Talk:Mercury Energy

message: I removed some POV content and the associated tag.  It would be good to have  afactual account of the proportions of energy this company derives from various sources. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 11:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag removed 

message: The section entitled "Death of Folole Muliaga" is inappropriate for inclusion in this article, as the Police have confirmed that Mercury Energy were not culpable for her death.  Even some of the less emotive news reports make it clear that neglect by health providers, neighbours and family contributed at least as much towards the death as the electricity disconnection, which could have occurred for a number of other reasons.  This section should therefore be deleted.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.9.107 (talk) 07:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriately emotive addition 

message: MRP has announced that it will change it's name to Mercury Energy on 29 July 2016. I propose that the article (Mighty River Power) be merged with this Mercury Energy article on or about that date. --Pakaraki (talk) 03:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. What's important is that a reader can come to WP, search for MRP get to the merged article and still be able to understand the previous ownership structure(s) from the merged article. Agreed? Regards, Eddaido (talk) 04:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the merge process is to leave the source article as a redirect to the merged article. So anyone searching for MRP in future will get to the Mercury Energy article. --Pakaraki (talk) 18:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, are you new round here? Not suggesting anything more than it be findable. Will watch and if my point not covered I can just say so or amend it. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 01:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: All is covered in the paragraph headed History then Mercury Energy. Good work, Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 00:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Company name change, merge Wikipedia articles

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mercury Energy. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111004160616/http://www.mightyriver.co.nz/News/Detail.aspx?id=2756 to http://www.mightyriver.co.nz/News/Detail.aspx?id=2756
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The archived page appears to be ok.--Pakaraki (talk) 01:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article should be titled Mercury NZ, with redirects at Mighty River Power and Mercury Energy. 
Disclosure: I work for Mercury. 
Someone, if agreed, should raise a move review. 
It is simple to establish that the true, correct, and accurate name of the business is Mercury NZ Ltd.
The question about the name change is whether or not Mercury NZ is correct. The examples section from the correct essay is relevant. The preceeding references could all be considered primary sources, but they are more reliable than news media. There is no reliability among secondary sources. The same author may refer to the company as Mercury or Mercury Energy at different times. When reporting on annual results Stuff and NBR use different names. In any article where it is used, Mercury Energy is used to introduce the company, then Mercury is used thereafter. 
Using the article title naming criteria shows that 'Mercury' is likely the best title. It is recognizable, natural, and concise. Precision is most important here: using Mercury NZ distinguishes the current subject from the previous Mighty River Power and Mercury Energy. Consistency is slightly different: Mercury Energy used to be consistent with other NZ companies, but the name change means that this point is no longer applicable. The redirect guidance simple points back to article titles. 
See also name changes guidance, which suggests that the common name should continue to be used, unless reliable sources use the new name. Considering title changes adds a little extra information. The title has not been stable, and should have been changed to Mercury NZ in 2016. We can also refer to company naming conventions. The Ltd should be left off Mercury NZ. The first sentence should be changed to Mercury NZ Ltd. Pupper abc (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me provide a procedural advice: you're welcome to start a WP:Move review, but it traditionally focuses on procedural issues of a completed requested move discussion, and it is not a place to re-litigate the substantial arguments for or against. Having re-examined the previous discussion and my close, I don't think I made a procedural error: there proposal to move the article to "Mercury NZ" did not receive any support, with opponents expressing concern whether "Mercury NZ" is a recognizable, common name for the business in whole, as opposed to legal name of its parent company, so I think the close of "no consensus" was rather fair. The close of "no consensus" is traditionally taken to open the possibility of starting a new RM soon after, with hopefully better arguments expressed for or against (I'm not too impressed with quality of the arguments above, which are supposed to provide evidence in form of search result analysis and common usage). Since the name "Mercury" is obviously unavailable due to the planet and the chemical element, the key policy here is WP:NATURAL:  The answer whether it's "Mercury NZ" or "Mercury Energy" is unclear. For a model discussion, see e.g. Talk:Amazon.com#Requested_move_15_August_2017 (not that it yielded a definitive result, either).In a nutshell: I suggest that a better way forward is that you simply start a new WP:Requested move. No such user (talk) 08:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, that's good advice. Point: there is no difference between the business and the parent company. That was the purpose of the name change in 2016. I would agree that disambiguation and precision are most important in this case: Mercury NZ is clear and in common usage and differentiates from the previous names of the two separate but related entities. I'll open RM. Pupper abc (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

text:      Would you support a move to Mercury NZ if I was to raise it again? See new information above. Main argument is that 'Mercury' is in common usage, and Mercury NZ provides disambiguation and precision in comparison to the previous names of Mighty River Power and Mercury Energy. Thanks! Pupper abc (talk) 02:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be ok with me - have Mighty River Power and Mercury Energy as redirects to Mercury NZ. NealeFamily (talk) 03:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

text: Yes, I guess "Mercury NZ" is probably the more correct choice for name, with redirects from Mighty River Power and Mercury Energy. The company refers to itself as Mercury or Mercury NZ, but I suspect few members of the public would immediately recognise "Mercury NZ". The media still uses "Mercury Energy", for example. The other electricity companies mostly refer to themselves with one word, and general use is two words (ie "Genesis" and "Genesis Energy" and same for Contact and Meridian) and this is how Wikipedia names them. A google search on "mercury nz" returned 82,600 hits, mostly relating to shares, business and financial articles. A google search on "mercury energy" returned 225,000 hits, although many of these relate to older articles about the retail company. So a simple search result count would indicate "Mercury Energy" as the more frequently used name. However, the company itself appears to be very definitely not using the "Mercury Energy" name, so it could be argued that Wikipedia should use the current official name "Mercury NZ" instead of the colloquial "Mercury Energy" which might be in common use as a hang over from the previous retail company. --Pakaraki (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move Review 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mercury Energy. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140810115910/http://www.mightyriver.co.nz/Media-Centre/Latest-News/Mighty-River-Power-takes-direct-control-of-geother.aspx to http://www.mightyriver.co.nz/Media-Centre/Latest-News/Mighty-River-Power-takes-direct-control-of-geother.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)