This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Shouldn't there be some discussion of the major projects, including large successes and large failures (MN bridge collapse) that this company had? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andythechef ( talk • contribs) 20:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Why is there this penchant for redirecting old companies into whatever they've been aborbed/morphed into? For instance, Dames & Moore was its own entity for years, with a history and projects and... existence. Now it's just a footnote to URS. This is not being very true to the idea of preserving information. Cellmaker ( talk) 08:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Many failed or acquired or merged companies end up as Permastubs, and in many of those cases it is better to fold that material into a broader article. That said, there's no reason why the there can't be more detail on Dames & Moore in this article, if the sources exist to support it. And the old article is always around, in the history, so it can be recovered if need be. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 15:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)