Jump to content

Talk:List of companies based in Seattle

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

Untitled

[edit]

I spun this off from Seattle as part of our Featured Article effort. I think this opens us up to including more companies and more info about the companies on the list -- I'd like to add a brief description of each company after their name, but who knows when I'll get to that. Suggestions for improvements are welcome. Scarequotes 19:15, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)


So United Airlines was actually headquartered in Hartford, though Boeing was chairman of the board. Any other major companies use to be headquartered in Seattle besides Boeing and UPS? Lukobe 21:30, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I just added two -- Muzak and Airborne Express. Other possibilities would be some of the now-dead dot-com companies. Now that this is its own page, I envision a larger list of companies, actually, perhaps even divided into industries. But that can come slowly. -- Scarequotes 17:23, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)

Here's a preliminary categorization--notes follow each section. --Lukobe 06:01, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Round 2: Lukobe 18:31, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I think this looks good -- sorry to be so long in telling you. Roll it out. I'm definitely pro adding brief descriptions of the businesses, but I don't think we should delay posting this to do them all. -- Scarequotes 03:21, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, and no problem at all. --Lukobe 04:04, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Transportation

Biotechnology

Retail

Property

Intellectual Property

Publishing

Recreational Products

Computer Hardware

Software

Internet

Financial Services

Beverages

Manufacturing

Conglomerate

Do we want to list companies in more than one category? Do we want to combine one-company categories to reduce their number?

Nice start. I was going to use the top-level categories at Hoovers (see http://www.hoovers.com/free/ind/dir.xhtml), which seem to be the same as what Yahoo! Business uses. I haven't checked the whole list to be sure. And I'd lean toward putting companies in the most appropriate category, but I'm not opposed to double-listing if it seems appropriate. (Also, Vulcan is a Financial Services company, per Hoovers. And Shurgard ends up in Real Estate, of all places. Interesting.) -- Scarequotes 17:56, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks! Shurgard in Real Estate actually makes sense, it being a REIT, or real estate investment trust. (So is Plum Creek Timber.) I wonder if Vulcan wouldn't be better under Conglomerates, since it's such a hodgepodge. Well, anyway--I'll think about it some more over the weekend maybe. --Lukobe 07:54, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The article starts with "This is a list of large or well-known interstate or international companies headquartered in Seattle," but I don't think Dick's is much known outside Puget Sound? ForrestCroce 05:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Category

[edit]

Should we turn this article into a Category, a subset of companies based in Washington? We could still have the intro text. But of course we'd lose the formerly based companies... Just a thought. -- Scarequotes 19:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created and populated the category Companies based in Seattle, Washington, but now I'd argue for keeping this page as well, at least for the formerly headquartered section. -- Scarequotes 23:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for creating the category, and I think it's probably worthwhile to keep this page as well, precisely because of the 'formerly headquartered' section.
Then again, now that I think of it, one can include text on category pages, right? Why not just move the text of the 'formerly headquartered' section to the category page? A thought... --Lukobe 00:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I actually copied the Fortune 500 info from the beginning of this article to the category page. If we do move the text over, do we want to get this page deleted? -- Scarequotes 00:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess so...the only thing that links here is the main Seattle article--then again I wonder if we could just make it a redirect to the category page. Wouldn't have to get the admins involved that way. --Lukobe 02:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are all these companies truly notable/well-known?

[edit]

Seems like it's getting a bit out of control. --Lukobe 22:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how necessary this article is, given that there's a category that compiles all of the Seattle-based companies. Regardless, the threshhold of notability has probably been crossed with places like Dick's on the list. -- Scarequotes 23:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder who useful this list is either... seems like we need a value or employee number threshold. Also, it would be useful to expand the list to include the metropolitan area. Just a thought... Thank-you for the list though and I hope to continue to help. -- at work, 14:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Redhook

[edit]

Looks like it's going to have to leave the list soon.. http://seattlepi.com/business/339489_beer14.html --Lukobe (talk) 08:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marketer to Add

[edit]

Hi, can I get added to the list under "marketing"? My marketing practice is located in Seattle. www.KulinMarketing.com. We do marketing for startups. LizKulin (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, your company doesn't appear to qualify for this list: "This is a list of large or well-known interstate or international companies headquartered in the Seattle Metropolitan Area."

Cataobh (talk) 23:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

<comment removed by comment creator - I'm dumb>

Non-profits

[edit]

There are now a handful of non-profits on the list, which are arguably not companies. Should these be split to a separate list, a la List of non-profit organizations in Jacksonville, Florida, or should this list be renamed to allow any type of organization? Ibadibam (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably? What is that argument? It's not in the definition of company. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually included in the first bullet point at company. But it's not really what most of us associate with the word. Ibadibam (talk) 01:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most of who? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the editors heretofore in this discussion, unless I misinterpreted your comment. Ibadibam (talk) 01:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where anyone above discussed non-profits. But even if they did, the definition of "company" comes from dictionaries, not a non-random sample editors.

Anyway, I only count two non-profits on the list. Why not put an asterisk next to them? Or the words (non-profit) next to these two entries? Or a make a non-profit subsection and if it grows far beyond two entries, consider a separate list. Or do nothing, because there's no actual contradiction here and the list serves its main purpose. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I misinterpreted when you said "It's not in the definition of company" to mean you thought non-profits weren't included in the definition, where now I think I realize you meant they're not excluded. I'll drop the question. Thanks for your correspondence! Ibadibam (talk) 19:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of companies not based in Seattle, or that are not companies, or both

[edit]

The following entries on this list are products/brands/susidiaries that are not based in Seattle:

I think if we do keep all these on the list, they should at least move to a separate section. Some, like Tommy Bahama are brands that shouldn't be listed; instead list Zumiez. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_companies_based_in_Seattle&oldid=1208223054"