Talk:Informa

Informa has a new registered office and head office address:

Informa PLC 5 Howick Place London SW1P 1WG UK

^[1]

Please reflect the change in the sidebar and the opening paragraph. I work for the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpomph (talk • contribs) 10:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Informa has undergone a restructure and has the following divisions:

Academic Publishing Business Intelligence Global Exhibitions Knowledge and Networking

^[1]

Please update in the Division section of the sidebar, and the Operations section. I work for Informa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpomph (talk • contribs) 10:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Informa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090223191107/http://www.lloydslist.com:80/ll/home/about.htm to http://www.lloydslist.com/ll/home/about.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Supermarket News. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 2#Supermarket News until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Inside Self-Storage. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 2#Inside Self-Storage until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 10.2989. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 8#10.2989 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented.

Hello there,

I am acting on behalf of Informa and have some suggested changes to the lead.

What are my changes: The current first sentence of the lead does not accurately reflect what Informa does, so I have suggested a more accurate version.

In addition, can the introduction feature the operating divisions rather than examples of the notable brands owned by Informa?

This would help readers better understand the structure of the company - while the brands are notable, they don't illustrate what Informa does as a company. Listing the divisions also more accurately indicates the nature of the relationship between Informa's divisions and brands - Taylor & Francis for example is its own division which CRC Press and Routledge both sit within, but the current phrasing implies they sit alongside each other.

I plan to suggest some more content in the body of the article to better cover what each division does and use notable examples of brands within each to clarify this, but for this request I'm focusing on the introduction.

Finally, can the number of employees be updated to 14,000 (and the relevant figure corrected within the infobox)?

How it would appear:

Thanks in advance! HisNamesJim (talk) 14:56, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Not done: A majority of the requested changes are currently written in a promotional tone. Please review WP:Neutral point of view and ensure you follow this before submitting any edit requests. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 01:13, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @Valorrr for your feedback. Would you please mind indicating the language you feel in my request which is written in a promotional tone? HisNamesJim (talk) 09:50, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

One of the world's largest business events' organisers, along with some others. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 13:45, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Valorrr. I understand that that could seem promotional but I disagree in cases where it is an objective statement.

Objectively, Informa is one of the world's largest companies in the organisation of business events' - this is supported by the Times article where it says: "Informa, formed in 1998 via the merger of IBC Group and Lloyd’s of London Press, is the largest organiser of trade shows in the world."

Other Wikipedia articles where the subject is the largest within their specific industry will also use "largest" within the article lead as a basic introduction to the subject i.e. airlines (American Airlines) - "largest airline in the world in terms of passengers carried and daily flights", banking (Goldman Sachs) - "second-largest investment bank in the world by revenue".

I appreciate I do have a COI so would you mind reopening the request so we could get a second opinion? I see that Pac Veten and Dormskirk have recently been active with updates to the article - would either of you have an opinion on my suggestions?

HisNamesJim (talk) 16:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry but "One of the world's largest business events' organisers, along with some others" sounds promotional to me. Dormskirk (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Very, and we need NPOV. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 16:47, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

One of the world's largest business events' organisers
That was the text, but I said "among some others" to state there is some more. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 16:48, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

The tone sounds promotional to me also. Is there a way to quantify the statement for neutrality? For example, "Informa has x% of the global market for trade shows" or "Informa is among the top Y international vendors for trade shows"? Pac Veten (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Or better, "Informa is among the top Y international vendors for trade shows (by revenue)." Pac Veten (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Valorrr, Dormskirk and Pac Veten for your feedback. Very helpful for someone new to Wikipedia.

Pac Veten, as you have suggested, could the phrasing be altered to:

"Informa is the world's largest exhibition organizer by revenue..." as supported by these Exhibition News and Trade Shows New Network articles.

Additionally, what about other parts of the request? Are the changes suggested acceptable or does the language have to be adjusted?

1. Changes to the "lead" sentence to better reflect what Informa does.

2. Changing the last sentence to feature the operating divisions of Informa rather than examples of the notable brands owned by Informa.

Listing the divisions more accurately indicates the nature of the relationship between Informa's divisions and brands - Taylor & Francis for example is its own division which CRC Press and Routledge are brands within, but the current phrasing implies they sit alongside each other.

3. Updating the number of employees to 14,000.

Thanks again for your guidance. HisNamesJim (talk) 11:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I found the original lead sentence (with "business intelligence") more concrete and descriptive. The proposed new sentence may fit better with a corporate mission statement, but the context seems different here. Perhaps it would work to add an explicit sentence for the mission statement?

Similarly, the original list of brands (including CRC) seems helpful and evocative, while the list of divisions lacks flavor for a general audience, somehow. Why not include both--keep the original content, and then add a new description of Informa's operating divisions separately? Each list would provide a different kind of useful information. Pac Veten (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Partly done: See comments. CNMall41 (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hello there,

Following the feedback received from Pac Veten, I have reposted my request to change the article lead to make it clearer for interested editors.

• Would it be possible to add phrasing to the second paragraph of the introduction which indicates Informa is the world's largest exhibition organizer by revenue, one of the reasons why the company is notable within its industry.

• Can I suggest a sentence outlining the operating divisions of the company. This would make the introduction a better summary of the company and help clarify the relationship between Informa's divisions and brands.

• Can the introduction be updated to reflect Informa's current business operations, specifically as follows:

• By using the term "UK-founded" rather than "British", and "Multinational events" to clarify that the company hosts functions globally, not only domestically.

• Informa no longer offers "business intelligence" services while "digital products", "specialist media" and "academic publishing business" represent the company's current operations more accurately. Informa, for example, is only involved with "academic publishing" rather than "publishing" generally through its Taylor & Francis division.

• Finally, can the number of employees be updated to 14,000 (and the relevant figure corrected within the infobox).

How it would appear:

Thank you again for considering my request! HisNamesJim (talk) 14:58, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

This draft looks more neutral, to my eye, but some additional changes would be helpful:

- Where the company was founded is less important than what it does; the company is something like a conglomerate; and bold font is needed only for the company name. So I would suggest something like this for the first sentence, pending further changes: "Informa plc is a multinational conglomerate that is active in the areas of events, digital products, specialist media and academic publishing; the company was founded in the UK."

- The terms "digital products" and "specialist media" do not refer to concrete industries or fields that would be familiar to most readers. What are possible substitutes for these terms, which would be more widely known?

- Do the terms "events" and "exhibitions" refer to the same things? If so, it may be helpful to use a consistent term.

- Where are Informa's major offices located? For example, would "in the London and Boston areas" be sufficient to give a general idea?

- How many brands does Informa have? The word "numerous" implies between 8 and dozens . . .

- What does each Informa division do, in a few words each?

Hopefully these are useful comments, if detailed. Pac Veten (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Similarly, if the 14,000 employees are located mainly in the US and the UK, it would be useful to include that clarification. Pac Veten (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Pac Veten. Sorry for taking a while to get back to you.

I very much appreciate your detailed comments, which I've responded to in turn below. Just to clarify, I use bold to indicate my changes which I should have made clearer to you so apologies for any confusion!

1. I agree with your adjusted lead sentence. I suggest using the alternate term digital goods instead of "digital products" and "niche media" instead of "specialist media". Similar to my point regarding the alteration from "publishing" to "academic publishing", I feel it is important to readers to clarify that Informa does not publish mainstream media.

2. Events and exhibitions from my understanding are different, so it would be better to specify given their relevance here. Events are broader while exhibitions are more focused and subject-specific; for example the wider event of Cannes Film Festival will host exhibitions within the wider event itself.

3. For the lead at least, I do not see the value in adding where the company's major offices are located and it probably approaches WP:DIRECTORY territory, but others may disagree.

4. Informa does indeed have dozens of brands, too many to comprehensively list and this may fluctuate over time as well (I would like to tackle the brands section in a future request so it isn't too unwieldy), and this is why I'm keen to include the Divisions. I would not object to the beginning of this sentence being altered to read, "Some of Informa's most notable brands include..."

5. I am currently in the process of drafting changes to the "Operations" section which it would be great if you would like to offer your feedback on once I have submitted it! This will include an explanation of the five divisions - it might be appropriate to include this in the lead as well but in any case we can decide that once this first conversation is concluded to keep the Talk page organised.

6. I cannot find any independent reliable third-party references which include the employee split and would rather leave it out as this will continually change.

Look forward to hearing your feedback and thank you! HisNamesJim (talk) 16:55, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi @HisNamesJim. I appreciate your latest thoughts--my comments are below.

1. The phrase "digital goods" is not standard for a general audience, so I think that it's still important to find common words to describe Informa's services. Such phrasing should be independent of any marketing strategy.

2. OK

3. Most Wikipedia articles about important companies indicate where their major offices are located. This information should be included for Informa as well.

4. It would be appropriate to replace the promotional word "numerous" with an approximate quantification of the number of brands that Informa owns. On the basis of your comments above, perhaps that would be "approximately fifty" in this case?

5. There are two options around treating divisions in the lead section. The first option is to attach a couple of words to each division as description; the second option is to remove the divisions from the lead section entirely, deferring this material for a later section, as you proposed. The current division listing in the lead section is opaque and does not add any value for a reader.

6. OK--item 3 above may be sufficient to substitute for item 6 here.

Hopefully these comments are useful in moving towards the next iteration. Pac Veten (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hi there. Following helpful feedback from editors, I would like to repost a request to change the article lead.

• Can the introduction be updated to reflect Informa's current business operations, specifically as follows:

• By using the term "UK-founded" rather than "British", and "Multinational events" to clarify that the company hosts functions globally, not only domestically.

• The phrasing "based in London" changed to "headquartered in London" so it is clearer that Informa has offices in other locations.

• Informa no longer offers "business intelligence" services while "business-to-business digital services and media" and "academic publishing business" represent the company's current operations more accurately. Informa, for example, is only involved with "academic publishing" rather than "publishing" generally through its Taylor & Francis division, while its digital services and media products are focused on the business-to-business sector.

• May the final sentence be updated by:

• Changing "numerous" in regards to the amount of brands to "hundreds" so that there is an approximate quantification.

• Adding several more notable brands (highlighted in bold) with Wikilinks to their relevant articles.

• Finally, can the number of employees be updated to 14,000 (and the relevant figure corrected within the infobox).

How it would appear:

Thank you! HisNamesJim (talk) 10:25, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

@HisNamesJim:, responding to these requests individually since it is more than a single request. Give me time to sum everything up. Not everything is responded to in the order in which you requested.

1. 12,000 -> 14,000, this was implemented based on the primary source. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

2. British -> U.K. founded , not done. The first sentence of the MOS:LEAD describes where the company is located, not necessarily where it operates. See Facebook for example ("American social media and social networking service owned by the American technology conglomerate Meta"). --CNMall41 (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

3. based in -> headquarters, this was updated. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

4. numerous -> hundreds, not done. The lead needs to be a summary of the body. While the body lists many of the brands, it would be WP:OR to say "hundreds" unless there is a sentence in the "Brands" section which says "hundreds." That sentence would also need to be supported by a reliable source. I was going to do that change in order to change the lead, but I cannot find a reliable secondary source that says "hundreds." --CNMall41 (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

5. service types - not done. Again, the lead needs to be a summary of the body and currently what is written should not be there unless reliably sourced. If you have a good secondary source that shows what they currently offer, ping me here and I can add a sentence to the operations section and then change the lead to reflect your request. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:19, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

6. additional brands - not done. There are currently six which I feel is already too many for a summary based on the rule of three. You are asking that to be increased to 10 which is way too many in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi again. Thanks much for the update and for incorporating the previous feedback. This version looks significantly more informative and neutral—so I'd suggest that only two tasks remain. The first task is to subdivide the long list of brands according to the general categories provided above to describe the overall business. The second task is to copy edit the resulting full text. Since I belong to the Guild of Copy Editors, it would be natural for me to take on the second task. Would you mind taking on the first task? Pac Veten (talk) 23:56, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me @Pac Veten, and for all of your previous feedback. For now, I think I am going with CNMall41's suggestion that I focus on requesting changes to the main article body before returning back to the lead. HisNamesJim (talk) 11:56, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Since the most recent proposed text above is the outcome of this long group discussion (to date), how should it be inserted as the article lead now - would you like to take care of that, or would you prefer me to handle it? Pac Veten (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Long discussion is not necessary consensus. As stated above, the lead is a summary of the body. The question should be what, if anything, should be placed into the body. The lead can then be discussed after. It's a cart before the horse issue to build the lead without having the information in the body. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @CNMall41 for your thorough feedback! I agree with the points raised. My next request is going to focus on the "Operations" section and suggest language which clarifies what the different divisions of the company do.

Would you also please update the approximate number of employees within the lead so that it matches the infobox. Thank you! HisNamesJim (talk) 11:52, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I will. However, I am not sure it is even suitable for the lead so would not object if another editor removed. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the total number of employees in a corporation is very appropriate for a lead section. Pac Veten (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Thank you @CNMall41 and @Pac Veten for offering your feedback.

As mentioned in my last request, I would like to put forwards some language and updates within the "Operations" section which clarifies the different divisions within Informa.

I hope this will then be reflected within the lead to better summarise the company's operations.

How it would appear:

Thank you again for reviewing! HisNamesJim (talk) 11:36, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Here's my feedback:

- The new content looks OK overall. Please remove the word "led"—it may have a marketing connotation, but it unfortunately won't be meaningful to the average reader.

- Please indicate Informa's revenue breakdown by region and division, per Informa's 2024 annual report. This material should be easy to write up.

- In the lead section, please summarize or quote Informa's mission statement. This information helps to characterize the corporation for a new reader.

On reflection, the proposed article changes appear to have a larger problem, which will need addressing. Significant portions of the proposed new text (for lead and operations) appear to be taken directly from Informa's 2024 annual report. For compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines on plagiarism, I would suggest reviewing those guidelines and then adjusting the new text appropriately. Possible solutions include paraphrase and quotation, and inline citation in any case. These guidelines are available at WP:PLAG. Pac Veten (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@Pac Veten:, I am going to dissent here. Why would it be appropriate to break down the company's revenue by region according to its annual report? Or, to include its mission statement? Are either of these worthy of inclusion? This seems to be the opposite of neutral tone. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

First, it's useful to repeat the previous feedback that's not covered by the most recent post. The second bullet below is particularly important, in light of the conflict-of-interest considerations that prompted this talk thread.

- The new content looks OK overall. Please remove the word "led"—it may have a marketing connotation, but it unfortunately won't be meaningful to the average reader.

- On reflection, the proposed article changes appear to have a larger problem, which will need addressing. Significant portions of the proposed new text (for lead and operations) appear to be taken directly from Informa's 2024 annual report. For compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines on plagiarism, I would suggest reviewing those guidelines and then adjusting the new text appropriately. Possible solutions include paraphrase and quotation, and inline citation in any case. These guidelines are available at WP:PLAG.

Second, here's the previous feedback that's covered by the most recent post:

- Please indicate Informa's revenue breakdown by region and division, per Informa's 2024 annual report. This material should be easy to write up.

- In the lead section, please summarize or quote Informa's mission statement. This information helps to characterize the corporation for a new reader.

The preceding two bullets are simply topics of general interest, which make them appropriate for Wikipedia readers. I agree that if the article were long, and length considerations prompted a consideration of triage, we might want to consider which topics to exclude. Since the article is so short (so far), it makes sense to amplify the content, to give a richer perspective on the corporation.

On this subject, including an explicit mission statement is actually a way to amplify neutrality, by indicating the corporation's goals and point of view. Newspapers often do something similar, as a way to increase trust with readers. So it's a great point that you raised, and hopefully it gives us an opportunity to build this trust with Wikipedia readers. Pac Veten (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

It is not about trust necessarily. It is about writing something from a WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX for the company to reiterate its financials. Think WP:READERSFIRST. No one is coming to Wikipedia to get that information. At this point, there would need to be consensus to implement those suggestions as I do not believe they adhere to the points I stated above. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

In the previous sections, there was discussion about promotional tone. Maybe ping those editors to see if they would be willing to opine.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

First, it's useful to repeat the previous feedback that's not covered by the most recent post. The second bullet below is particularly important, in light of the conflict-of-interest considerations that prompted this talk thread.

- The new content looks OK overall. Please remove the word "led"—it may have a marketing connotation, but it unfortunately won't be meaningful to the average reader.

- On reflection, the proposed article changes appear to have a larger problem, which will need addressing. Significant portions of the proposed new text (for lead and operations) appear to be taken directly from Informa's 2024 annual report. For compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines on plagiarism, I would suggest reviewing those guidelines and then adjusting the new text appropriately. Possible solutions include paraphrase and quotation, and inline citation in any case. These guidelines are available at WP:PLAG.

Second, here are some comments about the most recent post:

- A company's financials are not promotional - typically the opposite, more an objective measure. Were you envisioning a soapbox of some sort for this article?

- Given the large, international audience for Wikipedia, any claims about "no one" being interested in information are likely to be disproven quickly. This is actually an excellent reason for including more information in an article, rather than less (up to the point of saturation, as previously mentioned).

- Finally, if the corporate contributor in a conflict-of-interest situation is requesting the article's discussion to follow the corporation's guidance, this seems problematic. Broad inclusion of community interest seems better, per Wikipedia's guidelines and norms. This observation would suggest continuing to expand the article's content (up to the point of saturation, as previously mentioned). Pac Veten (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

If this discussion is unable to resolve the conflict of interest that was flagged, would it be best to end the proposal process for now? Input from editors with significant experience on Wikipedia may be particularly valuable here. Pac Veten (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm getting a bit confused. I have no interest in pushing the revenue and mission statement points suggested here.

This request is focused on introducing descriptions within the "Operations" section, where the divisions are already listed, but not explained. This action is not intended to "follow the corporation's guidance", just to indicate an accurate definition.

This is because, at the moment, there is no explanation of the divisions, just the names and a long list of brands with nothing to indicate what groups them.

I'm happy to remove the "led" wording from the definitions - it just means that the word before is the main focus of the event, if that helps in finding an alternative.

As we are getting away from the original request, I agree it would be great if an experienced editor could offer their feedback - maybe one who has edited the article before in the past year or so such as Dormskirk, VulcanSphere, or Shortride. HisNamesJim (talk) 14:54, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I think the article looks good as it is. It lists the divisions in the operations section and then splits the brands by division in the brands section. Just my opinion. Dormskirk (talk) 15:12, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Dormskirk's view, thanks for the ping. Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 15:27, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

It's useful to repeat the previous feedback that's not covered by the most recent post. The second bullet below is particularly important, in light of the conflict-of-interest considerations that prompted this talk thread.

- On reflection, the proposed article changes appear to have a larger problem, which will need addressing. Significant portions of the proposed new text (for lead and operations) appear to be taken directly from Informa's 2024 annual report. For compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines on plagiarism, I would suggest reviewing those guidelines and then adjusting the new text appropriately. Possible solutions include paraphrase and quotation, and inline citation in any case. These guidelines are available at WP:PLAG.

Pac Veten (talk) 16:40, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

It is actually not useful at this point to "repeat the previous feedback" as you have done so quite a few times. Those involved in the discussion are well aware. As far as "it would be great if an experienced editor could offer their feedback" I guess I should not have assumed that I was an experienced editor in the company-related article space. I am also puzzled by "would it be best to end the proposal process for now" as that would be the OP's decision if they want to end the discussion. I'm sorry to sound so blunt but you seem to be moving the topic of discussion. If you are advocating for the introductory or advertorial material, you will need to start a thread to get consensus. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Can you please point me to the reply that addressed plagiarism from the company's annual report? I might have missed that post. Pac Veten (talk) 16:57, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Not sure what you are referring to. I did not say anything about plagiarism. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Plagiarism has been mentioned twice in the comments above. It will be good to get the group's thoughts on that. Pac Veten (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

It has been mentioned four times. By you. It is not relevant. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:04, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Is it the group's opinion that copying text from a company's annual report does not raise any questions around WP:PLAG? Pac Veten (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks all for your feedback. It appears a consensus cannot be agreed on whether the descriptions of the divisions should be added so I will now close the request. HisNamesJim (talk) 10:57, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hi there.

I would like to suggest several changes to the "History" section, which is currently difficult to navigate, gives undue weight to certain historic events, while omitting several more recent notable happenings.

To begin with, to improve navigability for readers, may I suggest a timeframe which will divide the section into two.

This would consist of two sub-headings, one between 1998 (when Informa was formed) to 2013 and one from 2014 (coinciding with when Stephen Carter began his role as CEO) to the present.

How it would appear:

Thank you all for looking into my request! HisNamesJim (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Done. Dormskirk (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Really appreciate it Dormskirk for implementing the sub-headings!

My next request for the "History" section focuses on revising the second half of the "1998 to 2013" sub-section.

Currently undue weight is given to certain events, while others covered do not meet Wikipedia's criteria on notability. Could I please suggest:

• The paragraph in relation to the proposed 2008 merger with United Business Media (UBM) is simplified.

• Undue weight is given to mentioning alternative third-party attempts in acquiring Informa which are unconnected to talks with UBM.

• Language surrounding talks ending due to an increase in share price, cited using an Independent article, is according to "sources close to UBM" so is not independently verifiable. The sentence referring to this should be removed.

• Removal of the "Informaworld" discontinued domain paragraph.

• It is not appropriate for inclusion within a "History" section, does not meet Wikipedia's criteria on notability and is supported by primary sources.

• Removal of the sentence regarding Hobby Star Marketing.

• The sentence is currently unreferenced, and while limited press does exist about the company's acquisition by Informa, it is not notable enough to warrant inclusion on the article.

• Simplification of the paragraph regarding the acquisition of assets of Elsevier Business Intelligence (EBI) from Reed Elsevier to a single sentence.

• Like the UBM paragraph, while the acquisition is somewhat notable, listing the various publications as part of the deal is undue weight.

In addition, indicated in bold, may a sentence be added:

• Stating that Informa was redomiciled to the UK in 2014.

• Providing background context to Stephen Carter’s appointment as CEO in first joining Informa as a non-executive director in 2010.

How it would appear:

Thanks all looking into my request. HisNamesJim (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

These changes look reasonable to me but I will let other editors comment. Dormskirk (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Dormskirk and hope you have had a good weekend!

I appreciate that the site functions as a collaborative project, however, if these changes seem reasonable to you, could they be implemented? Aware that this request has been open for a month and this would help reduce the queue of pending COI requests, which has grown considerably over the past couple of weeks and might be getting overwhelming for the editors who regularly help out in that area. Thanks again! HisNamesJim (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Now done. Dormskirk (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

The user below has a request that an edit be made to Informa. That user has an actual or apparent conflict of interest. The requested edits backlog is very high. Please be extremely patient. There are currently 409 requests waiting for review. Please read the instructions for the parameters used by this template for accepting and declining them, and review the request below and make the edit if it is well sourced, neutral, and follows other Wikipedia guidelines and policies.

Thanks again @Dormskirk for implementing my last suggested changes.

My next request for the "History" section focuses on revising the first half of the "1998 to 2013" sub-section, focusing on events between 1998-2007.

Could I please suggest:

• For the paragraph referring to business dealings involving Informa between 1998-2006 to be tidied. It currently:

• Is hard to follow.

• Uses incorrect tenses.

• Includes tangential information i.e. the cost of acquiring IIR Holdings, Springer's share price offer to purchase Informa.

• I have also added a new citation to support Informa's rejection of Springer's offer as the Forbes article leads to a dead link.

• Removal of the paragraph about Richard Hooper's replacement by Peter Rigby.

• The Forbes references which are used to cite this paragraph are dead links, and unavailable on the Wayback Machine. There is limited third-party press reporting on this change, which perhaps indicates it is does meet Wikipedia's notability criteria.

• Additionally, I cannot find reliable and verified mention of these positional changes creating controversy with the UK's Combined Code on Corporate Governance, which may be synthesis by a historic editor.

How it would appear:

Thanks again for all looking into my request. HisNamesJim (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi - I would prefer to retain the first sentence as it is as it seems to contain some important historical information about the background of the two companies. I am OK to substitute your sentence on Taylor & Francis and IRR. I am also content to trim the paragraph about the Springer bid. I would prefer to retain the first sentence about the change of management, but would be OK to drop the second sentence if other editors do not object. Dormskirk (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2026 (UTC)