Jump to content

Talk:COSCO

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mainland vs PRC categorization

[edit]

First, changing a category or doing a revert is not a minor edit. It is subterfuge.

Second, COSCO, like many companies based in the PRC, operate jointly across the entire PRC. Your insurance company thing isn't precedent setting, it only has one article

It's a TNC, and it operates in many countries as well. And please sign your comment. — Instantnood 08:53, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
TNC, what? Yes, the global nature of it's business tends to disagree with categorizing it regionally SchmuckyTheCat 14:29, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Actually I dont quite understand what he is talking about either!--Huaiwei 14:49, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
COSCO is a company of mainland China, and it is a TNC. Are you going to tag it as category:company of X for all places it has operations? — Instantnood 14:59, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
COSCO is a company of the People's Republic of China. If you do that, you wont have to tag it under two subcategories, would you? lol! --Huaiwei 15:33, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
To repeat myself, it is a company of mainland China. — Instantnood 15:58, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Does your repeated statments mean it is not a company of the PRC??--Huaiwei 05:45, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Companies of mainland China, Hong Kong or Macao are all companies of the PRC. But they have to be differentiated from each other. — Instantnood 08:34, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
If you think its important to split, of coz we can..and they already are. but may I know why do you insist that this company should be called a company of Mainland China, but not the PRC?--Huaiwei 08:42, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Would a company from Luxembourg be called "a company of the European Union"? — Instantnood 09:15, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
It will if it is incorporated in the European Union...if that is possible? ;) Pls find a better analogy.--Huaiwei 11:18, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
On documents a company would say it is incorporated in the PRC, but in effect its incorporation is within mainland China. And if you are going to argue in this way, I'll have to tell you that a company "incorporated in Hong Kong" is not a company "incorporated in the PRC". — Instantnood 15:22, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
Did I argue against anything to do with Hk in this case? No. I dont give a shit if a HK-incorporated company thinks it is a PRC company or not. The simple fact is a company incorporate in the PRC is a company of the PRC. Again I ask...who are you to deny them their right to use their country name?--Huaiwei 22:13, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
In that way category:Companies of Hong Kong shouldn't be a subcategory of category:Companies of the PRC. — Instantnood 23:35, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
I knew it. That was obviously your source of insecurity all these while. Apparantly category:Companies of Hong Kong already isnt a subcategory of the PRC, so why are you freaking out? But hush hush....do you sence that I am going to make that happen too soon? :D --Huaiwei 00:30, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Who knows what you guys would do next? :-) — Instantnood 00:52, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
So, it's government owned by the PRC, so therefore it isn't part of the PRC, it's part of mainland China, because Hong Kong isn't part of the PRC? what? SchmuckyTheCat 15:52, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

oh, TNC. SchmuckyTheCat 15:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Disputed

[edit]

Can someone that disputes the article make a single problem statement to discuss? SchmuckyTheCat 20:16, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the "Disputed" tag from this talk page. The dispute was nearly two years ago when the article was a three-line stub. It was resolved in favour of the current version and the issue (is this a PRC, "Mainland China" or HK company) has not been a matter of debate for 23 months. Further, the editor who disputed the wording has been banned for unrelated sockpuppetry. No other editors took his side of the debate, so it is unlikely that there will be any future comment this issue.
Other points of view are welcome, but I think this issue is done. Euryalus (talk) 05:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added info on San Fracisco Bay disaster

[edit]

I added a section on this and also tracked down some references for the lead and made some minor edits so it didn't read so much like a press release. I removed the "no sources" tag since as some but not all of the information is sourced. It could use a few more third-party sources. --Loonymonkey 01:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

since there's no evidence the vessel was ever in any way a COSCO Group asset, i'm not sure it's at all appropriate for this section to be in this article. --emerson7 05:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Founding date?

[edit]

Other wikipedia articles (eg. Chinese_shipping) reference COSCO as being founded in 1961.

This is confirmed from a quote from the homepage of COSCOphil.com (and other COSCO corporate sites), that states: "Founded on April 27, 1961, COSCO has grown into US$17 Billion corporation."

Yet the wikipedia article lists the founding date as 1993. Is this when the company was named/renamed to COSCO, or when it was actually founded?

-76.19.38.68 (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


COSCO Busan oil spill

[edit]

I've removed the COSCO Busan oil spill section since it has nothing to do with this article at all. If you wish to add it back in please discuss it here first. Dncsky (talk) 20:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on COSCO. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 02:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on COSCO. 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:

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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

COSCO = COSCON

[edit]

If I'm not mistaken, COSCO is also called COSCON. They own the domain coscon.com. If someone can confirm this it should be mentioned in the article. --EnOreg (talk) 16:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

COSCON is the subsidiary COSCO Container Lines.Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:36, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the confirmation. Since their merger with CSCL in November 2016 they're actually called "COSCO Shipping Lines"[1] but the acronym must stem from the old name[2][3][4]. Apparently, they continue to use the acronym occasionally, not just in their domain name: [5]. --EnOreg (talk) 11:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, COSCON is actually a subsidiary of China COSCO Shipping which may or may not be owned by China COSCO, in turn owned by COSCO. --EnOreg (talk) 12:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on COSCO. 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:

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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Redirect to China COSCO Shipping

[edit]

@Murgatroyd49: COSCO Group is a predecessor of China COSCO Shipping. I think it is best to have this article redirected to the COSCO Group section of China COSCO Shipping, as the information there is essentially the same as this article. If you object to my proposed redirect, I would point to the UASC section of Hapag-Lloyd. CartleR255 (talk) 13:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The normal method would be to suggest it here first, or suggest merging the two articles. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Murgatroyd49: I suggest a redirect to COSCO Group. What to do now? CartleR255 (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest a merge of the two pages. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Murgatroyd49: I agree; the two articles should be merged. I summarized most of the COSCO article in a section of China COSCO Shipping. Unless you would like to make an edit, I suggest we now proceed with a section redirect. CartleR255 (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, should we copy this discussion into the China COSCO Shipping talk page? CartleR255 (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would copy the discussion first in case someone else has further suggestions. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. COSCO Shipping is formed by a merger and successor of COSCO , but at this movement hard to prove "COSCO Shipping" is the primary topic of "COSCO" yet. Matthew hk (talk) 12:05, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we has JP Morgan Chase article, as well as Chase Bank, J.P. Morgan & Co. articles. Matthew hk (talk) 12:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And a smell of undisclosed paid editing by CartleR255. Matthew hk (talk) 14:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 December 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: 'No consensus to move  — Amakuru (talk) 12:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


COSCO → ? – The company still "live" company. It just shirked its public profile to became an intermediate holding company for China COSCO Shipping, which formed by the merger of the old "COSCO" (this article) and China Shipping Group. Both articles for some reason brutally merged by wiki editors and ignoring the fact that there is not much WP:overlap with the merged entities and predecessors as well as the WP:GNG notability and WP:NCORP of the predecessors themselves. However, restoring the article cause a problem, which the scaled back intermediate holding company, still hold the primary topic status of "COSCO" or not. Or now the former English name, China Ocean Shipping (Group) Company, is now more appropriate to be the WP:Article title or not.

According to the annual report and its official English transliteration . The company (this article), currently known officially as "China Ocean Shipping" (legal suffix already omitted), but still refer as COSCO Group in the document.

-- Matthew hk (talk) 12:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That i mean there are three options:
  1. remain "COSCO"
  2. moves to former name China Ocean Shipping (Group) Company, the meaning of "COSCO" (note that it is not a name of limited company, "Company" is not a required legal suffix for that kind of incorporation under the law "An industrial enterprise owned by the whole people",) and potential carry WP:rfd for the current primary topic of COSCO
  3. moves to current name "China Ocean Shipping" Company Limited or China Ocean Shipping Company. (Note that under China company law, whole "Company Limited" is a legal suffix but a lot of company retained "Company " or C/Co/CO in their common name or abbreviated name. Matthew hk (talk) 12:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. COSCO is the trading name of the group. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:article title and use the 5 base rationale of determining Wikipedia:Article title#Deciding on an article title. Also, what i am talking about is preserve this article for the predecessor under long company name and may be redirect COSCO to COSCO Shipping. So what exactly you want to oppose about? Matthew hk (talk) 13:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well that user it not an active user. Based on edit pattern, smell of undisclosed paid editing or sock account. Registered for so many years and the area of interest is very very small. Matthew hk (talk) 14:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Matthew hk: I am not paid for my edits. Kindly review WP:AGF. CartleR255 (talk) 17:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support option 2 or 3. COSCO Group is no longer the primary topic as mentioned. Leave it as it is now, and just change COSCO article title. I strive to maintain WP:NPOV when editing. In this case, I did not realize COSCO Group is a shareholder of the newly formed company CartleR255 (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into COSCO Shipping. Both articles are quite short and our readers will benefit from more comprehensive merged article. In addition, most of COSCO Shipping subsidiaries' articles are short and does not satisfy WP:NCCORP and should be merged. Beagel (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I support merging as well. WP:NCCORP is why I proposed merging the first time. CartleR255 (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, merging is the best answer. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like other stuff exist logic. But COSCO and COSCO Shipping shared the same brand "COSCO ". While China Shipping Group did not . Instead, the new group ceased to use "China Shipping" brand except those not yet repainted container. In wikipedia WP:NCORP article are kept and we don't nuke the article of Chase Bank, NationsBank nor Adelaide Bank. There is a few Atari articles as well as Ford Motor Company as well as P&O and Thomas Cook Group. The only consistent you need is stick to WP:NCORP and WP:Overlap or WP:Merge. Also pretty sure you probably need WP:RFC instead of WP:Vote for umbrella merge everything. Matthew hk (talk) 10:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, CartleR255, next time don't carry bold merge. And please use proper process of tagging the articles and use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Matthew hk (talk) 12:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (oppose counter solution of merge all) @Beagel:, quite a lot of COSCO subsidiaries which has article in wikipedia, is listed company. Length is not the only factor to merge. Yes, sometimes Chinese companies like box in box listed structure so that the two tier of listed subsidiaries may in fact overlap in wiki content and assets sense, but an umbrella merge would not be ideal . Also, historically, COSCO Shipping Development (aka China Shipping Container Lines) and COSCO Shipping Energy (oil tanker line of China Shipping Group) are not part of COSCO . Matthew hk (talk) 09:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Being a listed company is not enough to have a separate article without other requirements fulfilled. If there is enough significant information, it would be already added. Also, merging subsidiary articles now does not mean we can't split information into separate article when there is enough information included in the main article per WP:SIZESPLIT. In addition, I never said that ALL subsidiary articles should be merged. Beagel (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't inspect all listed subsidiaries of COSCO (yes, plurals), but for aforementioned China Shipping Container Lines, COSCO Shipping Energy were part of Hang Seng China Enterprises Index as components thus not hard to proof significant coverage in Hong Kong (Chinese language) media. COSCO Pacific is not that hard to prove also, Neutral on merging China COSCO Holdings (or move it to draftspace) to its direct parent company (which may be not COSCO or even COSCO Shipping due to the box-in-box listed companies structures). Matthew hk (talk) 09:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Correct myself, it seems China COSCO Holdings is the flagship listed company of the former COSCO Group.
Neutral on merging COSCO Shipping International (formerly COSCO International Holdings), a listed company in the box-in-box company structure to somewhere. Matthew hk (talk) 10:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Turn out the company has quite a lot history as real estate company and did not WP:overlap with the main article. May dig out even more story as "Shun Shing", the former name of that company . Matthew hk (talk) 13:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Matthew hk: we have to decide on something for this COSCO article. I just read through it, and much of the content is outdated. As you said, COSCO (China Ocean Shipping) is currently only a holding company for COSCO SHIPPING. So, per WP:NCORP we should merge COSCO and China Shipping into COSCO SHIPPING. If we leave COSCO article and China Shipping article, it will be confusing and redundant for Wiki readers. The best solution is to describe the current role of COSCO as a holding company of COSCO SHIPPING in the COSCO SHIPPING article. We can also mention COSCO history as a shipping conglomerate. But the shipping conglomerate business is now under COSCO SHIPPING. Regarding COSCO subsidiaries, they are all now listed as COSCO SHIPPING ____. So why would we mention the subsidiaries on COSCO article, and then again mention them on COSCO SHIPPING article?? Its just too much WP:overlap, which justifies merging. Also, if you google COSCO or China Shipping you get COSCO SHIPPING. All of COSCO and China Shipping websites are gone. CartleR255 (talk) 16:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
website is gone is not a valid reason to nuke it. COSCO Shipping is founded in 2015 and COSCO is founded in 1961. In wikipedia there is article for Chase Bank , the old Atari, the old Thomas Cook Group as well as their still live former subsidiaries, as well as P&O, etc. The subsidiaries section of this article need to be clean up but it still not a reason for your agenda for your paid employer as upe. I haven't check The International Directory of Company Histories Series to see arre there an entry for China Ocean Shipping (Group) Corporation, but if it has, then there is a valid reason to keep China Ocean Shipping (Group) Corporation as an separate article and just need to discussion the primary topic of the short name "COSCO ". Matthew hk (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bro, how many times do I have to tell you?? I am not paid for my edits! Anyway, if you are so determined to have COSCO, China Shipping Group and COSCO Shipping as separate articles, then fine. Although everyone else who has commented disagrees with you. If we keep them as separate articles, you need to expand the COSCO history section. I think China Shipping history is good. Also, COSCO article should reflect that it does not currently own any assets (i.e. COSCO used to own 1114 ships – but not anymore). And yes, I agree COSCO article should be renamed b/c it is not the main subject anymore. CartleR255 (talk) 21:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And turn out old COSCO did have an entry in The International Directory of Company Histories Series and the new COSCO Shipping may be not yet include since the series update the content in a rotational schedule. Matthew hk (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2010 Great Barrier Reef grounding

[edit]

From the citation and the article MV Shen Neng 1, it seem not related to COSCO at all. Matthew hk (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
The following related nominations are now under discussion:
1. Proposed rename of Category:COSCO under discussion right here.
2. Requested Merger of COSCO Shipping Holdings under discussion right here.
3. Requested Merger of COSCO (Hong Kong) Group under discussion right here.
4. Deletion Review of Category:China Shipping Group under discussion right here.
I'm neutral on all of them but encourage editors to weigh in whether pro, con or other to help bring consensus. - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COSCO&oldid=1206801205"