This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Slaughter and May article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
Wikipedians in the United Kingdom may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Could an external link to WikiJob.co.uk be considered for this profile? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redsuperted ( talk • contribs) 09:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
There are no sources that demonstrate that the loss of 28 staff (out of ~1100) is a "significant event in the firm's history". Please also note that the source only says that "28 full-time equivalent roles will be cut" it does not confirm that all of them will be compulsory redundancies or if any will be through natural wastage. Mt king (edits) 09:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
Whether the following text be added to the History section of the article: "In October 2012 Slaughter and May announced that it would be making 28 of its 165 London-based secretarial staff redundant, citing technological change. [2] [3]" Rangoon11 ( talk) 21:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
There have been several IP addresses making repetitive attempts to puff up the article. Indications of paid writer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Histnewbie ( talk • contribs) 00:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Again on 11 September 2020, 09:42 by "2a02:c7f:6c7a:1300:69b2:b407:f107:4c51" - undo. Emenay ( talk) 10:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Slaughter and May's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "legalbusiness":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Is Slaughter_and_May#Carillion_collapse really important enough for inclusion? The Law Soc Gazette piece is pretty short and the FT piece mentions that it was the Big Four that got the most flak for their work on Carillion. If anything, this should be at Carillion rather than here given that big law firms have a large number of engagements with similar coverage. This section is not really about Slaughter and May themselves. 129.67.116.120 ( talk) 19:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Slaughter and May article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
Wikipedians in the United Kingdom may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Could an external link to WikiJob.co.uk be considered for this profile? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redsuperted ( talk • contribs) 09:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
There are no sources that demonstrate that the loss of 28 staff (out of ~1100) is a "significant event in the firm's history". Please also note that the source only says that "28 full-time equivalent roles will be cut" it does not confirm that all of them will be compulsory redundancies or if any will be through natural wastage. Mt king (edits) 09:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
Whether the following text be added to the History section of the article: "In October 2012 Slaughter and May announced that it would be making 28 of its 165 London-based secretarial staff redundant, citing technological change. [2] [3]" Rangoon11 ( talk) 21:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
There have been several IP addresses making repetitive attempts to puff up the article. Indications of paid writer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Histnewbie ( talk • contribs) 00:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Again on 11 September 2020, 09:42 by "2a02:c7f:6c7a:1300:69b2:b407:f107:4c51" - undo. Emenay ( talk) 10:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Slaughter and May's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "legalbusiness":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Is Slaughter_and_May#Carillion_collapse really important enough for inclusion? The Law Soc Gazette piece is pretty short and the FT piece mentions that it was the Big Four that got the most flak for their work on Carillion. If anything, this should be at Carillion rather than here given that big law firms have a large number of engagements with similar coverage. This section is not really about Slaughter and May themselves. 129.67.116.120 ( talk) 19:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)