Talk:Equinor
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Merger proposal
As all Statoil's assets and activities have been trasferred into StatoilHydro, I propose to merge articles on Statoil and StatoilHydro.Beagel 17:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- More precisely, Statoil has taken over Hydro's oil and gas assets, and changed its name to StatoilHydro and at the same time the Hydro shareholders have been payed in Statoil shares. Arsenikk 20:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- It's probably worth noting that the retail (i.e. petrol station) operations will continue to have the Statoil name and pre-merger branding, so there may be a case to retain the Statoil article with info on this. Gr1st 21:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- There seems to be a fairly dominant trend on Wikipedia to keep articles about defunct companies before they enter mergers. For instance, there are articles for Conoco Inc., Phillips Petroleum Company and ConocoPhillips. Arsenikk 15:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with this. At the same time the StatoilHydro seems more like acquisition of Hydro's oil business by Statoil rather than creation of a new company. Beagel 16:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- There seems to be a fairly dominant trend on Wikipedia to keep articles about defunct companies before they enter mergers. For instance, there are articles for Conoco Inc., Phillips Petroleum Company and ConocoPhillips. Arsenikk 15:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's probably worth noting that the retail (i.e. petrol station) operations will continue to have the Statoil name and pre-merger branding, so there may be a case to retain the Statoil article with info on this. Gr1st 21:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think the article should be left as-is. There's a lot of history behind Statoil and it's name still exists in many places. In fact, the only people who really know of "StatoilHydro" are those involved directly in the oil industry.--193.130.175.129 (talk) 09:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The company is changing its name back to Statoil tomorrow (see last line of this article). That means something will have to be done with these two pages. Any suggestions? Gr1st (talk) 17:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hm. I would say the two companies (pre and post merger) and distinct enough to have two articles, but I also think that they are similar enough to have one. One possibility is to create the article History of Statoil (1972–2007) and make it a sub-article (just like we have Hydro Oil & Gas). Alternatively, we could create Statoil (1972–2007). Arsenikk (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Whatever you decide - please go ahead and do it without further delay. At present, leaving the fuel stations out of the main article does not help those researching details about this company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.0.9.69 (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Another merge proposal
I propose to merge Statoil (fuel station). It is short article, which heavily overlaps with this article. Beagel (talk) 05:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose The fuel stations make up a small, but highly visual, aspect of Statoil's operations. The article is short, there is ample area of expansion; the history could be much longer, there should be coverage of the service, operations, internal logistics and organization. Including all this information in the main article will give part of the downstream operations undue weight in the main article, which will never be able to cover all aspects of the Nordic's largest corporation anyway. Arsenikk (talk) 11:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose On 17 March 2010 Statoil announced plans to spin-off the energy and retail business as a separately publicly listed company (source). It thus makes sense to have a separate Wikipedia entry for the fuel stations and indeed develop this article into what will become a separate company. Bifrost2 (talk) 22:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose -- assuming the spin-off is verified (I didn't check it myself), then the stations should continue to have a separate WP article. It does need improvement, as noted by the proposer. N2e (talk) 02:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
