Talk:Reworld

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Energy

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Companies Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

NKR2009 (talk · contribs) has been paid by unknown. Declared employment connection here

The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Kbcovanta (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.
205.251.68.124 (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.

Campaign for Justice website

The recently added link to the Campaign for Justice website is not relevant to the article. An agreement was reached in 2010 with the UWUA - http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/covanta-semass-and-local-369-of-the-uwua-announce-ratification-of-a-collective-bargaining-agreement-and-settlement-of-outstanding-disputes-91928219.html

The link should at least be explained if not deleted. Thank you.

--Jregan17 (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and since no one has defended the link, I'll delete it. --Bruce Hall (talk) 04:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incinerators or "energy-to-waste"

"Energy-to-waste" seems to be a euphemism for "incinerators" and therefore I'll add in word "incinerators"--Bruce Hall (talk) 04:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I notice their official company profile also mentions "incinerators", but anyway we need to use understandable terms and not just company jargon. --Nemo 04:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emission standards

The article has some financial data and some stories about emission problems, but no data on emissions. Isn't there an official source for emission data (or other technical standards) of USA incinerators? It would be useful to get a sense of what kind of plants the company runs. --Nemo 04:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed rewrite

I am the Communications Manager at Covanta. I would like to share a proposed rewrite of the current page, so that independent, impartial editors have an opportunity to review the draft and provide any feedback in accordance with best practices.

The current pages has very little encyclopedic information about our history and focuses almost exclusively on a one-sided description of the debate around environmental issues. While I am not the best person to improve the page due to my conflict of interest, I believe the draft represents a vastly superior page that is more well-rounded, complete, and summarizes competing views.

Hopefully the draft will be a launching point to a more encyclopedic page that will continue to improve with the help of disinterested editors. Pinging @Guy Macon: who I saw listed on WikiProject Cooperation as someone interested in engineering articles. NKR2009 (talk) 18:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to take a look at it this evening.

In the meantime, could you please double check your citations? I took a quick look and noticed that the citation after "The press release also stated that the DEEP consulted with the Connecticut Department of Public Health and verified that despite the violation, the amount of emissions in the air in the vicinity of the facility was still within applicable health-based standards and did not pose a threat to public health." leads to a p[age that says "The requested article is no longer published." --Guy Macon (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Guy Macon:. Thanks for offering to take a look! I think you’ll find the proposed draft is much better cited than the current page. To clarify, the poorly-cited sentence you are referring to is from the current page, not the draft I shared. My understanding is that press releases generally aren’t allowed as references anyway. NKR2009 (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! put them side by side and got confused as to which was which. (Note to self: next time, smoke crack after editing Wikipedia...) --Guy Macon (talk) 22:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 April 2020

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: Moved to "Covanta" b uidhe 20:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Covanta Energy → Covanta Holding Corporation – This is the name they use on their official website. Guy Macon (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon and Ahecht: Queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Guy Macon: Most of the website just uses "Covanta", which seems to be the WP:COMMONNAME elsewhere on the web as well (excluding stock-market-specific news sources, which I eliminate by searching "covanta -cva"). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 00:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Except that it conflicts with:~~

~~Coventa Inc information technology & services: coventa.ca~~

~~Coventa refuse services in Pittsfield, MA~~

~~Coventa real estate in Belgium: www.coventa.be~~

~~Coventa financial advisory and management services in Switzerland~~

~~The song Coventa [1]~~

~~~~Normally I would be OK with naming it Coventa and creating a disambiguation page for the others, but none of the above have Wikipedia pages. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:29, 15~~ April 2020 (UTC)~~

Is "Coventa" really so similar to "Covanta"? Nemo 10:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is embarrassing. When I first posted the rename request I searched for Coventa, not realizing I had spelled it incorrectly, and decided to add "Holding Corporation" in case one of the others became notable. Then I made the same spelling error when I replied above. :( "Covanta" is fine. Nobody else seems to be using that word. (Note to self: next time, smoke crack AFTER editing Wikipedia...) --Guy Macon (talk) 12:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. That's fine! :) Nemo 15:56, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think the Coventa you found in Pittsfield is just a misspelling of this company. Covanta Holding Corporation (which makes energy from refuse) does run a garbage incineration plant in Pittsfield, Massachusetts. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Covanta per WP:COMMONNAME. Beagel (talk) 13:51, 19 April 2020 (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.

New page title

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: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 05:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Covanta → Reworld – Covanta was renamed to Reworld back in April. Since then, most people have been using the new name. This is not a controversial move, but I'm using this tool to request a move on account of my COI - I work for the article-subject. I'd also like to suggest a redirect from Covanta to the new Reworld title, replacing "Covanta" with "Reworld" throughout, and adding a "(previously known as Covanta)" at the beginning. NKR2009 (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the current title was changed to the correct article title from the redirect, Covanta Holding Corporation, because redirects are ineligible to be current titles in move requests. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Energy and WikiProject Companies have been notified of this discussion. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the nom's argument is WP:OFFICIALNAMES which isn't policy based. However, these sources [2][3][4] do use the new name so can justify WP:NAMECHANGES. But there is a Reworld Media article (and an Eco group), so is this a clear primary topic? If not, would Reworld (waste management) or Reworld (waste company) be considered? or at least in the future. Although this company probably would have more English-language coverage over the French media company, so overall weak support after finding evidence of WP:NAMECHANGES. Dank Jae 16:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment: The !vote from DankJae although described as weak support is policy based, and unopposed. Andrewa (talk) 05:52, 25 July 2024 (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.

Hi @DankJae:. I see that you updated some of the references to "Covanta" to the new name "Reworld". I went ahead and corrected this in a few more places where the page was referring to the current Reworld company and not a historical time, such as when it was called Ogden. Let me know if I should revert any of those edits or if you have a different opinion on when it should say "Covanta" versus "Reworld".

Also, the Lead says "formerly Covanta (former legal name; Covanta Holding Corporation)", whereas I think just "formerly Covanta" is sufficient. Let me know what you think. NKR2009 (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NKR2009 Be free to reword the body as you see fit, just did some post-move clean-up. In terms of the lead, the previous lead had the legal name, I don't know the new legal name (is it "Reworld Waste [company type]"?), so just kept the old legal name. I assume the new one is needed, and likely per MOS:FIRSTCORP. Be free to move the old legal name somewhere else. Dank Jae 19:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DankJae: Sorry for the delayed response. The new legal name is "Reworld Holding Corporation". I updated it. I also posted a few other requested tweaks below if you want to take a look. Thanks for all your help! NKR2009 (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @DankJae:. I had another question. There are about 60 Wikipedia pages that mention "Covanta" or cite covanta.com, mostly about individual power stations the company operates. I would like to change any current-tense "Covanta" reference to the company's new name "Reworld" and fix the URL of any citation from covanta.com to reworld.com. I got the impression I can probably do this type of cleanup as non-controversial edits under the WP:COI policy.

However, in many instances, "Covanta" was part of the name of something else. For example, at Essex County Resource Recovery Facility, it says the plant is known as "Covanta Essex". I technically don't have any citations verifying the Reworld power plant is now called "Reworld Essex" as opposed to "Covanta Essex" but I would think it's pretty obvious the name comes from the name of the company operating it. Can I change these too or is there a way to get consensus for it first?NKR2009 (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NKR2009, in line with WP:COI particularly WP:COIADVICE, appears just these simple edits could be uncontroversial, in my opinion, as long as the edits are kept simple and this discussion and COIADVICE referenced in the edit summary. But other editors may disagree.

If it is current tense as you propose, like "operated by Covanta" being changed to Reworld, then that seems simple and uncontroversial, as long as it is still valid today. Just to clarify, anything with a date before the rebrand should be kept as Covanta, with one mention of the rebrand somewhere in the article if there are newer statements in the article using Reworld; i.e. "Reworld (previously Covanta)" or (unparenthesized) "Reworld, the new name of Covanta since 2024," etc etc.
Ideally don't first change citation URLs if the text is kept the same. If it used "covanta.com", try and add an archive link (like archive.org; currently down for me), so the citation references the information when and as it was added. But if there is no archive link available and the citation link is dead (invalid and therefore unverifiable), then you may replace the citation with a "Reworld.com" citation to a page that verifies the exact same information in the text (solving WP:LINKROT per COIADVICE). If the old information is unverifiable now, and a Reworld.com source has slightly different/missing information, it would need rewording to match the new source, but that is probably a more controversial edit that would have to undergo the requested edit process.
If "Covanta Essex" is still significantly used today/recently, then it can be kept. If it is no longer used, then it could be dropped from the lead or described as "formerly known as" etc. Only add "Reworld Essex" if a source uses that name.

Be free to also comment at WP:ENERGY, WP:COMPANIES and WP:USA for a wider, local or specialized input. Or request further major edits as below on COI articles.

Kind regards. Dank Jae 19:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further Edits

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined.

My name is Nicolle and I work for Reworld. I would like to request a few tweaks/updates:

1. End of History section

References
References ^ ^a ^b Rischar, Haley (July 25, 2024). "A Reimagined Vision". Waste Today. Retrieved September 4, 2024.

Explanation: Adding a recent press article that mentions Reworld's recent acquisitions and its pivot to some new areas.

2. External Links

References
References

Explanation: Adding recent CEO interview to External links for further reading and updating official link with new company URL

NKR2009 (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Unfortunately what the company CEO states about his company in an interview is not considered an independent source. Axad12 (talk) 07:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Axad12: It's a little confusing in diff view, but this cover story was proposed as a citation, whereas the interview with the CEO was merely proposed as a kind of "further reading" external link. I wasn't sure if you meant to oppose the external link (leaving the question of the content cited to the cover story open) or if you were thinking the interview was intended as a citation. Any clarification would be appreciated. NKR2009 (talk) 12:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. Given that the cover story also seems to be full of direct quotes from the CEO I don't think I really see a meaningful difference between the two links that you point to, at least in terms of whether either of them would constitute an independent source for the text being added. Hopefully this note clarifies. Axad12 (talk) 13:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[r930-1] Rischar, Haley (July 25, 2024). "A Reimagined Vision". Waste Today. Retrieved September 4, 2024.