Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business and Economics/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

External links in business, economics and finance articles

The business, economics and finance articles seem to be attracting a lot of inappropriate external links, especially in the External links sections. There's a good note about this on the talk page for business plan (see the unsigned note under www.bplans.com). I think it would help the quality of the articles if we avoid using external links sections as much as possible. External links that are references for the article should be in the reference list, not the external link section. And nothing should be in the reference list that wasn't used in writing the article.

Also, within the articles, I think it's a good practice to use ref tags or citation tags and generate a reflist in the references section, rather than have external links scattered throughout the articles.

I'm bringing this up because I think we're inviting trouble with those external links sections. Every software vendor, bank, repair shop and consultant wants to be on those lists.

Related, I believe the See also sections are supposed to be limited to wikilinks.

Comments appreciated. --SueHay 13:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


Leo Melamed

Sorry if this is not the appropriate place for this. The article on Leo Melamed is in bad shape. I've tried to tidy up but it really needs more work than I can do. Any assistance would be appreciated as this is a truly notable person and this article is an embarrassment. Please let me know if I there is another noticeboard where I should post this request.--Samiharris 23:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Try rating it top priority on the Biographies project on the article's talk page. --SueHay 00:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I tried, but there is no "priority" classification. Can you help with this? Thanks very much.--Samiharris 17:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Subprime lending

Since subprime lenders are having all sorts of problems lately I of course came on WP to see what we have on the subject and found not a lot to speak of over two different articles. I have done my best to merge and rename and basic cleanup for the new Subprime lending article but I will leave it to you guys who are more knowlegible on the subject to give it some direction and more content. In particular that article needs citations and some more background info. Cheers! -- Emax0 03:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Business aspects in tech-related articles

While assessing, I came across many auto- and aircraft-company articles with very low attention to their business life. Do we have any content template dedicated to such aspect, so I could simply insert it instead of writing notices to pages' talks? By the way, this my request is relevant to this one above. Thanks, Ukrained 13:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been adding a company infobox to the articles, even if I can't fill in all the information. See Category:Business infobox templates. The infobox lets editors know what info is needed about the company itself. --SueHay 17:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Experienced some problems with that infobox. Company location entries are hard to fill in smoothly, but I hope to learn dealing with them. More important issue is criteria for entries like company type and ownership. I guess the whole WP taxonomy of companies needs improvement. It is necessary for at least non-Western economies with their low transparency in business. By the way, I'm going to solve these issues within the proposed sub-Wikiproject Companies (everyone is invited to support the proposal).

I'll formulate my exact questions and suggestions later, when finished adding the Infobox to all Ukrainian company pages. Other editors' reaction to new infoboxes in those articles will provide me with new ideas. Thanks, Ukrained 09:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

What to do about articles that have been moved to the Wiki dictionary

While looking through unassessed articles I found some that have been moved to the dictionary - should these be rated as stubs? Should they have their WikiProject business and economics tags removed? Please help. Egfrank 11:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Policy Questions

Company articles

While working through the list of unrated articles I found an article that seems to be a company advertising itself - a real estate fund in the process of soliciting for a new fund.

What is the policy for including/excluding descriptions of specific companies? Egfrank 11:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually - I've found lots of them -and- the policy page for company articles. So now I'm wondering -

  • don't we need to go through the zillions of company articles and decide which ones really are notable?
  • is there some standard way that we can categorize an article so we know that someone has already done the notability fact checking? It would be a lot easier to work as a team if we had a way of knowing the last time an article has been fact checked (for notability or any other reason).
  • for our purposes, what counts as reliable sources? Some suggestions:
    • mention in the New York Times, Wash Post, other major journal
    • mentioned in the Fortune 100/500/1000
    • mentioned in local top N listing (e.g. Wash Post has one for DC area)
    • any listed public company
    • active supporter of standards and/or open source organization (e.g. influences its industry via participation)
    • used in a biz school/biz book case study
    • other? is this list too broad? is this list too narrow? is it biased?

Any thoughts would be most appreciated. Egfrank 15:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Generally company articles, as long as they're neutral, are left in Wiki for a while so that editors have time to expand the articles and establish notability. If the company article remains undeveloped for a long time, someone will tag it for notability or at least put a question on the talk page. --SueHay 18:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, yet again :-) Egfrank 18:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Articles Relating to Organizational Behavior

I found a Psych article Attribution theory classified as a business article. I'm not sure what to do with it. Its an important concept in organizational behavior, as are most social psych concepts. However, the article does not discuss the organizational behavior uses of the concept. So two questions:

  • is there or should there be a Organizational behavior subtopic?
  • what to do about articles that are connected but would need editing to make that connection clear? Should they be edited first? B&E tag removed?

Egfrank 12:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Organizational Behavior/HR related articles

Attribution theory (added Egfrank 15:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC))

Gerschenkron effect

  • Hi guys, just thought I'd alert you to an economics thing that needs sorted out at some point. There is an existing stub at Gerschenkron effect. However, a newish-type editor has created a topic on the same subject at Gershchenkron Effect (note spelling and caps). The new article is kind of a mess of unencyclopedic language and isn't entirely prose either (its sort of bulleted). Anyways, maybe you Econ guys could take a shot at merging the two articles or something (I personally don't know understand any economics), or maybe just fixing up the new one. Have a good one! Wickethewok 06:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I've left the new user a note on his talk page. I suggested he check the spelling, and I let him know about the other article. I think he's very new. Thanks for letting us know about this. --SueHay 20:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

United Kingdom corporation tax FAR

United Kingdom corporation tax has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Business and economics portal maintenance

The Business and economics portal has been unmaintained since Nishkid64 became temporarily inactive due to an operation. Can anyone take this on, or work with me on it? --SueHay 17:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm ready to learn and help, not to maintain it only by myself. Ukrained 10:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The Stern Review of global warming costs

The Stern Review has been critiqued because it uses a very low discount rate. Stern defends his reasoning in Section 8 of this FAQ. If you are able to formulate an opinion on this question, please do so at Talk:Stern Review. Thank you. James S. 21:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal branding

I'm not sure where to add this, but the article Personal branding desperately needs some expert attention. Over the last few days, two people have been trying to plug their own books and materials, and basically their own POV, into the article. I'm no expert on the subject, and I don't have access to decent sources, but if there's anyone who is an expert and/or has those sources, please take a look! It's generally a spam magnet, I think, by design. So the more people who have it on their watchlist, the better... --JoanneB 18:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

that's a roger - gunboats on their way. :-) --Fredrick day 18:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Wow, thanks! I knew lots was wrong with it (check back in the history to see Adam and Eve make an appearance on stage, as well!) but somehow didn't quite manage to get it right. One of the editors will quite likely be back, as he's convinced he's an expert and we're presenting it all wrong... (gee, never heard that before ;-)). Anyway, glad to have found this page, thanks again. (although it made me wonder what a 'roj.' was and why it meant my comment should go ;-)) --JoanneB 18:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


there is quite a bit of stuff on this once you get past the snakeoil consultancy stuff. I'll try and add some more (well-) sourced material to in the next couple of days. --Fredrick day 18:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion within your domain

You have claimed GAT International and Virvint Capital Management as within your domain. I have marked them for deletion, but please do not hesitate to revert me if you feel they are salvageable. My guess is your claim was just a bot action anyway, and nobody cares. I might also suggest scrutinizing some of the other venture capital firm articles in your domain. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 17:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

1913 advertisement for Encyclopædia Britannica, the oldest and one of the largest contemporary English encyclopedias.
1913 advertisement for Encyclopædia Britannica, the oldest and one of the largest contemporary English encyclopedias.

I tried saving the article, by forcing him to go through the Afd process, but the community decided to delete it. --Parker007 04:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

Why are we doing it?

Could someone explain to me what is the purpose of assessing all the articles that thave been tagged as being within the scope of this project? Who tags the articles in the first place? --Gavin Collins 15:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

  • There are several purposes. One is to give the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team some idea of the existing quality and importance of articles, so that they can have some guidance in which articles to choose for the various "release" versions of wikipedia. The other is to give the members of the project an idea of the existing quality of articles relating to the project, as well as some idea of the importance of those articles to the project. With this information, editors can have a better idea as to which articles are in a sense more deserving of their immediate attention, based on their existing quality and importance to the project. John Carter 15:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I guessed that this was the case, but with the large number of articles (over 1,200 of unassessed items and rising), I wonder if this Business and Economics project has the resources to complete this task. Are we not a bit like Sisyphus, for every trying to get to the end of list that will never end?

Reasons for not doing it?

I have come across an article (Charlton Lyons) which I feel falls outside the scope of the Project. Rather than not assessing the article, I have deleted the tag. Is that a good reason for not assessing the article and is deleting the tag the appropriate? --Gavin Collins 20:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If the article does not merit the tag, then removal of the banner is clearly appropriate. In this case, I think it was added because the party in question is described as being prominent in the oil industry. Whether that is sufficient reason for the inclusion of the banner is of course someone else's decision to make, not mine. John Carter 20:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Standards

I think it would be a good idea to open up a discussion on assessment standards. As I've been going through assessments I've noticed some confusion in myself and others about when to rate something stub vs. start vs. A or B. Since each business discipline has different standards, I recommend that we

  • open a separate page
  • come up with a list of B&E article types
  • divide the page into topic based on that list

To start the discussion, I'd like to throw out some thoughts of my own on Company assessments. I've posted a brief description of my own views here in response to someone's question about whether or not the article he had worked on still counted as a stub. Basically, I think a complete company article at the minimum needs to

  • discuss the marketing, finance, product portfolio, organizational history, and management style of the organization.
  • cite sources other than the company, ideally from sources other than trade journals that are known to let companies write their own copy. Academic case studies, business review articles, analyst reports, etc.

As someone has noted further up on this #Business_aspects_in_tech-related_articles, many tech company articles seem to have little more than a product line description in their article.

With these standards, many company articles will have trouble getting beyond the start level. I do not view this as a problem. Wikipedia has been the subject of many complaints about quality of articles. We don't always have the resources to perfect articles, so the least we can do is give a rating that lets the reader know how with specialist knowledge feel about the completeness or reliability of the information.

Egfrank 13:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Previous discussions of standards for business related articles

Does anyone recall links to previous discussions of assessment standards for business related articles? I'd like to compile a list so we don't start from scratch or reinvent the wheel. Egfrank 13:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

My work in this project is done (Parker007)

Egfrank just make one up, there were no previous discussions. I was the one who tried to make this Project more alive, good to see people still working to keep the project up to date. --Parker007 04:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Participants (assessment division)

Which members of this list are still active? Perhaps the list should be resticted to active members rathter than past members? --Gavin Collins 17:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Rating

Hello there, I'm The Random Editor. I have a question to ask. Fortune Magazine & Forbes are both rated by your project. Don't you think that America's Most Admired Companies‎, Fortune 500, Forbes Global 2000 & other such lists should be also rated by the Project. Just a thought. Leave me a message on my talk page. --The Random Editor 14:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Economy of Brazil

This article is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. Please, help. JoãoFelipe ( Let's talk! ) 16:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


Worldwide view needed

I've added the globalize tag --

Globe icon
 The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject.
Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.

to some articles on accounting where needed. You can find these articles here in my list of recent edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/201.51.222.169 . "Globalizing" for a "worldwide view" may be required in some other accounting articles as well. -- 201.51.222.169 02:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Underground economy

I have finnished merging black market and underground economy, into underground economy. The article is in need of re-assessment and copy edit. Best regards Mads Angelbo Talk / Contribs 14:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Business people project

There are an incredible number of biographical articles in wikipedia, many/most of which fall within the scope of WikiProject Biography. I have recently proposed that the Biography project perhaps be involved in a number of subprojects to work on smaller, and perhaps more focused, areas. One such proposal relates to people involved in the business world. This proposal can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Business people. Any member of this project who would be interested in working specifically on biographical content relating to people in the business world would be more than welcome to indicate as much there. Thank you. John Carter 16:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

See my remarks there. Ukrained 10:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Money is this week's WP:GACo - your help is needed!

I am here to inform you that the article on money has just been selected as the Good Article Collaboration of the week. This is one of the most important articles in Wikipedia, and certainly of utmost importance within the topical scope of this WikiProject, but unfortunately it is in a very poor state as of now. The selection for COTW makes for a good occassion for a concerted effort to improve it, and I am really counting on the members of WikiProject Business and Economics, with your knowledge and expertise in the field, to help other users involved bring it at least to Good Article standards. In particular, I hope you could provide some gravely needed sources, as well as help make the article covers all the economic aspects of money and conveys the importance of it in economics and business. PrinceGloria 18:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Consumer Economics

Article is languishing among those needing wikification, has not been added to this project, and possibly needs merger or even deletion. Having looked at the main article on Economics it seems to me to be rather lacking in its coverage of the household. Is it really true that the household is always included as a unit of study of microeconomics? Thanks. Itsmejudith 23:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I would argue it is not true, since a microeconomic study could also use firms, products, individuals, you name it as the unit of observation. Karina.l.k 14:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I hope some people have a look at the Consumer Economics article to see what needs to be done with it. In regard to this article, it seems to me that the household is an important part of economic study and it would be good to include more about how economists study it today. I understand that, as Karina said, different studies will focus on different levels of analysis, some more micro, some more macro. I have heard it said that a criticism of classical economics is that it permits unexplained shifts from the individual to the family or household as a unit, but I don't have a source for that. Itsmejudith 14:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Market fundamentalism put up for deletion

I have put it up here. Madhava 1947 (talk) 05:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC

Template help

Im from the WikiProject European Microstates and i noticed that the template your group places on article talk pages had space to rate articles. How did you get this to happen? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks for your time Crested Penguin 00:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

See the code for Template:WikiProject Business & Economics. I don't understand most of it. But posssibly one of the past editors of the template could help you. --SueHay 16:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Crested Penguin 02:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject - Companies

I'm interested in setting up what could be a sub-project or task force of Wikiproject Business and Economics and would be focused on improving the consistency & quality of articles on Companies. Please take a look at my blurb for this idea on the Wikiproject proposal page and sign up there if you are interested so that I know I'm not the only one. Cheers! Richc80 04:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No, you're not the one. I experienced some troubles (both technical and methodological) when adding Infobox Company tag to the Ukrainian companies. Going to formulate the issues and raise them either here or at the new subproject if established. I'll be there. Ukrained 09:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I would be interested in this project. Please drop me a note if you decide to move forward! --Mackabean 21:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I have been assessing articles with the WikiProject Business & Economics tag, and I can see that the number of companies featured in stubs is growing rapidly. This increases the effort required for assessment, primarily because many articles are spam, which requires nomination for deletion, rather than straight forward assessment for class & importance. I would recomend a seperate sub-project, setting of deletion criteria for spammy company articles could benefit from a set of guidelines all of their own.--Gavin Collins 10:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This project has now been established at WikiProject Companies. Many thanks for your comments! Richc80 05:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The Sustainable development Portal

I recently started The Sustainable development Portal and offered it up for portal peer review to help make it a feature portal down the road. Please feel free to to help improve the portal and/or offer your input at the portal peer review. Thanks. RichardF 17:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The Sustainable development Portal now is a Featured portal candidate. Please feel free to leave comments. RichardF 02:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Large Group Awareness Training

  • The article has been successfully listed as a Good Article. Thank you for your time. Smee 02:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC).

Up for Peer Review, comments appreciated

  • I have put the article up for Peer Review, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Large Group Awareness Training. Any comments on the content of the article as to how to get the article up to Featured Article status, would be most appreciated. Thank you for your time. Smee 03:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC).

Template:LGAT has been listed for deletion.

WikiProject Economics

Why are there two WikiProjects which overlap like this - it seems kind of pointless. Perhaps we should discuss merging the two? Haemo 22:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It is an interesting question, and I think there may be two answers. I thought perhaps that the Economics WikiProject was effectively a taskforce under the umbrella of the Business and Economics WikiProject, and so a merger would not be necessary. In reality, it looks as both WikiProjects have been set up independently at about the same time in 2005, and unless Economics has become inactive, I doubt whether they would want to merge as Economics is probably best described as specialist academic area seperate from Business studies. Although Business, Finance and Economics all overlap , it may be worth reducing the scope of WikiProject Business and Economics to just Business issues only, as currently the project's scope is probably a little bit too wide. Reducing the scope of the project might make our workload more manageable. --Gavin Collins 12:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Gavin Collins - You made a point regarding project scope that I wanted to pick up on. I agree that the scope of this project is too broad and so, based upon that thought and discussions here and on the Economics talk page, maybe we should look more seriously into re-organizing/focusing this project?
My take is that the Economics side should be dropped (WikiProject Economics seems pretty active with 25 members). In addition the Business side should be split into two separate projects, Business Concepts (Board of Directors, Business model etc.) and Companies (as I had suggested on the WikiProject Proposal page). This would allow an increased focus on what are both important subjects with many articles within their scope. There would also of course be plenty of opportunity for collaboration across these projects (along with Economics & Finance)
Just wanted to bring this up again and hear the thoughts of others so that maybe we could reach a consensus on how to move forward. Richc80 02:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I would be in favour of reducing the scope of 'WikiProject Business and Economics' to just 'WikiProject Business'. We can easily change the templates Template:WikiProject Business & Economics and Template:User wikipedia/WikiProject Business and Economics, but I am not sure how you would change the name of this page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Business and Economics, Wikipedia:WikiProject Business and Economics/Accountancy task force or the portal Portal:Business and economics. If anyone knows how these changes can be effected, then I suggest we proceed as it seems logical to drop economics from our scope. --Gavin Collins 11:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Support. The two projects cover distinct ground, conceptually and in practice. Jeremy Tobacman 22:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Infobox for CEO bios?

It would be good if there were an infobox template for biographies of CEOs or other business figures. (See Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography for info on similar infoboxes.) It could contain company names, period during which the figure was CEO, titles, and maybe accomplishments (harder to standardize than the other info, though). Lawikitejana 01:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah we should standardize those infoboxes. eg. Telstra infobox says CEO while Optus infobox says Cheif Executive. I tried changing it but some guy seems to run the Optus page with an iron fist. Tri400 00:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree its a good idea. I would think that this could be created within the Biography WikiProject, it looks like they have infoboxes for many groups of people. Have you raised this question there? There are also a couple of editors above who had mentioned setting up a project / task force for Business People that I'm sure would be interested in providing their thoughts on the content and format of this infobox. Cheers. Richc80 04:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete or not to Delete?

An interesting discussion has taken place regarding the steps I have taken in the assessment of articles that are Unassessed. Up to now, I have been assessing the articles according to the criteria on the project page, but since not all articles meet the criteria of even 'stub' class, I have been tagging these sub-standard articles with deletion templates (with PROD or AFD) as part of this assessment process. I would be interested on your views regarding the case of Free cash flow, and the discussion which followed which can be viewed on my user talk page. --Gavin Collins 14:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Gavin for his gracious response and open mind on this. As one of the other editors involved, I'll quickly state my views on this. Broadly speaking, I think articles should be retained unless they are irredeemable and strictly meet the criteria for deletion (I'll admit to having a much quicker trigger for obvious spam and conflict of interest cases). I think the flags for lack of references, POV, clean-up, etc., should all be used with preference over the deletion process.
Apart from the reasons listed at inclusionist, I'd add two additional points: 1) The deletion/redirect process can be easily misused/abused in my experience; and 2) There are cases (esp with respect to clear POV) where very opinionated and difficult editors will dominate the editing of "their" page. I find these editors often eventually disappear (because they get annoyed everyone else disagrees with them?); what's left is an article that needs cleaning/restoring, but has - or had - some content on a useful subject.
As for the specific cases above, I'd mention that I have no doubt Gavin is acting in good faith. My reading of the Prod template is that it should only be used where the article clearly and indisputably should be deleted - for obvious gibberish, for example. And my reading of the criteria for deletion is that lack of references, bias, POV, etc, are also not reasons for deletion - with respect to references, the test is (paraphrased) cannot possibly be referenced, i.e. in a good faith effort to find references, none can be found. In the case of free cash flow, for example, it can be referenced, it just hasn't been. For whatever reason - some editors like to write, some editors like to clean-up, flag articles, delete spam, etc., and some like to find good references (the latter are probably more rare, unfortunately). Corrections and additions to stubs are more likely to be made when they exist in the first place, I think, and so leaving them (or just fixing them) is preferable.--Gregalton 07:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of companies (2nd nomination)

Lists of companies is up for deletion. Please comment here if this concerns you. Thank you very much.--Endroit 00:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Japanese companies

List of Japanese companies is up for deletion. Please comment here if this concerns you. Thank you very much.--Endroit 00:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Cross namespace redirects

This WikiProject had a redirect of the form WikiProject Foo. These are routinely deleted per the self reference policy. You should choose a redirect of the form WP:Foo instead. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Business & Economics assessments

I never like to go on to someone else's Project Page and moan, but I think that there is a real lack of consistency coming from this WikiProject in relation to assessment of articles. Three business law articles that I have been involved with illustrate the problem:

Firm B&E Rating Comment
Board of directors A Class I thought that the article was a decent one, although A Class was probably overdoing it a bit. However, never one to refuse flattery, I didn't really comment.
Floating charge Stub Class I was really astonished by this. Far too long to be a Stub on any recogniseable measure, covering development to modern day, criticism, analysis and containing extensive footnotes and citations. I actually messaged the assessor saying I thought that even Start class would have been a bit harsh (I had it pegged for a solid B Class), and he responded nicely enough saying that he was concerned it was too technical.
International Business Company Start Class Again, very perplexing. An out-and-out stub (with some horribly POV statements in it) that is on my list to upgrade and Wikify. It contains very little data, and (as I flagged on the talk page, what is there is mostly inaccurate and out of date.

To be fair, all three were assessed by different Project members. Arguably it is not very constructive for me to come across and just post criticism, but I do think it seems that the Project B&E members need to better familiarise themselves with the assessment criterea. Otherwise this Project is likely to lose a bit of credibility.

--Legis (talk - contribs) 16:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Companies

Here is a new portal... You can complete it. Jamcib 13:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jamcib for setting this up. Unless anyone has any major objections I feel that this portal should be taken under the wing of Wikipedia:WikiProject Companies, given that Business & Economics already has it's own, so I've gone ahead and added that projects banner to it. Richc80 05:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Intrevention

As part of the Notability wikiproject, I am trying to sort out whether Intrevention is notable enough to have its own article, and whether it is a valid topic in the first place. I would appreciate an expert opinion. If you can spare some time, please add your comments to the article's talk page. Thanks! --B. Wolterding 16:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

proposed new WikiProject: Public Relations

  • Hi. I'm considering proposing a new WikiProject for Category:Public relations. Several articles in this category suffer from overlap, spammy self-promotion and derogatory tone. Is the Business & Economics project, the right "parent" for such a project? Any tips on how to best get it off the ground and keeping it alive? Canuckle 19:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Eastman Chemical Company

Hello there! The Eastman Chemical Company article needs a bit of help, I think. The only people editing it are the WP environmental record taskforce and what appear to be a succession of people pasting in stuff direct from Eastman's website. What it needs is someone to write it up in neutral terms, removing all the bias. I hope someone here can help. Cheers! Totnesmartin 17:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Datsun

Hi all! When will the Datsun article be finished? I'd translate it. Will anyone look into it? Squash Racket 11:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Expert review: Organizational dimensions of information

As part of the Notability wikiproject, I am trying to sort out whether Organizational dimensions of information is notable enough for an own article. I would appreciate an expert opinion. For details, see the article's talk page. If you can spare some time, please add your comments there. Thanks! --B. Wolterding 15:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand that this topic was the subject of an Article for Deletion recomendation, and was deleted on rounds of non-notability. I would not recomend recreating it, but the concept might included within the articles Organization or Knowledge management. --Gavin Collins 09:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Leslie J Schirato

This businessman's article is not balanced - it's more like a PR piece. Would anyone here care to help with it? Totnesmartin 10:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a candidate for an AfD. --Gavin Collins 03:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:GA/R notice: Gustavus Franklin Swift

I am placing Gustavus Franklin Swift under review at WP:GA/R.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I have added my comments but others should too as it possible I may be mistaken in my judgement. --Gavin Collins 03:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Month (Beta version)

Suggestions

Participants of assessing please feel free to suggest some important articles you have come across:

Accountancy/Accounting

The Accountancy article is virtually a jumbled list of links and text without citations. In my view, it needs some sort of framework to make the article more readable, coherent and interesting. My proposal as to what this framework should be based goes as follows: Accounting has developed from relatively humble beginnings in ancient Mesopotamia, and the activities it encompasses have grown in range and sophistication in tandem with human development; therefore the Accountancy needs to be edited so that the article follows this development path.

Of course the article needs content that provides citation of sources too, so it is a project that will need some research. This idea arose from an interesting academic paper entitled Recordkeeping and Human Evolution, and I was wondering if anyone would be interesting in reading it, with a view to revising Accountancy using it as a basis of this framework? Let me know also if you would like to collaborate on this piece of work. --Gavin Collins 15:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. It's one of the most important aspects of business, yet its surprisingly underdeveloped. But a collaboration is needed between participants of various nationalities, to make sure the article is written with a worldwide view. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 03:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Note that the Accountancy task force has been set up, and we are seeking contributors who can add verifiable content. --Gavin Collins 07:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Business plan

This is a gateway article that should lead people to further Wikipedia topics on planning, business analysis, assessment techniques, etc. With the help of User: SueHay I've just finished editing an expanded outline for the page, but it desparately needs citations, copy editing, appropriate cross references and the like. It is not really a one or two person project. I'd also recommend downgrading it to "Start" status for now. Egfrank 09:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Supply and Demand

From the above criteria, what do you think needs to be improved in this article? --Parker007 23:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Focus and comprehensiveness. The sections of the article are isolated from each other — 16 second-level headings and only 2 third-level ones. They address isolated topics without tying them into a cohesive model (for example, as of a minute ago there were two separate history sections). Because of this, some topics seem to be left out. For example, although the application of the model to labor is discussed, the effects of minimum wage laws are not mentioned. Λυδαcιτγ 00:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
It use to be a FA, See FAR archive. The main reason was lack of citations. Morphh (talk) 0:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

:Comment. Lack of inline references and mixing reference section with external links is certainly a ground for defeaturing. In addition, there are small issues that should be addressed, like excessive bolding, or stub-sections 'Empirical estimation, Application in Macroeconomics'.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

There are 5 references at the bottom which don't have inline citations. After which sentences do you think those references can be incorporated as inline citations? The references have external links also. I believe http://books.google.com/ has an online version we can see? I am sure you all know how to make inline citations, but just a refresher here: <ref> then the reference </ref>. In order to use the same citations again, you have to go to the original citation and instead of <ref> you have to apply a name <ref name = Supply>, thus you can use that same citation again by copying and pasting <ref name = Supply/> after any other sentence. --Parker007 00:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


Economy of Ukraine

Well, I've rated this article as of mid-importance. But several reasons may be provided for its importance (such as unique geo-economical location of the country and rapid economy growth). And it's MUCH more important than Canadian equity firms :). Wishes, Ukrained 12:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Economy of Brazil

This article is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. JoãoFelipe ( Let's talk! ) 21:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Knowledge Management

A non-supported page that I think has a great deal of potential. It's filled with experts and expert knowledge, but it's a bit of a maze to the layman (ie, me), and could use toning down a bit. Could you chaps have a look, and perhaps lend a hand? The referencing section needs cleaning up for one, and the page could use the support of a business Wikiproject. Thanks in advance, Hawker Typhoon 23:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Despite having one of the longest 'Further reading' sections I have ever seen, I have tagged the article as 'Unreferenced', as none of the contributors to this article have cited their references. Despite being well written, the lack of references is a major weakness. --Gavin Collins 07:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Affiliate Marketing

The article is at the moment a good article nominee. The GA is currently on hold, because it requires some tweaking. See the comments of the reviewer at the articles talk page here.

I did a lot of work to get this article that far. Some people helped once in a while what I really appreciated. There used to be several editors actively working on the article 15 months ago, but one after another dropped off with the time. The article is target of a lot of spam and vandalism and even had to be semi-protected at the end of the last year to calm things down during the holidays.

I fixed already most technical issues. What I need help with is the grammar (English is my second language and it is also not one of my talents :) ). Also some rewording was suggested where the choice of words wasn't the best. There is also one longer quote (1:1 copies from the source), which was suggested to be modified and remove the quotation marks. The quote is using none encyclopedic language, but has a lot of information in it.

I probably can work on that and could then have it tweaked by somebody who is a bit more skilled in the English language for corrections and polishing. I can also see, if I can find a better image for the article.

The article is pretty long and changed significantly over the past 15 months. It would be a shame if all the work would be in vain because some technical and grammatical issues could not be fixed properly. Thank you. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 15:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Wahaha Danone joint venture

I just created this article on this very topical subject. The subject matter would make for a good featured article, so I am hoping to enlist your help to get it there qualitatively. I've requested a peer review in WP:Project China some time ago, without any luck, so I thought I'd try here Ohconfucius 14:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Need outside opinion on dispute regarding parent companies

This is a request for Business and Economics members to weigh in and provide some outside opinions on what constitutes a parent company and what doesn't, and this is going to affect all airline articles. In the infobox for airlines we have a field for "Parent company", which if the parent company is known, this is placed there, or if it is not known, the name of the company is placed. This is a little erroneous of course as having a parent company in that field which isn't the parent is not encyclopaedic. From Parent company, a parent company is is a holding company that owns enough voting stock in another firm to control management and operations by influencing or electing its board of directors. A parent company could simply be a company that wholly owns another company. There is some disagreement in the airline project as to what exactly a parent company is. The dispute at the moment is centred around Singapore Airlines. The background of this dispute can be seen here, here and here. The gist of the dispute is this. I believe that the parent company of Singapore Airlines Limited (d/b/a Singapore Airlines) is Temasek Holdings Pte Ltd, as per their 55.14% shareholding (with each share carrying a single vote). The annual report of Singapore Airlines also states (all referenced in above talk) that Singapore Airlines Limited is a subsidiary of Temasek Holdings. Another editor disagrees with this, and reverts these edits to show that the parent of Singapore Airlines Limited is Singapore Airlines Limited, which is of course an impossibility. I would appreciate some input into this from the members of this project, because it is not encyclopaedic to have anything but Temasek in that infobox. Appreciated. --Russavia 13:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I have posted my comments along the lines that the Republic of Singapore is the ultimate owner of Singapore Airlines though its various holding companies (such as Temasek), and as such should be shown as the parent. I hope this helps the discussion. --Gavin Collins 16:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The request above fails to point out the following key points for consideration:
  • There is indeed a disagreement over the correct field name in Infobox Airline, with a proposal to amend that field as "major shareholder" instead, which would have presented a far less contentious result across the board. User:Russavia has refused to wait for an outcome, and continued to mass edit multiple articles across wikipedia in support of his thesis.
  • I have alluded before, that the term "Parent company" can be subject to differing company laws in individual countries, and not merely on the percentage shareholding, a single determinant Russavia has used when "mass correcting" articles. Many legislatures will also mention control over the board of directors and voting power as determining factors. When I pointed out that Singapore Airlines has just two board members out of nine from Temasek Holdings (one of whom is deemed independent due to his unrelated woek in Temasek), Russavia chose to sidestep this issue.
  • The Singapore Airlines article as it stands prior to the period of dispute[1] was primarily on Singapore Airlines, the parent airline company. Temasek Holdings is the majority shareholder of Singapore Airlines Limited, the group of companies which includes the parent airline company and its subsidiaries such as SilkAir and Singapore Airlines Cargo. When Russavia insists on wikiwarring in that article to change the parent company field to Temasek Holdings, the entire article becomes inaccurate, since almost all information as it stands refer solely to the parent airline company, and not the group. In light of this, I forewarned that the article will need to be corrected should this hostility persists[2]. Russavia proceeds to revert the article again anyway, despite having posted a request for feedback here, and prior to any conclusion made[3]. When I proceeded to overhaul the article as stated earlier, he still finds it justifiable to revert the later also[4].
I hope the above details will present a more balanced view on the dispute at hand. Comments are of course welcome, but I fear the edit-warring may not cease even if concensus is not in Russavia's favour, as has already happened in the same article over another issue.--Huaiwei 16:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

WP B&E banners on Company articles

As noted a few comments up, I recently started a Wikiproject for company articles. Things are going really well with several interested editors working to tag all articles out there with our banner. What we have found is that there are several of these articles already tagged with the B&E banner as companies were historically part of your scope. Given the existence of our project and to avoid editor confusion I'm wondering if we should remove the B&E banner from these articles. I feel this would benefit both projects by ensuring editor questions/concerns are directed to the right group with a clear definition of each scope. Please respond with any concerns you may have about this proposal. Thanks. Richc80 14:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

  • The work done to assess company articles by the Wikiproject for company articles is to be commended, and I think what you suggest is sensible, with one exception. This is speculation, but my understanding of the current situation is that the B&E template is being added to articles by editors who are not members of the B&E Wikiproject with the sole intention of reducing the number of uncategorised articles. These editors are not members of Participants (assessment division), and are not concerned with assessing the articles - they assume this will happen at a later stage. However, the number of active participants in the assessment division is small, and a large backlog of unassessed articles has developed. What I am proposing is not agreed policy, but it seems sensible to me that the assessors from Wikiproject for company articles should remove the B&E template, except where the template shows that the article has been assessed by B&E in terms of class and importance, in which case I would recomend that the template be retained. --Gavin Collins 22:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Gavin - Thanks for the response to my question. Seeing as no-one has raised any objections to your proposal I will let the WikiProject Companies participants know that they can remove the B&E template from articles so long as it does not include an assessment. Cheers! Richc80 02:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Clean Fuels Ohio

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Clean Fuels Ohio, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Plinth molecular gathered 23:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Prime Healthcare Services and Prem Reddy

A long while ago I discovered - through the recent edits function - problematic edits in these articles, including the affiliated hospitals. I would appreciate if someone can help me with the follow-up care, since I know so little about these subjects and would prefer to continue fighting new vandalism. Any assistance is welcome! gidonb 22:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The debt-based monetary system article

I believe the debt-based monetary system article is nuts and needs a complete rewrite by an economist. I put up a POV banner for now, but it would be nice if someone competent could take the time to look into this. -- Gro-Tsen 12:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Illegal drug trade

Illegal drug trade is an article that I think might interest members of this WikiProject, and it could use some expertise! --Daniel11 09:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Month

This has been moved to the discussion page. I don't think anyone collaborated, so I would count this initiative as well meaning failure; probably the articles that we are expected to collaborate on are just two varied in scope to allow for the relatively narrow specialisms that participants of WikiProject Business have to enable this work.

The next tidying up task is to move all the current discussion to archives at the end of September, as this discussion page is now getting unwieldy. --Gavin Collins 15:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.