Talk:Vy

message: The company logo diplayed in the article is outdated. SAB 11:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Logo

message: There is a link to www.nsb.no/internet/en; this page does not exist.  joreberg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.189.184.206 (talk • contribs) 08:39, 16 August 2012‎
: Fixed the English-language website link .  Thank you!  —Sladen (talk) 09:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: English website

message: Someone seems very interrested in repeating events from World War II from Norwegian State Railways (1883–1996) in this article. If any modern rail organization is to carry the blame for the use of slave labor, it's Norwegian National Rail Administration, because that's the heir to the part of the old NSB that used slave labor. The modern NSB is however the heir to part the helped in transporting people to Nazi extermination camps, but that is only barely mentioned.
Another issue is that the text seems somewhat unbalanced, only stating that NSB did something bad, without going much into whether they were eager to cooperate or forced to do it at gun-point, but that's something to fix in Norwegian State Railways (1883–1996). I also find the styling somewhat messy, with many parenthesis, which is why I though that the edit might not be by someone familiar with Wikipedia-editting. 
It should also be noted that people in general seem to have a hard time telling the old and new NSB apart, so people blame NSB when the signals fail, even though they don't own or operate them. Ters (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: So you are saying that an organization founded in 1996 should be blamed for something that happended during World War Two: the National Rail Administration! --Creambreek (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This NSB was also founded in 1996 (and again i 2002), so your argument is exactly the argument I've been using. The National Rail Administration is however the one that inherited the railway line built using slave labor. (The name NSB makes more sense for the National Rail Administration, but I guess it was too well known be left to an agency of no relevance to the general public, although it has backfired on several occasions.) I've also read that the National Rail Administration is the legal successor to the old NSB, but I don't remember where. It does however make more sense that a government agency is the successor to a government agency, than that a limited liability company is. (Unless the company is the only possible successor, which is not the case here.) Ters (talk) 14:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You just said that "This NSB was also founded in 1996 (and again i 2002)". I doubt that you will find independent sources for this, and most of the other claims that you have made in this thread. --Creambreek (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the definite source that the current Norges statsbaner was founded in 2002: http://w2.brreg.no/enhet/sok/detalj.jsp?orgnr=984661177 If you can find any sources claiming that this NSB is related to the old WWII-era NSB in anything but name, you'll probably find that it documents the 1996 split as well. Ters (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing you have cited is the formation of an aksjeselskap in 1996: "Norske Statsbaner aksjeselskap". That company is not a State railway. --Creambreek (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not a "state railway", only a train operator. That's what I've been telling you. Therefore, information about the (occupied) state railways does not belong here, since this article is about the currently existing "aksjeselskap". Ters (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Norway has only had one Norwegian State Railways and that was a national railway company. The company still exists today, with reduced influence, as a aksjeselskap: hence its name "Norges Statsbaner as". And that is why the Public Relations chief in 2015, explains about the company's "dark chapters" [his words] during World War Two. --Creambreek (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any sources that NSB owns the Norwegian railroads? Ters (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: When did I say that "Norges Statsbaner aksjeselskap" currently owns railroads? --Creambreek (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if they don't, then there must be another successor. And when that successor owns the railroad, doesn't information about the slave labor used to build the railroad rather belong there? (Although, since we have an article dedicated to the 1883–1996 era, only a small summary is needed, not a full copy.) Ters (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: So you are saying that the railroad tracks recommended the use of slave labour—not the leaders of the Norwegian State Railway? The responsibility for the recommendation- and acceptance for the use of slave labour lies with the leaders of the organization, and in 2015 the chief of Public Relations for the NSB flagged the company's regrets. --Creambreek (talk) 19:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: He said they were dark times in the history of NSB, not which NSB. But the key issue is that since there is a dedicated article about NSB before 1996, anything preceeding that should be detailed in that article (and for the respective lines), with a summary in the articles for the successor companies. There is almost more about wartime atrocities in the article about post-1996 NSB than in the article about Germany. Much more, if you compare the length of the articles. Ters (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

text: Yes, NSB's status changed, from existing to defunct. I've already given sources for this. Following your person allegory, that company had several children, of which one has the same name. But having the same name as your parent does not make you your parent, not even if you appologize for what that parent did. Ters (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Your description is different then the one of the chief of Public Relations at NSB. He does not talk about a "new" NSB. --Creambreek (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No, he was talking about the old one. Ters (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: World War II events

message: NSB has had a valuation of goodwill as part of its accounting since the 1980s. If the NSB ceased to exist sometime around 1996 or 2002, then what price did the goodwill fetch, when the NSB name was transferred to another entity? --Creambreek (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Valuation of goodwill, and has the goodwill ever been sold to "a new NSB"? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Norwegian State Railways. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090623085336/http://www.norwaypost.no:80/cgi-bin/norwaypost/imaker?id=184627 to http://www.norwaypost.no/cgi-bin/norwaypost/imaker?id=184627
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Norwegian State Railways. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061018071858/http://flytoget.no:80/Templates/Informasjon.aspx?id=116 to http://www.flytoget.no/Templates/Informasjon.aspx?id=116
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Norwegian State Railways. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130927170347/http://www.dn.no/forsiden/naringsliv/article1469557.ece?WT.svl=article_image&jgo=c_current to http://www.dn.no/forsiden/naringsliv/article1469557.ece?WT.svl=article_image&jgo=c_current
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Norwegian State Railways. 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/20080821063142/http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article2602721.ece to http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article2602721.ece
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160207060120/http://www.nsb.no/ to http://www.nsb.no/
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) 07:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Magazine article covering the rail/bus service "" branding:
* 
Has echos of the Royal Mail→Consignia rebranding.  Probably useful to wait six months and see what the mainstream media use to refer to an 135-year-old company. —Sladen (talk) 17:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The company from 135 years ago was dismembered and disbanded in the 1990s. That the name has lingered for so long in a new and different (most notably, there are no railways in it) daughter company seems to just have kept that old company still alive in people minds. In Norwegian media, the name change seems to have been picked up immediately, with an added "former NSB", similar to when Burma "suddenly" became Myanmar. People in the streets probably won't change that easily. They (Norwegians) still call the United Kingdom England, or at best Great Britain. I don't know how long it will be before international media has statistically significant mentions of the company after the rebranding. Furthermore, the page title should be the one reflecting the commonly used name, while the first sentence shall use the formal name. Now it's the other way around. Ters (talk) 06:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vy rebranding