From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Brown Bailout

I'm amazed that no mention is made in this article of the UPS lobbying to create the "Brown Bailout," intended as a way to cripple rival FedEx and direct government monies to the coffers of UPS. Could someone please include a paragraph about this? 99.93.240.124 ( talk) 12:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Why not find sources and add it yourself? DonIago ( talk) 15:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Massive gap on the 'Trains' sub-heading before the end of the text for that sub-heading should be removed

In my opinion, the massive gap on the 'Trains' sub-heading on the 'Transportation' section before the end of the text for that sub-heading should be removed as it looks strange in my opinion to have such a big gap. Xboxsponge15 ( talk) 09:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Extra blank lines have been removed. -- David Biddulph ( talk) 22:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Nightline

Why is there no nightline wiki they still operate as a separate company with contract ties with UPS but is not owned by UPS. I can confirm this as i live near a depot and still see nightline vans as well as UPS SharkiePaws96 ( talk) 08:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Disregard what i just said but they’re are still operating as nightline with in ROI SharkiePaws96 ( talk) 08:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC) reply

The years '2020' and '2021' are misaligned in the table under the 'Finances' tab

The years 2020 and 2021 are misaligned compared to the other years in the table under the 'Finances' tab. This makes the table look unprofessional in my opinion. Xboxsponge15 ( talk) 16:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC) reply

They're misaligned because they're cited while the other years are not. I would be reluctant to make any changes without the input of other editors, but some options that come to mind are moving the citations to their own column and/or deleting the unreferenced figures. DonIago ( talk) 17:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Requested move 17 July 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. yeah this isn't happening. It's SNOWing like crazy ( non-admin closure) InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 03:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply

– I'm surprised that UPS still leads to a disambiguation page. According to page views, as of the last 30 days of writing, the United Parcel Service's article has just under 49,000 views. Everything else listed at UPS not related to the courier does not come close to denying the courier a supermajority. I believe that it's time we either move United Parcel Service to UPS as it is clearly the WP:PRIMARY topic (even without factoring in the looming Teamsters strike), or alternatively making UPS by default redirect to United Parcel Service. Either option works for me, though if I had to choose, I would prefer the former. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 20:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Oppose. I agree with the above comments. "UPS" meaning uninterrupted power supply is too commonly used to move this article. Rreagan007 ( talk) 07:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose - there is an an incredibly high bar in my mind to pass for any particular article being primary for a TLA, and this is far below it. -- Netoholic @ 09:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose yes this is what I think of first but Britannica uses the full name and per Wpscatter's comment about Uninterruptible power supply. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 16:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Strong oppose UPS would mean uninterruptable power supply to a great deal of people. -- 67.70.25.80 ( talk) 02:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Question: Can we have a "UPS (United Parcel Service)" article which redirects to "United Parcel Service" ? That way it would show up in the search bar when a user types U P S right away so they don't have to go to the DAB page? I know this can be created but I'm not familiar enough with policy that I don't want to create more problems by creating this myself now, so I'm asking. --- Avatar317 (talk) 06:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    I'm sorry, but no. That would be a misuse of the parenthetical disambiguator. Rreagan007 ( talk) 23:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    I agree that that could not be an article title, but I think the question is asking whether UPS (United Parcel Service) could be created as a redirect to United Parcel Service, and I see nothing wrong with that. Station1 ( talk) 04:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Oh, yeah creating that redirect would be fine. Rreagan007 ( talk) 05:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. For the reasons stated by Zxcvbnm and Wpscatter. -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 14:56, 19 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose as Americanism. UPS to most people in the world is apt to mean uninterruptible power supply or some other meaning of the acronym.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merchants Parcel Delivery, 1883 ...?...

"Merchants Parcel Delivery, Inc., conducts a business principally in distribution from retail stores to their customers, established in 1883. Since its incorporation in 1916 it has operated under authority of the Pennsylvania Commission."

  • "MERCHANTS PARCEL DELIVERY, Inc. v. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION". vLex. 27 July 1942.
.... 0mtwb9gd5wx ( talk) 23:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:United_Parcel_Service&oldid=1206643046"