Talk:CIMIC Group

Australia Low‑importance

	Australia portal CIMIC Group is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

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

Thiess-digital (talk · contribs)

Untitled

I believe this article should not be deleted because it is a major listed company: it is also a major investor in Asia Pacific Transport Dormskirk (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thiess Services

Added: Thiess Services, an environmental and utilities contracting organisation and an independent subsidiary of parent company Thiess.

However, this company wiki may need a re-think due to the size and structure. It is also subject to a number of M&A's and internal changes so needs to be reviewed for consistancy in associations. Jackobs (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Logo from 1949-2015

I doubt that this logo was used since 1949. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.89.177.128 (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amended. Dormskirk (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on CIMIC Group. 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:

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) 05:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should that be omitted?

Some years ago I remember Leighton shares going up like a rocket which was the first time I heard about the company. Then came all kinds of mentionings of disaster when Hochtief etc became involved and as an Australian I found it a pity that this Australian company had not remained Australian. I am no expert and have no specific interest in this but after hearing that Public Private Partnerships can be more expensive than pure public structures I researched this and found that Leighton had hundreds of millions of losses through Public Private Partnerships because the prior assessments were obviously wrong in several or all cases.

Is it not relevant what caused a company to be so wounded that it was taken over? We should be interested and informed because NOT learning from cases is ...... stupid? 2001:8003:A0D2:A100:BD78:60F1:447C:4A45 (talk) 04:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should Thiess be broken out to a seperate article?

Thiess is a major entity in itself, enough so that I think it could (and should) be broken out into a seperate article. CIMIC simply is its parent organisation, but Thiess operates completely independently. I think there is a strong case for seperation when the fact that one of Thiess' subsidiaries, Thiess Contractors Indonesia is an article in itself. ItsPugle (talk) 08:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There are too many articles on subsidiaries on wikipedia already. It would be better to improve the quality of the CIMIC article. Dormskirk (talk) 10:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a strong case for Thiess to be its own article. While it most definitely a subsidiary of CIMIC, it's a completely seperate entity (it doesn't share offices, staff, finances etc). Plus, I'd be very suprised to find someone who would be looking around for Thiess information and would be happy to only find CIMIC information; they're completely different in same way that Microsoft is the owner of GitHub. ItsPugle (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ at this time. There is at most three sentences in this article about Thiess that I could find, and they would probably belong here even if there was a separate Thiess Pty Ltd article. Given that in May this year, someone with a username that suggests they are connected wrote a promotional article at that name, it's possibly best at this stage to make a decent (WP:NPOV) section in this article, then propose it be split out when it is as big as the rest of the article. --Scott Davis ^Talk 06:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ItsPugle: Thiess Contractors Indonesia exists, but is not a great article either. English language sources should be easier to find for the Australian company, and Special:WhatLinksHere/Thiess Pty Ltd should give some good starting points if all those links are cited. --Scott Davis ^Talk 06:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Split for some companies. For example, Leighton Hong Kong worth to split to another article and no one probably want to have a disproportionately long section about the scandal / controversy section at CIMIC Group's article but in fact all about Leighton Hong Kong. Merge and split is based on is that WP:Overlap, Article size and WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. If the subsidiaries pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, it is totally worths to be split into another article or start over entirely. Off-topic, Leighton Hong Kong is a major main contractor of Hong Kong, which would have more content to be dig out apart from recent scandal of their construction management.

Back to the topic for "Thiess Pty Ltd". It was acquired by Leighton Holdings in 1983 according to this wiki article. Thiess still have different brand and presumably worked as a separate incorporated entity . If there is source to prove its WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, then it is totally worth to split and may be boldly to do it. Unless people like to challenge something that passing WP:GNG and WP:NCORP in WP:AFD for their WP:IDONTLIKEIT Matthew hk (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I expect that Thiess Pty Ltd would fairly easily pass WP:GNG, and if someone wanted to, they could probably build an article using the references on inbound links to it. Unfortunately, the attempts by a connected user did not create a good starting point. My "Oppose" is about WP:SPLIT, not WP:AFC. There is simply not enough in this article at present to split out. --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the failed attempt to create an article gives clues of things to look for, but that promotional attempt didn't bother to provide references for any of the statements, nor wikilink any of the claimed projects to make it easier to pick up from. It looks like an earlier version provided some wikilinks, but still no references. --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that wikilinks are a good starting point because if the projects cannot be wikilinked to projects, then by implication the projects are not notable. If you look at Balfour Beatty for example, all the projects listed are wikilinked and by implication are notable. But we would still need independent citations. Dormskirk (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottDavis:, The failed attempt is primary due to Thiess-digital (talk · contribs) is a blatantly paid editor and nothing to do with WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Matthew hk (talk) 02:51, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I recognised that, and encourage anyone who feels so inclined to either add Theiss info to this article, or do a better job of a sourced and NPOV new article. --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seem your are suggesting ItsPugle (talk · contribs) is related to CIMIC without any evidence. Matthew hk (talk) 03:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some of the notable dams, prisons etc that Thiess built. The coal mines are quite difficult because some of them go back to the 19th century: by implication Thiess simply undertook some ongoing capital works there. Dormskirk (talk) 12:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean ItsPugle (talk · contribs), I meant Thiess-digital (talk · contribs), who has made previous attempts to replace the redirect at Thiess Pty Ltd. Sorry for any confusion. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After having built up some meaningful material on Thiess, I would now be OK with spitting it out as a separate article, and would be content to action that if others are also OK. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have no objection to the existence of a separate article. --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. A fully-referenced article can now be found at Thiess Pty Ltd. There may be more room for improvement. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]