Talk:List of oldest companies/Archive 1

Archive 1

White Horse and Towle

The list includes a "White Horse Tavern" in the USA dating from 1673. Does anyone know where or what this refers to? The link provided is a dead-end. The famed White Horse Tavern of NYC dates only from 1880. I find on the internet another establishment of this name in Allston, MA, but nothing about its history.

Also, I'm not really clear where the 1690 date for Towle silversmiths comes from. According to the Wikipedia entry for them, they incorporated in 1857 when the first Towle and a partner took over the shop of the man they had been apprenticed to. According to that entry, that silversmith, Moulton, was following in the footsteps of his father and grandfather who began in 1742. To get to 1690, you have to go back to earlier generations of that (separate) family in the related fields of trading and blacksmithing. This does not seem to meet the list's announced criteria for continuous operation and name changing. TheCormac (talk) 06:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Budvar?

Is it just me or does the Budvar entry seem rather questionable? In fact, a lot of the brewery entires seem to have pretty tenuous histories if you go more than 300 years back.

Every brewery entry added states either on their product or their website when they were founded, or since when they existed. We cannot call each company a liar if we feel their history webpage is lacking. Most companies do not have the resources or inclination to put up fancy in-depth historic information. Gunter 18:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Guinness

I moved Guinness from UK to Ireland. It was prior to the Act of Union. ClemMcGann 23:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Forham

Removed. The company was founded in 1995 reusing a name they claim belonged to a brewery from the 1700s. Doesn't meet the criteria for this list Toddstreat1 23:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Losing #1?

Kogno Gumi needs to go. It is no longer in business. It was liquidated in 2006.Bill Heller (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Name Changes

Does anyone know why there is the rule regarding corporations that have changed names? After all, JP Morgan Chase may still be effectively the same company, even after the name-changing merger.

Under this rule, if Bob's Metalworking, Inc. changed its corporate form, sold all its assets and trademarks to another company, and went into another line of business - but kept its name - it would remain on the list. (Or if it changed its name from Bob's Metalworking, Inc. to Tim's Metalworking LLC, it would remain on the list because it kept part of its name.) Or if Bob's was purchased by Mega Holding Corporation, and liquidated - but Mega Holding Corporation changed its name to Bob's Metalworking, Inc. to capitalize on Bob's goodwill - it would remain on the list, even though the only thing surviving of Bob's was the corporation's goodwill.

But if Bob's changed its name to Tim's Smithing, Inc. without changing anything else, it would be pulled from the list.

A better test might be harder to construct (for example, and I haven't thought this through - maybe it could ask whether the company has been liquidated or so subsumed into another company as to effectively no longer exist - i.e. they no longer have distinct operations, brands, etc.). --38.112.184.20 04:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

There has to be some sane criteria to govern entries on the list. Most companies on the list have retained their original name for over 200 years, the few companies that do change their names are usually non-family run and have no respect for their own tradition. In a sense if they change their name they no longer are the same company. There are only a couple of companies like this and i don't beleive it is worth the time it takes to find them. Gunter 10:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree that there needs to be some sane criteria, and (since I'm not volunteering to maintain this list) I'm certainly sensitive to the desire not to spend infinite amounts of time trying to track down companies which have changed their names.

Nonetheless, I think name is a poor proxy for age. While I respect your position, I don't think the list should be about whether a company respects its tradition or is family-owned - to me, old is old, and if the company still exists it should remain on the list. Indeed, that's the biggest problem for anyone maintaining this list - how do you identify whether a company still exists? On day one there was a company founded by a group of people, with certain employees, certain assets and a certain line of business. 200 years later all the owners and employees are dead, the assets have all been sold (and new ones bought), and much of the business has changed. Throw in a few mergers and spin off a few divisions (which most companies will do at some point), and it becomes a tough question - but I think it is answerable, and I think we should at least try to answer it.

So why am I bringing this up? Well, two things. First, I think that when, going forward, people need to decide whether a company will remain on the list after a merger, maybe they should consider more than just the name. Take Kango Gumi - if it turns out that the company exists in name only, and is otherwise just a shell or holding company, should it stay on? (I'm sure there are plenty of others - for example, is A1 still its own company, or is it now made by Kraft?)

Second, I think we should consider whether JPMorgan Chase should be on the list somewhere. JPMorgan Chase is the Bank of Manhattan. It has some of the same assets, and is in the same line of business. Its ownership changed, it merged, and it expanded - but the company is still there. Why shouldn't it be on the list if it still does what it always has done with some of the same assets it has always used?

Or, to put it another way - why was the triggering event that made the company cease to exist the name change to JPMorgan Chase?

In 1955 the Bank of Manhattan (founded in 1799) acquired Chase (founded in 1877) (I'm getting this all from their wikipedia entries). It became Chase Manhattan.

In 1996 Chase Manhattan was acquired by Chemical Bank (founded in 1823), but the company chose to keep the name Chase Manhattan (sounded better than "Chemical Bank," I guess).

In 2000 Chase Manhattan (which was really Chemical Bank) acquired JP Morgan (founded 1895) and changed its name to JPMorgan Chase.

So what would the 1996 acquisition have done to this list, if it were around? It's strange, because Chemical Bank acquired Chase Manhattan - but it would have been Chemical Bank (not Chase Manhattan) who would have lost its status as one of the oldest companies (1823) because it changed its name. Chase Manhattan, which was acquired, would not have.

Then in 2000 the same thing happened - when Chemical Bank (which now called itself Chase Manhattan) acquired JP Morgan and became JPMorgan Chase, it wouldn't have been JP Morgan (which was acquired) that lost its status - or Chase (acquired in 1955), or even Chemical Bank (which had already lost its status). It would have been the Bank of Manhattan - which was acquired in 1996, but lost its status in 2000.

So now the company is called JPMorgan Chase. The oldest part of the name is Chase National Bank, founded in 1877. So by the rule, JPMorgan Chase was founded in 1877. But that's just wrong - Chase was acquired by the Bank of Manhattan in 1955, which was acquired by Chemical Bank in 1996. The only thing surviving of Chase at this point is the name. There's far more Bank of Manhattan, and even more Chemical Bank, in JPMorgan Chase than there is any "Chase." Indeed, the true surviving entity in the group is probably Chemical Bank (1823).

Now, maybe that's too hard to sort out - and maybe once a company merges like that, it just no longer exists because the whole is too different from the individual parts. But if that's true, then can't we go ahead and take Kango Gumi off, since it's been merged into a larger company?

In any event, thank you for your hard work on this page, and I apologize for being long-winded.--38.112.184.20 23:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

8) I agree it is difficult for certain companies like Chase, to decide the factors to justify listing. But as i said such companies are not that common, we can add Chase to the list, but the intro paragraph needs to be reworded. Take the example of A1. A1 started in 1824, all that is left now is the brandname (that's my it's listed), as it was eventually bought by Kraft. But you can't list Kraft at 1824 for that reason. My main criteria for adding companies/brandnames is a website or logo proving their founding date, of course there are exceptions, but this has turned out to be a good guide. It's the name that needs to be consistent either in whole or part. A1 then is A1 now. And Kongo Gumi stays :) Takenaka paid for the company, it exists, it is just not family owned anymore. Gunter 01:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I noticed the intro has been partially deleted and JP Morgan Chase added under 1799. I still think a short intro needs to be added statsone 23:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Linkifying

I am working on the linkifying, and am stuck on a few. Please suggest. And if you don't like any of the ones I have already done, please do not revert - speak up here and I can easily change them!

Ceramics => Pottery
Marine => ??? (like Trinity House)
Offices => ??? (is John Brooke even the right link?)
Champagne => Champagne (beverage) or Vineyard again (making wine = Champagne)
Buttons => Badge as Buttons since not clothing?

(may edit and add more) — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 01:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Biting off more than I can chew here. I've created a temporary page. Please help me! See User:Revragnarok/OldestCompaniesConversion. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 02:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Put Marine in a defense contractor.Bill Heller (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Maruchan

Maruchan is attributed as 1649 establishment now. It is not a company name, just a brand name owned by Toyo Suisan, which is established in 1953. It must have been confused with Marukan Vinegar. 58.159.170.130 04:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you...corrected Gunter 23:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Being a watch guy, I need to add two old companies. Cortebert (1790) and Bovet (1822). The former does not have a site. In addition to make its own watches, Cortebert is famous for providing parts. Cortebert's most closely related customer/brand/subsidary company is Perseo (http://www.perseo-watches.com/), the official Italian railway timekeeper for a long time, since Fascist Italy. Notice that Perseo also lists themselves 1790, that is because basically Perseo *is* Cortebert, being the Italian branch of the company. Thus Perseo should not be listed. Cortebert is/was also the railroad timekeeper of Poland, Serbia, Turkey, and Egypt.

Bovet's website is http://www.bovet-fleurier.ch

Kikkoman

Kikkoman is said to have started in business in 1630. However, even its own website says the company was founded in 1917 under a different name. It was made up of family owned businesses that can trace their lineage back to 1630. Still, Kikkoman is a relatively young company - the fact there existed companies in 1630 is without dispute. But they are not in existence today and should not be on this list. I'm not singling out Kikkoman - Any company listed here is presumed active and should only date back as far as it was so. UPS was founded by Jim Casey in 1907. We don't say it was an offshoot of Casey business dating back to 1892. SSherris 22:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

A company is as old as it's oldest business entity. Changing the name after a merger does not affect the founding date. Gunter 17:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Too long list?

I terribly sorry about my bad English. English is a foreign language for me.

I happen do think that this list is too long and it should be shorten. The reason of that is this list contains offaly lot of mistakes (specially in the end) and I think that list what gives wrong information is not needed.

For example: in this list there is one Estonian company (Kalev) but in Estonia there are older companies than that and companies that are about same old and should also be included into this list. (oldest company in Estonia that I know is Leibur - started in 1762). 213.219.91.33 20:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes the list is long, but it should not be shortened, if anything it might need to be split into seperate pages to remove the scroll lag. There are no errors in the list that i am aware of, i check every entry that is added, almost all have their dates on their website. If you see a mistake, please correct it.Gunter 11:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

London Gazette

Should the London Gazette really be listed here? Certainly these days it's a government publication. David Underdown (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Since it started as a non-government publication, it should be included. Gunter (talk) 12:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked by the Spam Filter Notice

I tried to add the following entry to this article, but I was not allowed to save the page because the link http://www.tanners-wines.co.uk from another entry is in the blacklist. Can someone help me fix this? Mhwu (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

|-
|1851
|[http://www.booksinc.net]
|[[Books Inc.]]
|[[USA]]
|[[Bookselling|Bookstore]]
|-

OK, it's been fixed, but if you want to add the above company, i need a link on their page that states their founding date of 1851, i couldn't find anything obvious Gunter (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Here it is. [1] Thanks for fixing. I got there by clicking "Store Locations" and then "Books Inc. History" in their website. Should I replace the link to their home page by the one with the year 1851 in the wiki code above when adding this company? Mhwu (talk) 06:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, put it in with the link that shows their founding date. Gunter (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

A Company is something different to a trademark or brand, This site should be divided into oldest brands and oldest companies Farina-Archiv (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Amtrak ?

I do not understand how Amtrak qualifies for this list, dated 1829. It was not created until the winter of 1970 as Railpax by Congress, beginning operations 1 May 1971. Rail travel may have begun in the U.S. in the 1800s, but Amtrak has only the most tenuous heritage links to the original railroad companies. Mark Sublette (talk) 05:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 05:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Too many links

Should we really have almost 2000 links on this page? We need to remember that Wikipedia is not a collection of links: there is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. JulieSpaulding (talk) 10:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

oldest chocolate factory in Germany

I see Lambertz and Halloren mentioned on this page. Halloren advertises with being the oldest chocolate factory in Germany ("älteste Schokoladenfabrik Deutschlands"). However, according to this listing Lambertz is older... Both companies still exist today - so this can't be the reason. - Bernburgerin (talk) 09:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Zildjian

It looks like Zildjian made the list twice -- is there dispute over its actual age? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.16.40.113 (talk) 03:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Many highly dubious entries

A lot of the oldest entries seem to be extremely suspect on even the most casual examination. For example Kongō Gumi; it is claimed to have been "founded" in A.D. 578. This is about 60 years before the first code of laws created in pre-feudal Japan, and less than a century after the Chinese introduced writing -- and we are supposed to believe they already had incorporation?! The evidence for this ancient lineage is a scroll which lists 40 generations of the family -- but it was created in the 17th century, more than a thousand years after the events it supposedly records!

Another example is Stiftskeller St. Peter, a restaurant that supposedly traces its history to A.D. 803. But the evidence for this date is an ancient document that merely mentions an inn in the same area. There is not a shred of evidence offered to show historical continuity between these two businesses. A very similar case occurs with the brewery at Weihenstephan Abbey; they have a record stating that there was a brewery somewhere on the premises of the Abbey in A.D. 1040, but no evidence to show that the current operation has unbroken descent from it -- to the contrary, we know that ownership changed hands forcibly in 1803, and it is now government operated as part of a technical college.

Again, the Château de Goulaine article clearly states that this estate has not been continuously owned by the Goulaine family since A.D. 1000, but rather, reacquired in 1858 by descendants of the original owners. Furthermore it starts that the year of commencement of commercial wine production is unknown. It is very interesting that the original family have reacquired a property their ancestors started building a thousand years ago, and it is very interesting that they now have a thriving business doing something that their ancestors (apparently) once did in this region. But to describe this as a continuously operating business is utter rubbish.

Here's another one: Mühle Sting, a watermill, A.D. 1426. Since the watermilling business has been a little depressed for, oh, the last 200 years, that seemed unlikely to me -- and indeed, when we go to the website we discover that they are claiming that the building is 583 years old, not the business; the family business is only claimed to be 6 generations old (about 150 years.)

There is commercial advantage for a business in claiming to be tremendously old, and essentially no penalties for exaggerating -- that is why there are so many pubs claiming to be the "oldest pub in (wherever)". And it is unsurprising that the really stupendously old claimants are all very small businesses: these are precisely the ones for which it is more difficult to check the facts. I really think we need to be much less credulous with this list. -- 202.63.39.58 (talk) 11:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Actually, The Chinese Language (written) dates back as far as 14th-11th century BCE. See the article on Oracle Bone Script Small Seal Script (which is used in chops to this day) was standardized by Li Si in the 200s BCE.

And outside of Imperial China, the Japanese were the largest collectors of Chinese calligraphy.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.6.200 (talk) 07:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this the right name for the page

I'm just wondering if this page has got it right - is it appropriate to call all these breweries "companies"? The word in English is different to something like a "partnership" or a "business". A company is a legal entity, the same as a "corporation", with a separate legal personality from the people who run it. The old breweries wouldn't be that - instead it's just the trading name. Sorry if this is sounding pedantic, but I think there's a point here. Do you think that "list of oldest businesses" might be what this page actually is? I'm interested mainly because I'm looking for a page with a list of the oldest corporations (and I thought there was one!). Wikidea 18:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that "company" is not the correct term for all the entities listed here. For example, Hudson's Bay Company claims to be the oldest company in North American, established by crown charter in the 17th century. However, there are a couple of U.S. business listed here, which turn out to be family run establishments (farm, inn, etc.) that may not fit some legal definition of company. Mego2005 (talk) 16:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

East India Companies?

Where are the East India Companies? East India Company (disambiguation) 61.8.139.218 (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

They don't exist anymore, hence do not belong here 62.235.209.93 (talk) 09:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Are there local rules in this article

Gunter, I tried to say this first time I thought you judge every rule on this article, but didn't say it, because I need to continuously see what you are doing here before I say something. But even after I saw some of your actions , my anxiety remains that you might think that this is your pet article and not anyone else's article. I am wondering by what guideline you can delete companies without any discussion even if it satisfy verifiabilities. l prefer rules and guidelines by Wikipedians' community as far as this article is on en.wikipedia.org. I admit your contribution to this article, and that's one of the main reason why this article has more concrete list than any other list on the web. But you can't deny information that is along with Wikipedia guidelines, if there are technological difficulties like numberstamp of outside links, ask the communities if they can solve or help you to solve it.--Orcano (talk) 12:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I check each addition to the list to make sure it meets the common criteria which we have established in the intro paragraph. I do not like to remove any entries, but if the company does not have it's own website to state it's founding date, or is an educational institution et. al., then it needs to be removed. Gunter (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it's your rule. If existence of Genda-Shigyo is verifiable, it's on "List of oldest companies" at Wikipedia. If the name of the article is "List of oldest companies that have websites", what you are saying is understandable, though.--Orcano (talk) 03:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources § News_organizations, and WP:NONENG

on Revision as of 12:14, 20 September 2009--Orcano (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Colbachini and Kepka

Gunter, I can admire that you develop this article into such a great list, I even saw Japanese bloggers liked this article or picked companies from the list, but again, I have to tell you that this article is not "List of oldest companies that have their websites". You delete companies from the list too easily. For example, I don't know why you made recent deletion on these two, Colbachini (diff) and Kepka (diff). You value the companies' own websites so much, but on Wikipedia, those are not perfectly reliable sources.(WP:SELFPUB) Off course it depends on the case, but like Colbachini, if the official websites got just unlinked, not declared withdrawal of their business, and just cannot find the website and third party like fr:Les Hénokiens still lists it on their list[2], you cannot judge it is out of business.
I cannot comment on Kepka as I cannot catch why you judged it was out of business.
Lastly, I understand that your deletion of companies is necessary to keep this list more reliable even though this list is probably the biggest disclosed one.
I just want you to be more Wikipediotic.--Orcano (talk) 06:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. A companies website existance shows positive proof that it exists and shows their age. If they website no longer works for a extended period the company they are probably no longe rin business, this is a pretty simple rule which has served the list well. As for Kepka, i still no not see a working website, so where do you have proof the company exists or is old enough for the list. As for wikipedia itself, it is certainly not a reliable source for any information, just a good reference point to find some. Also a companies existance is not proved by a third party website, that information can be out of date as soon as it is published, such references need to be dynamic and as such instantly verifiable, as a companies website is. Gunter (talk) 01:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• "When a company is established" is not really a dynamic fact, and isn't going to change... And also, a company's website can be ridiculously outdated as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by V2Blast (talk • contribs) 21:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I have a question, Gunter. Have you read some of the Wikipedia policies? I just don't understand what Wikipedia policy you are writing this article with. Your comment sounds even opposite to Wikipedia's policy on verification.--Orcano (talk) 11:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

About Kepka, I am always able to see kepka.de. I think this[3] is the page that explains Kepka started in 1747. It seems you cannot see the kepka.de website[4] on your environment. It is rare, but your internet router might accidentally filtering kepka.de. I have experienced the same symptom with NHK for several weeks until I restarted my router. I had been thinking it was the problem with NHK server before I asked my friend if he could see the NHK website and he said yes. Maybe, Kepka.de was temporarily out of service and your browser keep showing old cache, or maybe anti-virus software interrupt kepka.de. There must be those kind of problem.--Orcano (talk) 18:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Los Lingues (Chile)

Los Lingues appears twice (1575 and 1760). I wouldn´t know how to fix this (i don´t want to disrupt the numbering and links). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.47.37.105 (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Bambu

It seems that there is no verification of the 1764 year of this brand name. The only verifiable date is on their US Trademark filing which says 1921. From the article: [5]). The brand rights were purchased in 1984 by a Long Island New York company operated by Nancy Spielvogel [6]. Is this within the scope of this listing of oldest companies, and would someone please decide if it should be changed or not thanks! Nahome (talk) 18:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I found further documentation that the correct year for this brand name is 1908 not 1764 and request that it be amended as such. According to the official Spanish trademark office the correct date is as follows:

TM Office: Oficina Española de Patentes y Marcas TradeMark Name: BAMBU Application Number: M0014860 Registration Office Code: ES Kind of IPR: Application Date: 1908-03-31 Registration Number: M0014860 Registration Date: 1989-12-01 Nice Classification: 34 Vienna Classification: 25.07.25 Kind Mark: Individual International Mark Key: Mark Feature: Combined

1764 seems to be the year that the original factory (now closed) was incorporated. Bambu seems to have come about in 1908. Anyone feel like editing or doing more research? Nahome (talk) 01:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I did more research on the History of Bamboo trade. Numerous articles show there was no bamboo wood in Spain in 1764. It wasn't until the industrial revolution of the early 1900's that Steamships began carrying bamboo from Asia to Europe. In 1764 bamboo would have had to be loaded on wooden sailing ships and sailed from Asia to Spain - then hauled by horses high up into the mountains of Alcoy just to be used as cigarette paper. That did not occur and is an impossibility. Instead, with the industrial revoution in full bloom bamboo was sent by steamship to Europe and then by train to Alcoy. Even that would have proved expensive and difficult, which is likely why they stopped using bamboo for Bambu brand papers and switched to conventional woods instead. However the 1764 date is clearly an impossibility Nahome (talk) 21:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bambu company makes no reference to the use of Bamboo tree in production as being the origin of the company's name. In all of the research available on the brand there has been no such deduction. According to the Trademark office in Spain, it is not uncommon for companies to use a name for many years before trademarking. The company which had become known as "Bambu" produced varieties of paper (including cigarette paper) in the Alicante region of Spain since 1764. [7] researched this, along with many of the other companies is this article and it has been confirmed. Using research on the Bamboo trade in spain as a reference to the origins of this company is non-correlating and unfounded. --ArnaudMS (talk) 05:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Arnaud I know you work for Bambu and this has been very painful for you, but there is absolutely no evidence that the mark was used in 1764, actually this would have been impossible. Even the word Bambu was not commonly used at that time, it was Mambus. You're going to have to show actual true reliable links like I have or you are going to get over-written and blocked again. Please only show true reliable references such as the Trademark office. Nahome (talk) 14:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I actually work for ernst and young Nahome. I would like to hear where you work?? You are attacking a company a which is among the most historic and longest continually used consumer goods trademarks in the world. This I have a problem with. I would like for you to approach the remaining companies on this section of wikipedia with a similar scrutiny as you have with Bambu. Citing a bunch of phony sites and trademark registration why you sit leisurely on the couch is not substantial enough to change the status quo.. The problem is you are someone who works with a competitor to this brand and are trying to slander its well established origins. --ArnaudMS (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Arnaud I know you are not being honest, your posts are too one sided and your information is too promotional. You even write on your images how Bambu gave them to you. We have all given you a large amount of evidence including the actual trademarks. In response you said I had made up the Spanish marks and that they were all false and continued to slander me. This only made the community dig in deeper to find further references and prove the facts. Everything I have written has references. What you write is full of fluff "everyone knows", with no reference. If you have any actual references such as trademark documents please post them. Otherwise your opinion does not merit or substantiate a date. Only the trademarks and court documents merit the dates and facts. BTW - which sites are phony? The European Harmonized Trademark office (office of the European Union) ??? Nahome (talk) 21:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see Bambu rolling papers. Research has been found from the University of Barcelona, department of History that proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that Bambu was launched in 1907. It should not be on this list. However, I see why it's so important to them that they remain on the List of oldest companies. They have it hyperlinked to their Bambu.com web page! http://www.bambu.com/history.php They say how they are one of the 1000 world's oldest companies and link to our page. This information we have uncovered about the true foundation date being 1907 must be quite devastating to their marketing. I hope they will amend their marketing and quit using us as their false springboard. Can you please help Page Protect the List of oldest companies. Nahome (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

According to Nahome, as you can see on the Bambu rolling papers, "It seems 1764 is the date that the original factory was incorporated in Alcoy (the factory that much later produced Bambu). Thus they put 1764 on all of the papers they made. That date is on Marfil and many other packs in my collection. Then when the Bambu brand was sold and the factory closed, it seems the new brand owner is just using 1764 as part of the original Alcoy Branding." As I can see on the List of oldest companies talk page above here, the qualifications for being on this list is that, "a company is as old as it's oldest business entity. Changing the name after a merger does not affect the founding date." You can see this specifically on the Kikkoman section right above. Therefor, most if not all of the businesses on this list are companies which trace their establishment date to the earliest entity of the business. All of this trademark registration non-sense perpetuated by this user is clearly not the logic this article has been found upon. Sincerely, and thanks for you time.--151.205.172.251 (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

This has all been discussed on Talk:Bambu rolling papers.

• 1908 Trademark for Bambu
• University of Barcelona Department of History - 1907
• Spanish Alcoy History books - 1907
• No Bamboo wood in Alcoy in 1764
• R. Abad Santonja (brand inventor, factory owner) was not alive in 1764, He was born in 1851 and died in 1911! See This Reference

Please discuss this on Talk:Bambu rolling papers and do not post any year without REFERENCES - REFERENCES - REFERENCES PLEASE - not your opinion but third party actual factual REFERENCES. You type a lot, but you don't have any references. Please don't slander me - that won't create a reference. Please don't slander other users, that won't create a reference. Nahome (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

In your own words Nahome. ", "It seems 1764 is the date that the original factory was incorporated in Alcoy (the factory that much later produced Bambu). Thus they put 1764 on all of the papers they made. That date is on Marfil and many other packs in my collection. Then when the Bambu brand was sold and the factory closed, it seems the new brand owner is just using 1764 as part of the original Alcoy Branding." Where was your references exactly? ( From Bambu Talk Page)--ArnaudMS (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss this on Talk:Bambu rolling papers and do not post any year without REFERENCES - REFERENCES - REFERENCES PLEASE - not your opinion or my opinion posted on a talk page "it seems" but third party actual factual REFERENCES.

Also please do confirm that you won't modify this page until you post a reference - I have a sinking feeling you are counting the hours until it comes off of page protection so you can sockpuppet it back to the date you claim on Bambu.com, Wiki is NOT to be used for brand promotion. So I am now asking two things -

• 1) please post a verifiable reference for 1764.
• 2) Please confirm that you won't modify the page until you post a verifiable reference.

I am asking you very nicely and politely - please post the verifiable reference and please don't attack or modify any date or page without a solid verifiable reference. Pretty please with sugar on top? Nahome (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Concerns

This issue with Bambu has been going on for some time across multiple pages. Here is a secondary source for the 1764 date in case it helps:

• Media Decisions, Volume 14, Issues 1–4, N. Glenn Publications, 1979, p. 48: "Bambu sales imports Bambu cigarette rolling papers from Spain, where they have been manufactured since 1764."

There is no Google preview, so you have to view the sentence with snippet view using both of the links above. It probably stems from the company, but then so does a great deal of information secondary sources publish about companies. At least it's from 1979, so it predates the current owners. Nahome's efforts to show another date all involve unpublished sources and/or SYN violations.

Nahome, I think it's time you left this issue alone, because it's causing more trouble than it could ever be worth. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

You are entirely right, and I need to get rid of this book it's buring a hole in my conscience. Does anyone want to pick up the torch of truth? Nahome (sinebotH8R) (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Torch of truth needs to be picked up....... Because user Nahome has been BANNED by wikipedia for working for a tobacco company and slandering companies with unfound/fake research, Users games are over and have been exposed. Hopefully editors can come to consensus, and all changes by this user will be reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.47.244 (talk) 06:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Hardly a torch of truth there. The Nahome account was blocked, not banned from Wikipedia, as he/she has another account which is not blocked. He/she is, along with ArnaudMS (who was using sock puppets, which Nahome wasn't doing here) banned from tobacco related articles. Nahome seems to have a link with a tobacco company and there have been other IPs possibly linked to Bambu editing here and elsewhere. See WP:COIN for the discussion. You are adding to the problem with inaccurate information. Dougweller (talk) 08:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

First two entries are hotels, the article for the 2nd entry says it's the oldest hotel

Why do we have a hotel older than the one whose article says it's the oldest hotel? See the first two entries. Dougweller (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Doug this list is clearly flawed and seems to be used by various businesses to justify their own "dates". I suggest you amend the list as you have referenced. I also suggest you nominate this article for deletion given it's abuse. Nahome (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Stiegl brewery since 1492

http://www.stiegl.at/en/stieglat/discover-stiegl/the-privatly-owned-brewery/history-since-1492/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.115.157.177 (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

External links

Seems to me this page is one giant WP:LINKFARM. I'm probably going to remove them all at some point in the future unless anyone has any objections...? Any company that is genuinely of this age probably meets the notability for inclusion as a normal article, so could just be wikilinked with the External Link featuring on their own page, as per WP:EL guidelines. Nikthestoned 10:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Oldest business known I think?

This Pub contains remains dating from 2500 BC up to the 17th century. which means the establishment could have been open for over 3000 years. It seems to have went out of business though.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/editors-choice/2011/09/05/could-this-be-the-oldest-pub-in-scotland-86908-23397913/
--OxAO (talk) 06:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Elsevier, Elzevir Confusion

The page seems to have confused the old Dutch publisher Elzevir (founded in 1580 and closed in 1712) with the newer Dutch Publisher Elsevier (founded in 1880 and still operating). The distinction between the two companies is mentioned in Elsevier. --Jfrazee (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I concur and removed the entry. Thanks Nikthestoned 14:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Claddagh Ring

The Claddagh Ring (1750 on the list) is a type of ring, made since at least 1700. But it's not a company name. The two-word phrase has widespread recognition and the thing itself is consistent in form (a single variant deletes the crown), but does it qualify as a brand? SeoMac (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed and removed until someone proves otherwise with a citation! Cheers. Nikthestoned 08:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

When you post a non-English (foreign) citation

It would be helpful if you translate for English speakers to verify whether the citation is surely supporting. (see guidelines:WP:NONENG and WP:TRANSCRIPTION) I have noticed that translations of the Japanese citation has been deleted, which I posted to support its verifiability for English speakers along with Wikipedia guidelines. I post this message to have editors easier to reach WP:NONENG when somebody delete others' translations in the future.--Orcano (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

JP Morgan

I cannot find any connection between JP Morgan Chase on something founded in 1799. ANy one got a citation? Justinc (talk) 10:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

History at jpmorgan.com. Strangely, that page does not include the dates mentioned in the J.P. Morgan & Co. article at all... Nikthestoned 11:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

its leaving out procter and gamble

procter and gamble is one of the oldest companies as well its one of the oldest conglomerate type companies in the USA it mostly speciallizes in consumer products it started off with ivory soap but by the end of the 20th century it evolved into other brands like tide cleaning detergent and even more brands came from it after that. so id like to know when procter and gamble will be added to the list its very old conglomerate. 76.211.5.253 (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It's there, 1837 :) Gunter (talk) 23:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Oldest Company

Is Kongo Gumi still the oldest company? From its Wikipedia page, "Kongō Gumi Co., Ltd. (株式会社金剛組 Kabushiki Gaisha Kongō Gumi?) is a Japanese construction company and was the world's oldest continuously ongoing independent company, operating for over 1,400 years until it was absorbed as a subsidiary of another larger construction company." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.10.31.84 (talk) 07:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Absorbed, but still exists, so it's still the oldest Gunter (talk) 23:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Country of Origin?

How is the Country of Origin defined for the purposes of this list? For example, the Hudson's Bay Company now operates exclusivley in Canada, but was founded and operated its head office out of London until 1970. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.207.114.89 (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I would also add that "Country of Origin" should be rethought, as some of these countires haven't even existed at the corporation dates (for example Germany and Slovakia). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.249.188.236 (talk) 22:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Shall we change it back to just "Country", and keep it as is with the original country's current name? Gunter (talk) 23:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Accuracy and Coverage

I think the accuracy of this list is very dubious. An overwhelming majority of the 'companies' listed are located in Japan and Germany. I believe it is unlikely that this is actually the case. Most of the included inks have tenuous status as businesses (as discussed by various commentators below). An example I would like to use is the 'restaurant' in Austria. The business that operates this restaurant has not remained constant ever since in supposed founding. The geographical distribution makes me think it is a very incomplete list, and because of the questionable nature of many of the entries on the list, it seems that completing such a list would be an impossible task. I would like to suggest that the article is highly cleaned up, more complete, and more definite about what can and cannot be listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.199.54 (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Such a list will always be impossible for all sorts of reasons. I've put a heavy disclaimer at the top to rectify this as best I could. We do need more notes about the specific companies, especially those that are iffy, but for that we'd need an expert on Japanese restaurants... Harsimaja (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that any Japanese restaurant over a few centuries old has probably not run continuously and is certainly not held by the same legal entity). We also need a stricter definition of company - just because people have been doing the same job (running a hotel-like building at more or less the same spot, which in Japan will DEFINITELY have been rebuilt many times), on and off, for centuries, can't count - what about farms? Every patch of ground cultivated for millennia should be included by the same standard... anything from the first millennium AD is definitely more than dubious. Harsimaja (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I checked some of Japanese restaurant web sites on the list. As a native Japanese, I could not find anything wrong with all of them because they are mostly Ryōtei which is hotel-like building or are reasonably traditional. The position of Ryōtei is very high in Japan, you would spend 100-1000 of dollars for a meal. Don't be so suspicious, most of Japanese cities have companies over 300-400 years ago, so there are numerous old companies in Japan and people value them. There was no war for about 250 years in Yedo period and ten thousands of samurai traveling at anytime for Sankin kōtai and spent money everywhere they go, besides Japan was so safe because organized armed people were always traveling. You could see them one after another. That made Japanese economy so flat, enriched money-economy and gave them lots of rooms to start up their business. Also, each landlord urged manufacturing business to help each of their economy that even become basis of miraculous economic growth in Meiji period to Showa period. As a result, many companies remained.

About legal entity, before Meiji period, I am not even sure if there was a concept, legal entity. Moreover, exact date is impossible for most of them in Yedo, Muromachi or before. However, I can easily imagine they are mostly owned and run by same family in generations.--Orcano (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

However, it should be better to link directly the pages that describes their history, not a top page. If the site doesn't clearly say or there was no web site, <ref> </ref> should be used to verify.--Orcano (talk) 21:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Doing it. Gunter (talk) 11:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Article length and verifiability

I am going to remove any entry that is not a bluelink and I will tag any entry without a source as needing one at some point in the future. If anyone has any objections to this, please let me know as it won't be an insignificant amount of effort. Currently, this list is pretty useless to actually use and, I suspect, is being used merely as a promotional tool for the various companies. Nikthestoned 15:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that is a good idea although I agree that the list needs improvement. But just deleting all entries without a wikipage would not be fair because a business does not need to have an article on wikipedia for prooving their existance. Take the "Weltenburger" brewery for example (http://www.weltenburger.de/kloster_weltenburg.htm). Let us discuss if we can find useful guidelines for improvement. I suggest something like only the oldest or 10 oldest businesses of each country. Then again, the list would need to be rearanged. Or cut the list at 1800 and only add businesses founded later if they are the oldest in a country.

Anyhow, deleting all businesses without wikipage: NO ... adding "citation needed": YES — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.172.223.249 (talk) 22:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I think top ten oldest, verifiable, businesses in each category is probably a better way to go, now that I come to think about it! Also, I don't think this is about "fair"ness - no company is going to be seen as "better" by a prospective customer or whatever as it's listed on a random, badly maintained page on Wikipedia! The above suggestion was more to get it down to a manageable length, but agreed it's probably not the best solution. Nikthestoned 08:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Deleting blue links seems arbitrary, however this list could benefit from using reliable sources. For example, Browar Lwówek claims to be from 1209 because of a mention of a build of brewers in Lwówek. However, the brewery was actually founded in 1850, and hence is not from 1209 at all. I suspect a lot of the entries will be like that.

I suggest we start with removing the "Links" column and instead start adding sources. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The companies themselves are the best sources, in your case they mention 1850 on their site, so the wrong date was listed here, that is all. Gunter (talk) 11:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The companies are biased sources. Yes, the year 1850 is mentioned, but so in 1209, and they frequently claim 1209. Bushmills is another example, who also claim 17th century, while the company in fact is from the 18th century. So no, the companies are not the best sources, this list dis not exempt from the requirements for reliable sources used elsewhere on Wikipedia. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The company's are legally liable if they claim wrong dates on their website. If the company doesn't know when they were founded, no other website can speak with authority on the issue. If their website claim is misread and a wrong date shown here, then correct it. Gunter (talk) 23:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

No, they are not legally liable if they claim wrong dates on their website. I have no idea why you limit yourself to websites. Please read WP:V and especially WP:RS. This article is not exempt from following Wikipedia policies. --OpenFuture (talk) 01:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong. And using the companys webiste to prove a date reference adheres to wikipedia policy. Whatever 3rd party links you are trying to put in prove nothing. A random newspaper article mentioned a date is not a reputable source, and certainly not more so than the company itself. Gunter (talk) 14:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I assume you have now read the relevant policies, as I asked you to do so before, in which case you now should know you are wrong, so your continued gainsaying is surprising. Perhaps there is something in the policies you find confusing? In that case ask and I'll do my best (which unfortunately is probably not very good) to explain. You can also want to ask for help in clarifying these issues on WP:VILLAGEPUMP.

This article needs reliable sources. I have started to add them. There is nothing more to say about that. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, apparently there was, since you removed the sources. I have re-added them. If you remove them again I will bring this to administrator attention. Your revert is against Wikipedia policies. There is no reasonable explanation to why you would remove reliable sources in good faith. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Since you continue blatantly violating Wikipedia policies: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Gunter_removing_reliable_sources. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

As i stated before, your adding what you claim are sources, are links to newspaper articles that probably use this list as their source or just vist the webite thelmselves, that is not a reliable source of information. I see you are simply being disruptive, you add absolutely no value to this page and are just trying to cause problems Gunter (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth OpenFuture I did actually remove the EL column a while ago but Gunter reverted. I'd say some discussion is needed re: this article and it definitely needs to be cut down some; loading diffs in my browser takes an age which is not ideal! Nikthestoned 17:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, if the company really is notable for being old, then it should have it's own article as well, and then the external link is pointless. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

In addition I now checked the Swedish companies, since I'm from Sweden. I never heard of some of them, and it turns out that two of the hotels doesn't even claim the old ages Gunter ascribed to them. In fact he put them up under the time the manor/farm was established, not when hotelling started at the manor/farm. I strongly suspect that the rest of the list contains many similar problems. This will take ages to clean up... :-( --OpenFuture (talk) 06:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It won't take ages if we adopt my suggestion of restricting ourselves to the single oldest company in some particular categories (i.e., oldest by geographical location, oldest by type of goods/services, etc.). This would considerably reduce the number of entries which would need to be checked, and would make the list more encyclopedic. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

That could work. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Yea, something like this totally needs to happen I'd say. The question is, what are we going to go for?! We could also have a couple - "List of oldest companies by location" AND "List of oldest companies by industry" or similar... Nikthestoned 08:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Read my suggestion in #1800's? below. In this article we could just insert an extra column for notes explaining in what respect the company is the oldest. We already have articles on the oldest companies for particular locations (e.g., List of oldest companies in the United States). —Psychonaut (talk) 08:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

1800's?

The page is really long and unweildy. Do we really need to list companies started in the 1800's? That's post industrial revolution, and not really that notable. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

What are the actual criteria for the list? Do they have to be active? Cos plenty of companies have existed over time... GiantSnowman 16:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

They have to be in continuous operation since founding Gunter (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Well then the very first on the list is not eligible - [[Kongō Gumi] is not a subsidiary. Otterton Mill is also not eligble. GiantSnowman 16:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• AndyTheGrump mentioned organization by country, rather than year, which makes a lot of sense to me. Currently, it is arbitrary. Why list a business from 1825, if there are much older ones? Doesn't make sense as it is currently formatted, unless you just limited it to the "$x Oldest Companies", with $x being a logical number like 10, 25, 50 or 100. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Just one per country is bit low, and it would also be ripe of fights depending on how you define company. Limiting to the 100 oldest companies make more sense, I think. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

lol, I didn't mean one per country, just organized BY country. Just an idea. I guess it depends on what the typical use of the list is for, that would dictate the format. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• As a MOSFLAG fan, I want the flags gone--there is no representation of country here, and a lot of the companies were started before countries existed. I also want the company links gone. I have a reference for Einbecker Brewery which I'll stick in the list. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with Drmies on both issues. The flags and the external links are gratuitous and need to be removed. --John (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• I agree it doesn't make sense to list companies here unless they are indeed the single oldest company in some respect. A company founded as recently as 1825 has no business being on the list, unless it's the oldest company in a certain class of companies (e.g., oldest brewery, oldest company based in what is now Germany, oldest limited liability company). Perhaps we could replace this misleading flag column with one for an explanatory note explaining in what respect the company is oldest. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The flags were a nice addition by someone, i don't see why they have to go. As for the external link, they are the guts of the list. They provide source information and instant access to the companies website, which is what the majority of users accessing this page use it for. Without that this list becomes useless. Gunter (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• How do I say this gently? That's nonsense. No list on Wikipedia has as its goal providing access to companies' websites (we're not a directory, it's basically advertising, etc). The flags, well, there's WP:MOSFLAG. I see now why there is trouble here. Drmies (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Flags and country names have to go because they reflect the current political situation, not the one at which the company was founded. The territories in which companies are founded and operate change hands and get new names and new flags quite frequently (relative to the time periods we're talking about here). At least without further explanation in the article, flags and country names are therefore misleading and/or incorrect. With respect to the external links, what evidence do you have the majority of visitors to this article are using it as a directory? If you have such evidence, please present it, because it would be the best possible reason for removing the links. Wikipedia is not a directory of links. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Fine, we can change the column heading from "County of Origin" to "Current location". As for the company links, what evidence do you have that people do not use them. Removal of the links firstly removes any proof of age that the company provides. Also anyone who uses the list for research or interest cannot get any information about a company since there would be no link to them and no wikipedia page. Lets stop trying to destroy a useful article, this page has over 600 hits a day. Gunter (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

You are the one who made the claim that "the majority of users accessing this page use it for [the external links]"; I am therefore asking you to provide evidence for it. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• Proof of age has to come from a reliable source, not from the company website. Whether people use these links or not is completely irrelevant. Flags will have to go. That seems to be a decent summary of both policy/guidelines and the opinion of editors here and elsewhere. An easy way to take care of this is to start chopping, removing the table and all that and leaving something like "*Einbecker Brewery, before 1378, Germany". Drmies (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Assume some good faith on behalf of the companies, they have reputations they want to preserve. If there are misrepresentation, they will eventually surface and be corrected. You are going way overboard wanting to remove useful company links. This is a uniquely useful list that does not exist elsewhere on the internet and if you do a search you will see it is referenced and used widely. You should not be here trying to chop and gut it, you are not helping wikipedia and only hurting the articles usefulness. I am tired of arguing the same points over and over again, this is not a life and death issue. I have added the source columns you asked for an reworded the county column, please leave the links alone. Do you have any idea how much work I and others have put into this list over the last six years, for you to come along, without ever having made any contributions to it and propose radical removal of vital information is deconstructive, and contrary to wikipedia's ideals and purpose. Wikipedia is encylcopedic, this is the service and information this page provides, what you are trying to do to it will remove most of it's usefulness. Gunter (talk) 20:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It is absolutely false that this list does not exist elsewhere on the Internet. Content here is freely licensed, and a simple web search will show that it is indeed reproduced in hundreds of different places. There is no danger whatsoever of useful information being lost; the absolute worst that can happen is that useful but non-encyclopedic information will no longer appear in the current version of the article. Previous versions remain accessible, both on Wikipedia and on its countless mirrors, forks, and derived works. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

In any case, it is not Wikipedia's purpose to provide webspace for non-encyclopaedic content, regardless of its supposed 'usefulness' - Wikipedia has policies regarding sourcing etc. And Wikipedia decides what 'encyclopaedic content' is. We do not provide directories. We do not source lists of companies solely to the companies own websites. If you think Wikipedia should revise its policies in this regard, argue for a change of policy in the appropriate place. If the service provided by this page is 'vital' (to whom? and why?) then make a copy of the content, and reproduce it elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• I started trimming, but it's a sucky job. Can someone remove the flags in an automated manner? Above I proposed a simpler format but I've left the table for now. I had hoped that some trimming would already make a size difference but it doesn't--I didn't realize this list was almost 300k. Quick proposal: y'all come up with a boundary for the article--a number, a date limit, anything--and then we can just cut whatever follows. On my netbook, I can't really edit this article since it's too big. Drmies (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Unbelievable, you think you can just strong arm your opinions here. You can't post some misinterpreted opinions of wikipedia policy and then destroy this article after a few hours of biased chat. The links are relavant and key to the article. Your shortsightedness as to the usefulness of those links is a travesity. Gunter (talk) 23:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Would you like to tell us why multiple contributors appear to all have the same "misinterpreted opinions of wikipedia policy", cite the said policies, and tell us why you think we've misinterpreted them? Though you might do well to actually read such policies first, as has been suggested repeatedly on this talk page (I'd recommend you start with WP:NPA). Incidentally, nothing has been 'destroyed' - it is all in the article history. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you serious? Nobody looks at the article history to get the information they want. All i see is a couple of individuals who have never contributed anything to this article, are not even interested in it's content, and are oblivious to it's importance and interest to the public (22 k hits a month), but somehow feel that they can butcher 6 years worth of work claiming this is what wikipedia wants. You are trying to force policies that were designed to guide not to control, down peoples throats, when you should be looking at the larger picture of what an article provides and it's usefulness, before jumping to castrate it. Just because you have no interest in a subject, you should not feel the need to add your deconstructive urges. Gunter (talk) 23:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Cut out the crap. Policy applies as much to this article as any other, regardless of how 'important' you think it is. As it stands, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

If only you could understand the purpose of policies, but you are too narrowminded Gunter (talk) 01:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Really, Gunter, you've been helping around here for six years and you're unfamiliar with the concept of indentation? I believe this is indicative of a larger problem, i.e. an unwillingness or indifference to working collaboratively with other editors. That one holds very strong views regarding the editors that one might feel are intruding, unnecessarily, on an article is perfectly understandable. To put those views into print, besides demonstrating an uncollegial ownership of the article, lends nothing to article improvement. If you want to gnome around on your own, editing what you want in the way you want, go ahead. That's great; we all have different styles. Any expectation that your edits will last forever, pristine and sacrosanct, is an illusion. Wikipedia is a community based collaboration and common goals. You will need to attempt to build a consensus here and avoid explaining how other editors are "butcher[ing] 6 years worth of work" and "add[ing] deconstructive urges". I will give a six-year veteran the benefit of the doubt that instruction on consensus building would be unnecessary. Regards. Tiderolls 01:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I removed the flags and for interest am recording here that there were 2649 instances of {{Flagicon}} in the article. That's a tremendous amount of work to have inserted all the flags and other information into this page, and I'm sorry it has to go but as has been explained, WP:MOSFLAG applies to the flags, and WP:RS is required for the entries. Johnuniq (talk) 01:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• And I've just chopped everything after 1700, which still leaves several hundred red links, never mind anything else. With Gunter no longer in the picture, perhaps we can get this to the point where it's actually a usable, sourced article. As it stands, it's a near-completely unreferenced mess. (And just let me say that I'm even more steamed at Gunter, who dared protest at ANI that he's been toodling along on this list for years until All Of A Sudden People Barged In To Screw Things Up. As we can all readily see from the talk page, numerous editors have expressed their problems and concerns for years, and uniformly, Gunter's dismissed their concerns, when not outright claiming "My way is just right and my edits stay." It's a pity he wasn't checked years ago.) Ravenswing 02:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

And I've just chopped everything after 1700 - And suddenly, the page takes a couple of seconds to load, and not a minute. :-)

It's a pity he wasn't checked years ago - I guess nobody that ran into his wall of gainsaying before was 100% sure they had Wikipedia's policies on their side. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. In the last two days we've chopped 250kb from the article, and everyone can see how much is still there. Heck, if the 17th century was cut from the list as well, there'd still be a few hundred entries. One wonders exactly from where Gunter got his information on all these thousands of companies.

Come to that, we probably ought to consider the criteria for inclusion on this list. IMHO, a company should be independent; a subsidiary of anything ought not qualify. Kongō Gumi, for example, absolutely should not be on there; it was liquidated years ago, and all that exists is a tradename bought at liquidation by another firm. Ravenswing 08:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm OK with subsidiaries, personally. The "liquidated" part of Kongo Gumi is more worrying though. Is it a wholly owned subsidiary or was it liquidated? It can't be both.

In any case, in a reworked article where we have the oldest company of category X, it could still qualify as the company with the longest existence when it folded, with over 1400 years. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup of inbound links

A number of links pointing to this article are from articles of companies on the list, and the wording often makes this list out to be some sort of accolade and/or a reliable source in its own right. (Examples include "It is one of the oldest continuously operating retail companies… as ranked by the Wikipedia List of oldest companies" or "…goes as far back as 862 and has made it on to the List of oldest companies.") Rather suspiciously, a lot of these contributions were added by single-purpose accounts, anonymous IPs, or the sockpuppet User:RebeccaH. I have already removed or reworded some of these, but could do with some help for the rest. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I have cleaned up a few that were undue. Using this link shows there are currently 53 links from articles (not redirects) to List of oldest companies. Some of course will be reasonable, but many appear to be undue. Johnuniq (talk) 10:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. For anyone else who wants to help, note that a lot of times the link doesn't appear in the article text itself, but just as a reference. We can't cite ourselves as a reliable source; these references need to be replaced with citations to the original sources, or else with {{citationneeded}}. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Sources column

Is there a need for it? Or couldn't the sources (once found) be put next to the company name? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

By the year, rather, but that looks ugly, IMO. A matter of taste I guess. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That is was I was doing a while back, but (in my opinion at least!) it looked really messy when any entry had a couple; and given you generally want at least one source, I'd say it's better leaving them on their own... YMMV! Nikthestoned 11:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

suzuki

2 listed, same link — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.95.198.144 (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Minoya

This source from TDB mentions a company called Minoya in Inashiki, founded 1626 and doing "Retail liquor". However, without knowing Japanese that's all you get, because the word "Minoya" is too generic, and "Minoya Inashiki" doesn't yield anything useful. Hence it's hard to know what the company actually does and what a less generic name would be, so I haven't added it to the list. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Royal Mint

How is the Royal Mint not a government organisation? --Helenalex (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done Nikthestunned 08:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Because it isn't? The Royal Mint is a private company with a government contract. Now, that private companys shares are 100% owned by the treasury, but that does not make it a government organisation. Previously it was on eof many mints which were all private. If the "done" refers to removing it, I think that needs reverting. Auto98uk (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I went off the current status in the article for the company itself - if this is out of date then feel free to update and this page will be updated accordingly. As is it's a "Government-owned company" - which makes it ineligible for this list. Nikthestunned 15:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The royal mint treads a line where it is a private company, but the shares are owned by the government - legally speaking this doesn't make it a government organisation, but it is a difficult one to interpret. The start of the article says it exclude government organisations, which it definitely isn't, but it is owned by the government.Auto98uk (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I feel this page should have an edit notice

Though I need some help with the wording... Was thinking something along the lines of:

Anyone have any thoughts / ideas / objections? Nikthestunned 16:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

You mean on the article page itself? If so, is there a precedent for such a notice? I edit a lot of list articles where people routinely add non-notable and/or unsourced entries, and none of them contain any such notice. The pages are just watchlisted by a lot of experienced editors who revert such additions within a few hours. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

That would be an inappropriate tag to add, as tags are meant to be fixable so they can ultimately be removed. The tag you are suggesting would be a permanent fixture. Silverseren^C 22:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

It could be added as a comment in the source, though. Not sure it's very useful. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

No comments on whether it's needed or not, but I don't believe any of these methods of displaying an edit notice is what Nikthestoned is talking about. See WP:EDNO. For an example of a working edit notice, try editing WP:ANI and look at the top of the screen. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 23:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see. In that case, I'm all for it, provided there's a precedent for this sort of notice in article space. I've only ever seen them on user and project pages. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Yea, sorry I wasn't more clear - I was talking about what Jauerback identified! I've seen this on many pages, including: religious pages; pages concerning sex, BLP pages; and even on some other lists. Just seemed to be the best option as it's not visible to the casual reader and more visible to would-be editors, unlike talk page messages or revert-comments. Nikthestunned 08:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Should entry #1 (Kongō Gumi) be removed since it's no longer in operation?

If I've interpreted this list correctly, it is for companies that are *still in operation*. If so, then surely Kongō Gumi, the first member of the list, should not be there, since it ceased operating in 2006. mmj (talk) 03:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that basically the company Kongō Gumi is still a group and in operation which Takamatsu Holdings purchased. Mr. Toshitaka Kongō(men wearing the red clothes), the 39th master Kongō, is an executive officer, most of the employees have kept working for Kongō Gumi and they use same building and same mailing address having same customers. If there is no company originated from Kongō Gumi, I see a problem. Or if Kongō Gumi got merged by Takamatsu, that's highly debatable. My impression, Nissan is subsidiary of Renault but it's still Nissan as a group. However if there is not Nissan as a group and Renault is selling Nissan brand cars, it's not already Nissan but like Chevrolet or Prince.--Orcano (talk) 09:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, then keeping this on the list would make it inconsistent with the information on the Kongō Gumi page itself which states, "Kongō Gumi Co., Ltd. ... was a Japanese construction company and was the world's oldest continuously ongoing independent company, operating for over 1,400 years until it was absorbed as a subsidiary of another larger construction company.". One or the other needs to be edited so that we are consistent about whether Kongo Gumi is still a company or not, as at the moment this page says it is, and the Kongo Gumi page says (or strongly implies) it isn't anymore. mmj (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

My understanding about the page Kongō Gumi when I edited here last time was "Kongō Gumi...was...independent company...until it was absorbed as a subsidiary of another larger construction company" and "As of December 2006, Kongō Gumi continues to operate as a wholly owned subsidiary of Takamatsu." Speaking about if it's a company or not, the official page of Kongo Gumi says they are 株式会社 金剛組(Kongo Gumi Corporation) (Google translates it "Set Kongo Corporation" as 組 means a set). It's reliable source in this case because it is illegal if they lied, and it needs only hundreds yen to check it. Understanding the Kongō Gumi page looks complicated, there could be a way to edit though I am not sure what to do because it's not wrong.--Orcano (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Authenticity of Japanese Claims

Three out of five companies on this list are Japanese. Yet 90-95% of those Japanese companies don't have Wikipedia pages in English or Japanese. When you visit the pages of European or American companies listed here you often see pictures of the original building they operated in. The buildings are clearly old. In none of the Japanese entries have I seen pictures of old buildings that these companies operated from. Another thing is there are no claims from surrounding East Asian countries. Either these countries have no companies that old, Japan is a fluke or many Japanese claims are not true. The second citation of the Korean Times stats that no Korean company still in existence is older than 1896. Also, out of 102 citations, there are only three different sources (and 8 citations) backing the Japanese claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.59.155.239 (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Elsevier

I have removed Elsevier from the list as it was founded in 1880 instead of 1580. It was probably mixed up with the House of Elzevir, which was also a publisher, but is unrelated to the currently existing company.

For more information on Elzevir, visit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Elzevir

--145.79.200.114 (talk) 08:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Grimbergen

Grimbergen is today only a trade-mark of Alken-Maes, not a company. The brewing by Grimbergen ends with the French Revolution: http://www.abdijgrimbergen.be/index.php?id=85 --217.85.161.55 (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The Bingley Arms

This looks like a very old building, but according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bingley_Arms it was used as a courthouse from around AD 1000 - if that's correct it can't possibly have been owned by the same company during that time. All three sources only claim that the building was Britain's oldest pub, they do not support ownership by the same company or family.

Stefanmuc (talk) 12:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The company's own history page here suggests "a local court was held...", it doesn't state whether or not it was still a pub / restaurant in continuous operation... Also, ownership by a single entity is not required for inclusion in this list. Cheers, Nikthestunned 09:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

New Edit Notice

Based on a (now archived) discussion back in October of 2012, I added a new Edit Notice, with a few tweaks (see here). Granted, this discussion took place almost a year ago, but it seemed like a good idea at the time and had support. I don't have any idea what made me remember it now. Anyway, if you have any issues with it, please discuss it here. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 04:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Teikoku Databank as a source.

I see that a large numbers of Japanese entries to the list have been made citing Teikoku Databank as the only source. I have to question whether what appears to be a credit bureau can be considered a reliable source on the supposed founding of companies over a thousand years ago. See the Japanese-language Wikipedia article on Teikoku Databank [8] (though I'm reliant on Google translate) for details on the company. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a RS. Did you see their official site in en? Oda Mari (talk) 09:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

What is it about this credit bureau founded in 1900 that suggests to you that it would be a reliable source on the history of 1000-year-old Japanese companies? Why would a credit bureau need to conduct research into such information? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I think I am the one who start using Teikoku Databank as sources, and I understand your concern. I guess your concern comes from the wonder impression that a credit bureau would not check historical documents because it's not important as a credit bureau. I also don't know if they researched it. When I started posting it, I automatically thought it was a reliable source because Teikoku Databank was one of the two biggest credit bureau. Besides, Teikoku Databank released the old companies series and probably submit press release each time under their name as we can see it on news articles. If we want to try to make it perfect, local history books (such as each Prefectural annals(県史), City annals(市史), Town annals(町史) and Village annals(村史)) or books specifically about old companies (such as 200-year-old companies (200年企業) ISBN-13: 978-4532195274, We have been working for 1000 years - Nippon, old companies nation (千年、働いてきました―老舗企業大国ニッポン) ISBN-13: 978-4047100763 and "老舗; old companies" by library search) sounds reliable source for it. But as you can see on the list, there are too many Japanese old companies; almost every city has companies over 200 years old, and it's quite ordinary that a middle-sized city has companies lasting over 300 year long. Practically, Teikoku Databank is the only third party source we can see on the web for many old companies so far, though it might not be perfect. My opinion is that we should keep listing based on Teikoku Databank articles first so we can have the list to check, and keep checking the credibility, i.e. searching historical or specific sources. I think it can take decades long and need so many Japanese speaking volunteers who go to National Diet Library and Japanese Prefectural libraries in the whole country often. But that's the realistic solution I can think of so far. I suppose, during the procedure, some people would find better idea to strengthen credibility of single-sourced companies and to make the validation process quicker.--Orcano (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Bing serach hit 1,690,000 results. Asahi Shimbun uses TDB's research results. [9] Kanazawa Institute of Technology too. [10] Their name is an entry of a Japanese dictionary called Daijisen. See also TDB's explanation about their database. Do you think it's still not good enough to think TBD is a RS? Oda Mari (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I've no doubt that they are a reliable source as far as information directly relevant to their business activities is concerned. I'd still like to know why a credit bureau would be involved in research into pre-feudal-era Japanese history. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Because those old companies are still in business. Oda Mari (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

How does the fact that these same businesses were supposedly in business in 717 AD or whenever materially affect their credit rating? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

You can find them in historical documents, letters, records, and ukiyoe like this teahouse. Oda Mari (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if you have read WP:RS (日本語), and I recommend reading through it because it's critical in Wikipedia. In Wikipedia, Secondary sources are preferable. I suppose the years listed by TDB are basically correct, but what AndyTheGrump is saying is that he has a question if TDB articles are reliable in the context of historic study. His concern is understandable. Off course, they might have checked by asking prefectural education committees or something, but we never know as it's not verifiable. --Orcano (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Livery Companies of London

Many of the Livery Companies of London are recognised as being granted Royal Charters in the twelfth & thirteenth centuries, with even older dates of origin. See The Worshipful Company of Woolmen for an example. Should these be on the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.10.248.18 (talk) 13:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Remove Kongō Gumi?

Shouldn't Kongō Gumi be removed from the top of the list since the company failed and was liquidated in 2006? Per the Wikipedia article on the company it was liquidated and is now operated as a subsidiary of another company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.119.205.88 (talk) 03:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

This has stayed up long enough without objection. I am removing the company as it's been gone for 8 years. TMLutas (talk) 23:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced entries

Within the next few days I shall be removing all entries on this list not citing a source, per WP:V policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a good idea, but probably worth doing a cursory check for those closer to the top of the list, many without sources are indeed old enough for inclusion - just unsourced! I'll work on the top table to try and get all of those verified or confirmed-for-removal... Cheers, Nikthestunned 08:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Chequers Inns

Hi. Should the chequers Inn, Forest Row, UK be included. Founded in 1452? Probably a lot of other UK pubs and hotels of this similar / older age. http://www.chequers1452.co.uk KR James — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.185.216.194 (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

A lot of discrepancies

Hi moderating team.

Not sure if anyone else has noticed discrepancies between the articles about the companies and the list of founding dates, but I have noticed a few very strange ones. Stella Artois is listed as 1366 as it is the date on the label. That may be when the Den Horan brewery was founded, but not the Stella Artois brewery. The article states that a company must keep at least part of the original name to be in the list, but when Artois took the brewery over the name was changed in 1717. (Though a citation for that is missing)

Hoegaarden is next marked up at 1445, yet as the article about the company informs us with sources, the company actually only started in 1967 using a recipe that had been brewed in the town since 1445. So isn't 50 years old yet.

Kikkoman a Japanese food company is marked as 1630, yet the article on the company states with sources the company was founded in 1917. The article doesn't mention 1630 at all. It states that the company was created by 8 other family run businesses coming together of which at least one of them could trace back to 1603

These are just the ones that I discovered with a quick browse, I am sure there must be more. 62.7.103.150 (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

"Tysmenytsia" wrong data?

I'm pretty sure Tysmenytsia factory was founded in the 19th cent. And I couldn't find the given sources.

The sources against that entry both confirm the 1683 year. Do you have any sources which say different? Thanks, Nikthestunned 15:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on List of oldest companies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121025143352/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010%5C08%5C30%5Cstory_30-8-2010_pg17_3 to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\08\30\story_30-8-2010_pg17_3
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080221173540/http://www.laregioninternacional.com:80/noticia/1655/cercevera/Grimbergen/ to http://www.laregioninternacional.com/noticia/1655/cercevera/Grimbergen/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071115190015/http://www.premontre.org/Publica/Documents%20Page/Secondary/Doc-SEC-Tongerlo,%20Van%20Dyck004.htm to http://www.premontre.org/Publica/Documents%20Page/Secondary/Doc-SEC-Tongerlo,%20Van%20Dyck004.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of oldest companies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100310141607/http://travel.nytimes.com:80/travel/guides/asia/japan/kyoto/38848/okutan/restaurant-detail.html to http://travel.nytimes.com/travel/guides/asia/japan/kyoto/38848/okutan/restaurant-detail.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of oldest companies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150404145038/http://travel.nytimes.com/travel/guides/europe/switzerland/interlaken/43217/hotel-interlaken/hotel-detail.html to http://travel.nytimes.com/travel/guides/europe/switzerland/interlaken/43217/hotel-interlaken/hotel-detail.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Missing Company

Halydean Corporation is not mentioned in this list. It was established in 1128 by Kind David I of Scotland. It is an agricultural land holding company. Today it specializes in dairy and beef, with thousands of acres of land. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insightfullysaid (talk • contribs) 23:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Halydean Corporation was added. Insightfullysaid (talk) 11:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Laugharne Corporation

Surely the Laugharne Corporation in Wales, est. 1291, is eligible for inclusion? MikeJamesShaw (talk) 11:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of oldest companies. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.hr-online.de/website/fernsehen/sendungen/index.jsp?rubrik=75609&key=standard_document_45362513
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.letsgo.com/europe/great-britain-and-northern-ireland/oxford/nightlife/bear-inn
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131103173834/http://weekend.knack.be/lifestyle/culinair/dranken/bier/adriaen-brouwer/article-1195029291774.htm to http://weekend.knack.be/lifestyle/culinair/dranken/bier/adriaen-brouwer/article-1195029291774.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040107070325/http://www.wan-press.org/article2823.html to http://www.wan-press.org/article2823.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Kongō Gumi

Kongō Gumi, here listed as the oldest company in the world, was liquidated in 2006. Shouldn't it be removed from the list? --SabasNL (talk) 02:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on List of oldest companies. 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/20160404181153/http://www.irelandlogue.com/best-of/seans-bar-athlone-oldest-pub-in-ireland.html to http://www.irelandlogue.com/best-of/seans-bar-athlone-oldest-pub-in-ireland.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160404181153/http://www.irelandlogue.com/best-of/seans-bar-athlone-oldest-pub-in-ireland.html to http://www.irelandlogue.com/best-of/seans-bar-athlone-oldest-pub-in-ireland.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121116152634/http://www.winenews.it/print/the-winenews-corner/14906/six-italian-companies-among-the-ten-oldest-family-run-businesses-in-the-world-italy-takes-second-place-and-the-list-includes-two-tuscans-barone-ricasoli-and-marchesi-antinori-the-list-made-by-the-american-magazine-family-business to http://www.winenews.it/print/the-winenews-corner/14906/six-italian-companies-among-the-ten-oldest-family-run-businesses-in-the-world-italy-takes-second-place-and-the-list-includes-two-tuscans-barone-ricasoli-and-marchesi-antinori-the-list-made-by-the-american-magazine-family-business
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.premontre.org/Publica/Documents%20Page/Secondary/Doc-SEC-Tongerlo%2C%20Van%20Dyck004.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://list.historicengland.org.uk/resultsingle.aspx?uid=1369482
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160114084225/http://xn--fretagsamheten-vpb.se/Svenska-foretag/Foretag/Skyllbergs-Bruk/ to http://xn--fretagsamheten-vpb.se/Svenska-foretag/Foretag/Skyllbergs-Bruk/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150106054121/http://epaper.bdu.nl/stadnijkerk/epaperarchive/2010/01-13/epaper/8395522.htm to http://epaper.bdu.nl/stadnijkerk/epaperarchive/2010/01-13/epaper/8395522.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828233431/http://www.brickstoremuseum.org/fotk_20.html to http://www.brickstoremuseum.org/fotk_20.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 114 external links on List of oldest companies. 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/20130520204111/http://thecitytalking.com/leeds-roots/2012/11/16/from-miggy-to-the-moon-william-gascoigne.html to http://thecitytalking.com/leeds-roots/2012/11/16/from-miggy-to-the-moon-william-gascoigne.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130513005023/http://www.sfexaminer.com/entertainment/honor-labor-day-beer-wine-lovers to http://www.sfexaminer.com/entertainment/honor-labor-day-beer-wine-lovers
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120826231922/http://www.rheingau-musik-festival.de/rmf,en,26,schloss-johannisberg-cuveehof,festivalstage.html to http://www.rheingau-musik-festival.de/rmf,en,26,schloss-johannisberg-cuveehof,festivalstage.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222044933/http://tokyo.belgianbeerweekend.jp/en/2011/menu/beer/abbey-beer/tongerlo-brown to http://tokyo.belgianbeerweekend.jp/en/2011/menu/beer/abbey-beer/tongerlo-brown
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130523133429/http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/p110802.pdf to http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/p110802.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140507042129/http://www.naraexplorer.jp/shopping/food.html to http://www.naraexplorer.jp/shopping/food.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141121075439/http://www.pref.ibaraki.jp/discover/craft/west/08.html to http://www.pref.ibaraki.jp/discover/craft/west/08.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140606213730/http://www.jalan.net/en/japan_hotels_ryokan/Ryokan/Hyogo_Ryokan/Kobe_Arima_Akashi_Ryokan/Arima_Ryokan/arima_onsen_okunobo__established_in_1191_/ to http://www.jalan.net/en/japan_hotels_ryokan/Ryokan/Hyogo_Ryokan/Kobe_Arima_Akashi_Ryokan/Arima_Ryokan/arima_onsen_okunobo__established_in_1191_/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928072752/http://www.henleystandard.co.uk/news/news.php?id=31748 to http://www.henleystandard.co.uk/news/news.php?id=31748
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150404095758/http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s121001_98.pdf to http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s121001_98.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131125070205/http://service.escapenet.ch/publisher/pictures/662/333076/rueden_101220.pdf to http://service.escapenet.ch/publisher/pictures/662/333076/rueden_101220.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141213032332/http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s100902_20.pdf to http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s100902_20.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141217150706/http://meeting.basel.com/de/kongress_meeting/gasthof-zum-goldenen-sternen to http://meeting.basel.com/de/kongress_meeting/gasthof-zum-goldenen-sternen
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.niederoesterreich-card.at/noecard/de/default.asp?tt=NOECARD10_R31&id=145907
• Added archive https://archive.is/20141219115517/http://www.andechs.de/andechser-gastlichkeit-br-ein-genuss-fuer-leib-seele/klostergasthof.html to http://www.andechs.de/andechser-gastlichkeit-br-ein-genuss-fuer-leib-seele/klostergasthof.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141220204248/http://brauconsult.eu/content/54/41/partner to http://brauconsult.eu/content/54/41/partner
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141220204216/http://www.bestofwien.at/home/best-ofs/wiener-kueche.html to http://www.bestofwien.at/home/best-ofs/wiener-kueche.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141223063516/http://www.city.osaka.lg.jp/shobo/cmsfiles/contents/0000241/241484/201311_26.PDF to http://www.city.osaka.lg.jp/shobo/cmsfiles/contents/0000241/241484/201311_26.PDF
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.braugasthoefe.de/en/brauereigasthof-eck
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131102190253/http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s120903_26.pdf to http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s120903_26.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140330155124/http://www.akademie-erfurt.de/pages/geschichte/erfurt.php to http://www.akademie-erfurt.de/pages/geschichte/erfurt.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141227112052/http://www.47club.jp/05M-000034ace/goods/detail/10057728/ to http://www.47club.jp/05M-000034ace/goods/detail/10057728/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141227105722/http://tourismus.nuernberg.de/no_cache/erleben-geniessen/essen-und-trinken/unsere-gastro-partner/bratwurstkuechen.html to http://tourismus.nuernberg.de/no_cache/erleben-geniessen/essen-und-trinken/unsere-gastro-partner/bratwurstkuechen.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131104013329/http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s100901_80.pdf to http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s100901_80.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150404065103/http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s110801_22.pdf to http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s110801_22.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131103233449/http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s100901_67.pdf to http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s100901_67.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141210003647/http://salzwerke.de/fr/no_cache/unternehmen/geschichte/article/das-heutige-salzbergwerk-berchtesgaden-wird-erbaut.html to http://salzwerke.de/fr/no_cache/unternehmen/geschichte/article/das-heutige-salzbergwerk-berchtesgaden-wird-erbaut.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131104013244/http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s131001_30.pdf to http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s131001_30.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131104012717/http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s110801_24.pdf to http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s110801_24.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924113652/http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s110902_55.pdf to http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s110902_55.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150404073320/http://www.ybbsitz.at/wDeutsch/Wirtschaft/Firmen/r/Riess_Kelomat_GmbH.shtml to http://www.ybbsitz.at/wDeutsch/Wirtschaft/Firmen/r/Riess_Kelomat_GmbH.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150404062103/http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s100902_50.pdf to http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s100902_50.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140606233940/http://nichidai-kanagawa.jp/ob/08.html to http://nichidai-kanagawa.jp/ob/08.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141228104038/http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s100901_24.pdf to http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s100901_24.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150404181308/http://www.okayama-cci.or.jp/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=712 to http://www.okayama-cci.or.jp/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=712
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131109011002/http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s110901_51.pdf to http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s110901_51.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131105201227/http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s120901_28.pdf to http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s120901_28.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131105201302/http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s110801_37.pdf to http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s110801_37.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150404070058/http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s141001_39.pdf to http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s141001_39.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131109010959/http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s110801_98.pdf to http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s110801_98.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131109010932/https://itp.ne.jp/contents/sangyohyakusen/kumamotoshi/specialcontents/specialcontents02.html to https://itp.ne.jp/contents/sangyohyakusen/kumamotoshi/specialcontents/specialcontents02.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131109010953/http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s110801_71.pdf to http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s110801_71.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150403175945/http://www.webproducer.it/2010/11/piana-clerico-lusso-dal-1582/ to http://www.webproducer.it/2010/11/piana-clerico-lusso-dal-1582/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150403123244/http://tekutoko.com/syoku/%E9%95%B7%E4%BA%94%E9%83%8E%E9%A4%85%E6%9C%AC%E8%88%97/ to http://tekutoko.com/syoku/%E9%95%B7%E4%BA%94%E9%83%8E%E9%A4%85%E6%9C%AC%E8%88%97/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150130212134/http://www.pcg.or.jp/okashiya/josuian/josuian.html to http://www.pcg.or.jp/okashiya/josuian/josuian.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150403202225/http://www.hoga-professional.de/branchenbuch-gastgewerbe/detail/tx_branchenbuch/nordrhein-westfalen-10/essen-4/essen-4/gastronomie/piesers-gasthaus-seit-1589/?no_cache=1&cHash=8fc8f9245dcc31f89215f8cbf366ac59 to http://www.hoga-professional.de/branchenbuch-gastgewerbe/detail/tx_branchenbuch/nordrhein-westfalen-10/essen-4/essen-4/gastronomie/piesers-gasthaus-seit-1589/?no_cache=1&cHash=8fc8f9245dcc31f89215f8cbf366ac59
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129013504/http://www.legionpaper.com/our-mills/lana.html to http://www.legionpaper.com/our-mills/lana.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131109010956/http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s100901_60.pdf to http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s100901_60.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131109011005/http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s110802_34.pdf to http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s110802_34.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150404104412/http://www.click-mainz.de/service/gastronomie/restaurants/gasthaus-specht to http://www.click-mainz.de/service/gastronomie/restaurants/gasthaus-specht
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131109011008/http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s100901_40.pdf to http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s100901_40.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140226223632/http://ej.islib.jp/ejournal/1541101744.html to http://ej.islib.jp/ejournal/1541101744.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20150106075836/http://www.cantonbrand.com/en/enterprise/?id=10 to http://www.cantonbrand.com/en/enterprise/?id=10
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150404103035/http://edu.city.hitachiota.ibaraki.jp/gakushu/fons/pdf/no54.pdf to http://edu.city.hitachiota.ibaraki.jp/gakushu/fons/pdf/no54.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131110193527/http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s110803_30.pdf to http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s110803_30.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150403185857/http://www.shokunin-times.com/cgi-bin/blog/page.cgi?act=page&id=307 to http://www.shokunin-times.com/cgi-bin/blog/page.cgi?act=page&id=307
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130714022325/http://www.stcb.or.jp/sansaku/course03/page01.htm to http://www.stcb.or.jp/sansaku/course03/page01.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131110193530/http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s100901_77.pdf to http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s100901_77.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150109133933/http://www.taste-gassner.com/stieglkeller/pdf/Gassner-Gastronomie_Folder.pdf to http://www.taste-gassner.com/stieglkeller/pdf/Gassner-Gastronomie_Folder.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150109134604/http://www.mamilade.de/rheinland-pfalz/bad-duerkheim/essen/gasthaus-restaurant/hofgut-restaurant-goennheim to http://www.mamilade.de/rheinland-pfalz/bad-duerkheim/essen/gasthaus-restaurant/hofgut-restaurant-goennheim
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402220642/http://www.rinnai-style.jp/dealers/detail/rtl50-02535_0.html to http://www.rinnai-style.jp/dealers/detail/rtl50-02535_0.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150205172418/http://www.gofukucho.or.jp/info/tanbou1.html to http://www.gofukucho.or.jp/info/tanbou1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150109152317/http://www.ammergauer-alpen.de/bad-kohlgrub/Entdecken-Sie-Bad-Kohlgrub/Regionale-Produkte/Brauerei-und-Destillerie-Kloster-Ettal to http://www.ammergauer-alpen.de/bad-kohlgrub/Entdecken-Sie-Bad-Kohlgrub/Regionale-Produkte/Brauerei-und-Destillerie-Kloster-Ettal
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150110120122/http://www.asahi.co.jp/tsalad/guest/20100213.html to http://www.asahi.co.jp/tsalad/guest/20100213.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140227070612/http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s110802_58.pdf to http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s110802_58.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150110111034/http://www.a-bussan.jp/ippin/kimura/index.html to http://www.a-bussan.jp/ippin/kimura/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150110102609/http://www.jb-medi.net/2016/tmpl/co.php?ci=060745&w=UW538b380eae3582622 to http://www.jb-medi.net/2016/tmpl/co.php?ci=060745&w=UW538b380eae3582622
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150404213803/http://www.austria.info/at/oesterreich-entdecken/stadtlokal-zum-schwarzen-kameel-1488994.html to http://www.austria.info/at/oesterreich-entdecken/stadtlokal-zum-schwarzen-kameel-1488994.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150403192813/http://www.bierspot.de/brauereien/brauereien_p/privatbrauerei_gessner_343.html to http://www.bierspot.de/brauereien/brauereien_p/privatbrauerei_gessner_343.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150404045228/http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s120902_20.pdf to http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s120902_20.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714200739/http://opi-rina.chunichi.co.jp/topic/20110209-3.html to http://opi-rina.chunichi.co.jp/topic/20110209-3.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150223045408/http://nozawa.jp/stay/tokiwa/main.htm to http://nozawa.jp/stay/tokiwa/main.htm
• Added archive https://archive.is/20150118205513/http://homepage2.nifty.com/shinise/Book/nen_1.htm to http://homepage2.nifty.com/shinise/Book/nen_1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140227072130/http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s130901_38.pdf to http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s130901_38.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150418175402/http://murakara.shokokai.or.jp/Html/0040220750/index.htm to http://murakara.shokokai.or.jp/Html/0040220750/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150404034831/http://hrs.de/deutschland/oestrich/schwan.html to http://hrs.de/deutschland/oestrich/schwan.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140227071332/http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s110902_27.pdf to http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s110902_27.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130609174402/http://www.wiste.jp/store/store_view.asp?mem_num=10 to https://www.wiste.jp/store/store_view.asp?mem_num=10
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140214071752/http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s110901_67.pdf to http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s110901_67.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203001741/http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s110901_47.pdf to http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s110901_47.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131202235253/http://www.kibun.co.jp/knowledge/nabe/history/nenpyou/ to http://www.kibun.co.jp/knowledge/nabe/history/nenpyou/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203010723/http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s100901_87.pdf to http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s100901_87.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402161758/http://www.artifiche.com/cms/front_content.php?idcat=6&article=6&br=7&v=d&lang=2 to http://www.artifiche.com/cms/front_content.php?idcat=6&article=6&br=7&v=d&lang=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131202221652/http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s100901_83.pdf to http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s100901_83.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150119165116/http://weine.inbrd.de/winzer-und-weingueter-im-weinanbaugebiet-rheingau/weingut-bickelmaier/ to http://weine.inbrd.de/winzer-und-weingueter-im-weinanbaugebiet-rheingau/weingut-bickelmaier/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203015143/http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s120901_83.pdf to http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s120901_83.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150121095613/http://www.sun-1.jp/fs/hyogokan/c/marukan to http://www.sun-1.jp/fs/hyogokan/c/marukan
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304200009/http://ec.europa.eu/environment/emas/pdf/es_library/15_96_de_schlossbrauerei_autenried_08.pdf to http://ec.europa.eu/environment/emas/pdf/es_library/15_96_de_schlossbrauerei_autenried_08.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141117154233/http://www.nico.or.jp/nespace/food/zizake/03.html to http://www.nico.or.jp/nespace/food/zizake/03.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203042626/http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s110801_20.pdf to http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s110801_20.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131230233202/http://www.enghunan.gov.cn/Business/Enterprises_Window/Business_Partners/201307/t20130704_872110.htm to http://www.enghunan.gov.cn/Business/Enterprises_Window/Business_Partners/201307/t20130704_872110.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150122111432/http://www.rheinromantik.de/weingut-emmerich-in-leutesdorf-am-rhein/ to http://www.rheinromantik.de/weingut-emmerich-in-leutesdorf-am-rhein/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150122112409/http://www.elster-instromet.com/assets/downloads/Profiles-Journale/Journal_2004_03.pdf to http://www.elster-instromet.com/assets/downloads/Profiles-Journale/Journal_2004_03.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203043328/http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s110801_10.pdf to http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s110801_10.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150122111411/http://www.wao.or.jp/waoya/34/ec34/ozasa.html to http://www.wao.or.jp/waoya/34/ec34/ozasa.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141213115032/http://www.kyomeibutuhyakumikai.jp/uemurayoshithugu.htm to http://www.kyomeibutuhyakumikai.jp/uemurayoshithugu.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150128114724/http://www.sponichi.co.jp/olympic/special/beijing_special/beijing_kagiya/kijilist.html to http://www.sponichi.co.jp/olympic/special/beijing_special/beijing_kagiya/kijilist.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150128115750/http://www.tsuyama-koyou.com/chakuchigata_kanko/tagoshuzo-kengaku/ to http://www.tsuyama-koyou.com/chakuchigata_kanko/tagoshuzo-kengaku/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150403175324/http://gt-toyama.net/1928.htm to http://gt-toyama.net/1928.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150403135503/http://www.dentogura.jp/brand/morita_sake/ to http://www.dentogura.jp/brand/morita_sake/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203034247/http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s100901_85.pdf to http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s100901_85.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150404070623/http://www.khs.info/en/towns/mariazell/hotels.html to http://www.khs.info/en/towns/mariazell/hotels.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150403180129/http://furusato.tori-info.co.jp/kigyo_guide/kigyo/0061/index.html to http://furusato.tori-info.co.jp/kigyo_guide/kigyo/0061/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131228063804/http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s121001_24.pdf to http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s121001_24.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150404082151/http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s110801_26.pdf to http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s110801_26.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150204120958/http://www.chuiyaku.or.jp/shop/shizuoka/niiya-shizuoka.html to http://www.chuiyaku.or.jp/shop/shizuoka/niiya-shizuoka.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150205121030/http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s100901_69.pdf to http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s100901_69.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150205131432/http://www.gofukucho.or.jp/info/tanbou2.html to http://www.gofukucho.or.jp/info/tanbou2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150205121030/http://www.hirado-net.com/spot/detail/241?gid=6 to http://www.hirado-net.com/spot/detail/241?gid=6
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150708142433/http://www.cs.town.gojome.akita.jp/kanko_tabe03.htm to http://www.cs.town.gojome.akita.jp/kanko_tabe03.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150207082857/http://www.mtc.pref.kyoto.lg.jp/ce_press/no979/wagamatikigyo_2-1.htm to http://www.mtc.pref.kyoto.lg.jp/ce_press/no979/wagamatikigyo_2-1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150209113154/http://www.city.chikuma.lg.jp/docs/2014121900017/ to http://www.city.chikuma.lg.jp/docs/2014121900017/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.kyoto-kawaramachi.or.jp/e/trad/tsujikura.html?map=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150211110738/http://www.e-yoko.jp/shop/itokichi/ to http://www.e-yoko.jp/shop/itokichi/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150404100037/http://saitama-ls.net/location/detail/000534.html to http://saitama-ls.net/location/detail/000534.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150208035314/http://dot.asahi.com/higashinihon/ to http://dot.asahi.com/higashinihon/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131109010940/http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s100901_45.pdf to http://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/s100901_45.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of oldest companies. 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/20140723013102/http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/snapshot/snapshot.asp?ticker=ABK:GR to http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/snapshot/snapshot.asp?ticker=ABK:GR
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.dvz.de/rubriken/menschen-karriere/single-view/nachricht/der-mann-mit-dem-ueberblick.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141227111620/http://www.baufeuer.de/sommerhuber.html to http://www.baufeuer.de/sommerhuber.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.nadagogo.ne.jp/kura/kenbisi.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www1.kmu.unisg.ch/org/kmu/web.nsf/SysWebRessources/Pressemeldung_27.02.2006_Die+Greise+der+Unternehmenswelt/$FILE/2006_02_27_Tagesanzeiger.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150404105156/http://kasamatsu-mall.jp/shikoran/shikoran.html to http://kasamatsu-mall.jp/shikoran/shikoran.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://www.handelsblatt.com/7537138.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150416102718/http://sanoya.jizake.com/e2381.html to http://sanoya.jizake.com/e2381.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20150203091015/http://www.luxworldwide.com/blog/jeanrichard-and-arsenal/ to http://www.luxworldwide.com/blog/jeanrichard-and-arsenal/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)