Talk:John Deere/Archives/2013

CNG bus engines

Deere.commentions that the company also makes CNG engines for city buses. Whhat make are those buses?

they make the engines for many different bus and truck manufactures, some are even installed by coach builders and not the truck/bus makers. Google Deere 8.1 liter cng http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FZX/is_10_68/ai_93917120/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.30.108.81 (talk) 06:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

John Deere the Man

What I went ahead and did was to create a seperate article on John Deere the person. Having a seperate article for Deere the man permits more detail on him than would be ideal for an article on the company.

JesseG 03:09, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

John Deere Buyers guide

I would like to add a link to a john deere buyers guide site located: http://www.fwi.co.uk/gr/tractortable2007.html

Pune, India

I am inquiring as to the status of the augusta works plant listed in this article. We buy several john deere tractors of various sizes and i was told by several salesmen that the 5000 series tractor which was made in augusta is now made in Pune, India. Is the augusta plant still operational and should some mention of the smaller tractors being outsourced to other countries i.e. http://www.deere.com/en_US/deerecom/johndeere_worldwide/index.html which lists the plant location and tractor or equipment series which it manufacture be made. I find it interesting that the augusta plant does not appear on this list. I also find it interesting and maybe mentionable that only the larger 7000-9000 series tractors are manufactured in the usa while all of the smaller tractors or made in other countries. Thank you Jmsseal 03:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

---

The 4000 and 5000 series (along with the 110 backhoe) are manufactured at John Deere Commercial Products, in Augusta, GA. The plant operates under the Consumer and Commercial Equipment division rather than the Worldwide Agricultural division, which tends to lead to some confusion. Sperryrand 01:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Logo green.gif

Image:Logo green.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Environmental Record

Unless I am reading the citation incorrectly, Deere & Co. is listed as the 18th largest producer of pollution, not the largest producer. - 12.208.83.65 19:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Pages to be moved. John Deere → John Deere (inventor) has been completed but the links need to be dabbed since some are already for the company. So can someone please fix the ones for the person. Once that is completed, leave a note on my talk and I'll move Deere & Company → John Deere. That last most was the consensus. Consensus was also there for the person but the new name was up in the air. I moved it as indicated since that is what the article infobox listed him as. I don't expect there to be opposition to that choice. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Deere & Company → John Deere (company) — This company is known to most consumers as John Deere. As such, the article should be called that per WP:COMMONNAME. The company is not part of a much larger structure but, rather, the John Deere brand is the primary purpose of the corporation. The naming convention of the article has become a larger issue because of a discussion over whether to rename the category to match the article. If this change is agreed to, it would require a change in the introduction and a rename of the article about the founder of the company. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• John Deere → John Deere (person)

• I don't oppose renaming the article about the company, but I do not think that parenthetical disambiguation is need in both titles—i.e., if the article about the company is moved to John Deere (company), then the article about the founder should remain at John Deere. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Hmm, it might make sense to have just the parenthetical for the person as the company article appears more central, at least to me. (The person article actually has more links to it but most seem intended for the company.) No strong opinion about the exact parentheticals though. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support moving John Deere to John Deere (person) (or John Deere (industrialist) or what have you) and this article to John Deere; compare at Arthur Andersen, Calvin Klein. There are counter-examples, but I would argue Walt Disney and Brian Hart were celebrities in their own right and are much better known than John Deere the man. The situation with Yves Saint Laurent, to note another, seems almost accidental, based on an original misspelling.- choster (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Separate Article

Maybe I'm missing something, shouldn't John Deere himself have his own entity, his own article, not merged with the company? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Statz000 (talk • contribs) 08:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

See the discussion above and John Deere (inventor). --CutOffTies (talk) 13:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

So I'm glad that I headed my comment with "maybe I'm missing something," obviously I was. Thank you. Eric Statzer (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move noting that the nominator appears to agree in the last comment.

John Deere → Deere & Company — John Deere is the name of the biggest and most common brand of Deere & Company. Being the article mentions John_Deere#Subsidiaries_and_affiliates, a rename (again) might be in order. The sign out front the John Deere World Headquarters main entrance does in fact say "Deere & Company". CTJF83 chat 17:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Oppose: What's matters to me is making sure readers can find the article where they expect it. There's a policy at WP:COMMONNAME that basically encourages common usage over offical naming. The official name currently is "Deere & Company" but I think we have a couple reasons to think "John Deere" is the common usage:

• Not counting the 2 articles about the company and the man, there are 17 articles in the category with the phrase "John Deere" and 0 with the phrase "Deere & Company".
• The company really is the same as the brand. The primary function of the company is making, distributing, financing and service John Deere vehicles. The company was markting heavy construction branded separately but now even the website has a John Deere sign at the top of the page.
• The John Deere World Headquarters is known in Moline by that name not the name that's actually on the building.

But, if there are areas where "Deere & Company" is more in use, let me know and I'm always willing to reconsider my position. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• You can't really base it on Wikipedia categories, those could be improperly named too. CTJF83 chat 04:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose; This is a textbook case of WP:COMMONNAME. Powers ^T 15:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose; I've commented below. A redirect from "Deere & Co." to "John Deere (company)" would be the simplest way to handle this. htom (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Comment: There was discussion about renaming the John Deere Category. The conclusion of that discussion was instead to rename the article based on the cat based on the consensus on this talk page to rename the article. That doesn't mean we can't re-evaluate that decision of course but, if the article name is reverted, I'll renominate the category name to match the lead article name and I'll have to undo some relinking I did today. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I mean I understand John Deere is the common name, but the company as a whole is Deere & Company, that's what it says outside the headquarters...John Deere is the brand of Deere & Company. CTJF83 chat 03:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I would have agreed with you a couple years ago because their Timberjack products were marketed serpately and they had a separately branded mining division that I don't think there's an article for. But both of those brands were folded into John Deere. And now their phasing out Nortrax as a brand. What's left that's not John Deere? (Honest question, maybe I'm missing something.) RevelationDirect (talk) 04:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Hitachi I know is still pretty big...this and this mention Deere & Company. CTJF83 chat 04:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Hmmm, both of those links actually are branded as "XYZ: A John Deere Company". Good point on Hitachi though, there are several joint ventures operating under other names. I normally would tend to weigh those less because they aren't completely part of the company, although the Chinese ones are a significant part of their overall business plan. OK, as a point of fact I concede a large majority but not all of the company's output is branded as John Deere.RevelationDirect (talk) 05:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
• What do you think people looking for those joint ventures will type in? If you think they'll type in "Deere & Company", that would suggest renaming the article. If you think they would type in the name of the JV, we could do redirects for those without a separate article. Conversely, I think readers are more likely to type in John Deere when they want the company which is why this article was renamed but we could handle that traffic through a disambig. Or maybe my "reader experience" standard is not what matters here. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree most, if not all users will type in John Deere (JD) to get the company. But shouldn't we use the official company name as the article? I would have JD redirect to Deere & Company (DC)....OR we could just leave this titled JD and remove everything about other subsidiary companies, or have an article for JD and one for DC...I'm trying to think of a comparison main company and subsidiary company to see how they are named on here...anything come to mind? I'm seeing results on pages that list JD and some that list DC...the stock exchange has it as DC CTJF83 chat 05:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
    • There are very good reasons we do not use "official company name"s as article titles; see WP:OFFICIALNAMES. Powers ^T 15:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
      • You got a non-essay example? CTJF83 chat 19:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
        • No, but nor should one be necessary; the essay I linked simply explains part of the reasoning behind WP:COMMONNAMES, which is an aspect of our article naming policy. Powers ^T 19:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The ticker I show is DE, which isn't helpful. There are a number of examples like IBM were the acronym is the article name, but IBM clearly applies to the whole company. I'm trying to think of another company in this situation but Deere & Company is kinda breaking marketing rules by having a corporate name removed from their main product. Standard Oil of California (Chevron), Venator (Foot Locker) and Dayton-Hudson Corporation (Target Stores) were some examples that came to mind but all have now changed their corporate name to their top brand. I'll keep trying to think of a current example. If we created a separate article for Deere & Company, what would that look like? It would say that the company owns some joint ventures and the John Deere brand. I suppose it would make sense to have the corporate infobox with that company. Would that work as a stand-alone article? RevelationDirect (talk) 12:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The company name is a matter of history, outlined well in the article, and I doubt that it will change soon. What doesn't show directly in the article (and is pure opinion on my part, as someone whose father was a life-long Deere employee) is the streak of nepotism that runs through the company culture and history. This has both good and bad points, but it was there, and is still there. Verbally, for them, the company is "Deere", not "John Deere", not "Deere and company". Farmers are a conservative lot, and changing the name would send a bunch of signals that Deere wouldn't want. I'd keep the article at John Deere (company), with a redirect from Deere & Company; an alternative would be John Deere (brand) redirecting to the article Deere & Company, but that seems much more clumsy. htom (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
    • You are right on most people, at least where I live, with around 20 Deere facilities, as it is often called just "Deere". I just figured we should use the name on the headquarters building. CTJF83 chat 19:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I was hoping the company name would have changed by now! No such luck, huh? RevelationDirect (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Not yet anyway...I guess we can close this, the sign out front HQ says John Deere, although the entry sign does say Deere & Company. I guess we should go with WP:COMMONNAME. CTJF83 chat 21:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

John Deere's history in John Deere (company) article

It states that John Deere arrived in Illinois in 1836. However, per the John Deere company Web site, John Deere arrived in Illinois in 1837. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.81.241 (talk) 20:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide a source? CTJF83 20:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Where's the Article?

Why is the entire article on a major U.S. corporation only one(1) paragraph? I mean the photos are cute, but where is the substance?Stevenmitchell (talk) 04:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

History section

The page seems to lack a history of the company. Though it currently outlines the founding, it then skips ahead to the present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowy150 (talk • contribs) 10:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

That section was once written by Jua Cha in 2006, but was missing since 2008 because of undetected vandalism. Well, it's back now. --:bdk: 21:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I saw that this section was missing again in September 2013 after it was deleted by an unknown user in May 2012 for no reason. It has issues (mainly missing references) but those can be fixed. This mid-high importance article needs a history section to complete it as several comments on the talk page have mentioned. I restored the last known history section from May 2012. Dbroer (talk) 02:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)