could I initiate this myself, intending to more fully develop an article for the Canadian-incorporated Wittington as a non-controversial page move (under what basis should I rationalize the move, as I'm unfamiliar with Wikipedia's labyrinth of policies)? What is the naming convention on Wikipedia for two companies that share the same name but different jurisdictions?
3. Assuming I can do this myself non-controversially, or if I should do it in a page move, will anyone volunteer to be a non-involved closer in either case? Doug Mehus (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

References

My 2¢:

1. • In terms of the article title, the subsidiariness (is that a standard word?) doesn't matter.
   • Their UK FAQ suggests that the UK "WIL" being controlled by the Garfield Weston Foundation and the Canadian "WI,L being controlled by a person named W. Galen Weston. If they have no history in common, then we need separate articles. If they do have history in common, then they can be discussed on the same page. If one family or business decides to incorporate lots of different entities, but they have a lot of information in common, then we can still have a single article about all of them. Imagine a case in which a family sets up a successful business. One of their children sets up a second business, whose sole purpose is supporting the parents' business. We would normally talk about "Parent's Business" and "Child's Related Business" in the same article, even though they're legally separate businesses. (And if the child's business is better known, the article would be titled for the child's business.)
2. No. More precisely, we wouldn't do this unless you plan to write completely separate articles for the legally distinct businesses.
3. You shouldn't really need a "closer" for this. You're smart, we trust you to be able to tell the difference between support annd opposition and benign indifference, and we want you to WP:Be bold. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

[summoned by bot] My 2¢ would be much the same as that of User:WhatamIdoing. There's no good reason to create two articles in this case, unless you have much to say about one that doesn't involve the other.

[An aside:] And @WhatamIdoing:, yes, the rather awkward-sounding word "subsidiariness" is attested in at least two reputable dictionaries (Collins, Random House) as a noun (presumably meaning "the quality of being a subsidiary"). I had hoped that perhaps "subsidiarity" would meet your needs, but when I looked it up, I found that it's actually a principle of executive action at the lowest competent hierarchical level! yoyo (talk) 06:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Yoyo, your reply is one of the reasons that I love Wikipedia. Thank you for the definition. :-D WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, @WhatamIdoing:, that's my issue...Wittington Investments, Limited, the Canadian company, as far as I can tell is not a subsidiary of UK Wittington Investments Limited. At this point, I'm not prepared to write an article for the Canadian version, but if I were or at some point in the future, would moving this page to Wittington Investments (UK) and creating the new Canadian page as Wittington Investments (Canada) follow proper naming conventions?

Also, thanks for clarifying that I can close my own RfCs, especially if it's just to gather input for future editing decisions. Doug Mehus (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Doug, that sounds like a reasonable plan. No need to do anything until you really need to, but if/when it reaches that point, then that sounds like a reasonable plan. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)