Talk:Hudson's Bay Company/Archives/2019
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Hudson's Bay Company. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Shortening the lead section
As noted in the banner from January 2019, the lead section was too long, largely due to being an extended summary of the entire history of the company, which was pretty unnecessary. I went with four paragraphs: 1. overview of the company 2. brief summary of its history 3. aquisition by NRDC 4. list of companies bought/sold by HBC. Everything else (overly-detailed prose, etc) I moved down to the appropriate areas of the history section. Bee Young King Yellow (talk) 08:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
flag/date
Given the emphasis about this being originally an English, and not a British company, I remarked on the flag as I went by it, as the Union Jack was not in use in 1670; so this cannot have been the flag.
- on the file's description is original version says "as originally used in the 1800s", then on updates that was changed to "as originally used in 1682"..... This is indeed the best-known HBC flag, but not the original one; either a re-captioning is called for, and an amendment to the image's description page, or the original-original one be found. Would it have just the St George's Cross or ??Skookum1 (talk) 03:54, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- On the file's talkpage an IP user commented on this in 2010, about the flag shown including the St. Patrick saltire.Skookum1 (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- Two more flags should be uploaded, one with the Act of Union Jack (Eng+Sco) and another with St. George (if that's sourcable) -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 04:30, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
.svg)
- A version of the HBC flag with the pre-1801 Union Jack now exists on Wikipedia. So that would only leave the Saint George's Cross version to be created, if it's credible of course. Snow Lion Fenian (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Poor choice of language or are regional idioms now fully acceptable?
"France had gotten the short end of the stick."
Is this an appropriate turn of phrase for an encyclopedia entry? Furthermore, the meaning of this phrase (mainly but not exclusively, American) may not be obvious to non-native-English speakers.
The Wikipedia article on The Treaty of Utrecht makes no similar value judgement that France was discriminated against but simply states that France was required to cede various claims and territories.
Would it not be better to write that France was required to make concessions to Great Britain rather than "gotten the short end of the stick"?