Wikipedia talk:Requested articles/Business and economics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is being improved by the Cleanup Taskforce to conform with a higher standard of article quality. It is likely to change frequently until completed. Please see its Cleanup Taskforce page for more details.

Cleanup Taskforce page → Edit | Purge ==Dear Cleanup Taskforce Member== Hello, my name is Emana, and I would like to congradulate you on being assigned the daunting task of cleaning up the Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and Economics page. I am a frequent contributor to/from this page, and would like to help you get organized from a user's perspective. 1) First, the current page encompasses too many things. If this page was a college course book, it would cover four different majors. Therefore, a split is probably necessary. Subject (e.g. college major) Accounting & Finance (Mathematics) Business (Business) Economics (Economics) Labor (Politics) I myself would browse through the Business and Economics section and blow through the rest. 2) Even if a split is not implemented, some reorganization and renaming of the sub-sections will be necessasry. Currently, the biggest head ache is the Businesses & Organizations section. Most requests there are just junk links from the actual business, trying to get their names on Wikipedia... or at least get linked from Wikipedia. Although one of Wikipedia's goal is to increase knowledge (by referencing source sites), it is also not a link farm. This sub-section will need some kind of policy and enforcement of it. 3) Another eye-sore are the two Terminology sub-sections. Many ESL type users would post requests for articles about typical terminology that would be best served with one or two sentences on Wiktionary. If we could post a policy and have a variant of the {{wikt}} template readily available in the sub-section, it would be greatly appreciated. It would be easy for casual cleaners like myself to browse through the list once in a while and move them to the Wiktionary. These were the changes I would have started making this week if not for the status change of the Cleanup Taskforce template. Please consider them and thank you for volunteering. Emana 09:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC) Contents 1 May 2007 Update 2 Euler equation? 3 Shopworn expression 4 RA formatting standard 5 Couldn't help... 6 define:substitute check 7 Separate Business Organizations section 8 Splitting "People" section 9 Deleting external links 10 Terminology 11 Corporate blogging policies 12 Rhetoric of reaction 13 References/Ext links 14 Inseki jinin 15 Business combinations [edit] May 2007 Update Thank you to everyone who helped! We have been able to split the biz orgs and people section from the main list. Now, if we could split this whole thing into the 4 major categories, that'd be great! Templates for formatting are welcome. -- 22:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Euler equation?

Is this request referring to Euler's homogeneous function theorem? If so, it can probably be removed... that is Euler's equation that is most often used in economics that I am aware of. Afelton 21:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure, but if you think so, just redirect it to Euler's homogeneous function theorem. --Pamri • Talk 04:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shopworn expression

Under business terminology, there is a request for shopworn expression. This is not a business term, rather an idiom and should be requested elsewhere.

[edit] RA formatting standard

Please see: Wikipedia_talk:Requested_articles#Bullets_or_no_bullets.2C_dense_vs._sparse. Dragons flight 18:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I question the appropriateness of hostile bid on the list of business terms that require an article. Much of the material one would to put in such an article is already in takeover and related articles, more can be put in those articles if you want. If someone did create an article called "hostile big," it might soon thereafter be merged. --Christofurio 15:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Couldn't help...

For anybody looking for a good laugh on a tiresome day - see the (currently) second request in "Business" (key figure). ROTFL! Bravada, talk - 15:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] define:substitute check

The following may be copyrighted

Definitions of substitute check on the Web:

• A substitute check is a legal document, with all the rights and obligations of the original check and is about the size of a business check. It includes all information and endorsements from both the front and back of the original check . All substitute checks are required to include the following statement – This is a LEGAL COPY of your check. You can use it the same way you would use the original check. This is also known as an Image Replacement Document (IRD). www.ennis.com/ennis_site/check21/check21_glossary.htm

End of copyright notice.....

Hi, I am Kushal Hada. I have a userpage too if you think I am doing something inappropriate. The thing is that I get substitute checks from Bank of America and I want Wikipedia to have an article about it. I liked the article about Mail-in rebate and its redirected page. I will follow up on your progress. Thank you! Kushal Kushal one 18:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Although requesting on the Talk page is unofficial, I jumped right on it. Now you can see the beginning of an artcle for substitute check. I hope other contributors will help wikify and categorize this new article. --Emana 09:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Separate Business Organizations section

I think it's time we move the Business Organizations section to a sub-page or its own full page. Or better yet, why not make this whole page into a composite page of six or seven separate pages? This is your chance to chime in. I will wait two weeks until Jan. 1st, 2007 to take any action. --Emana 19:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that it needs to be separated. Is there some way to make it more manageable, like by having categories that fold out? Gogarburn 21:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, apparently, the Cleanup Taskforce has reviewed this article and will soon be changing stuff around. I don't know when they'll actually assign someone to it, but I don't want to step on their toes. If the person assigned to it could notify me of their intentions, I'd appreciate it. So far it HAS been two weeks since the split proposal, so I would like to start the split process. -- Emana 08:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Well it's been two weeks, so I did it. I proposed the split to brush away spam under the rug, but I bet it's going to increase spam requests in the other sections. I marked the split area with HTML, so If it doesn't work well, we can put the section back easily. -- Emana 06:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Splitting "People" section

The "People" section has become unwieldy and long. I think it's time to split this section off. I know most of the requests must be splam links, but it cannot be ignored that these are real (or virtual) people that exist and may become notable enough for a paragraph on Wikipedia in the near future. As such, I think it suitable to let them be red-linked until the day their notoriaty arrives. With the amount of requests contained in this section, I hereby propose a section split. I will wait for two weeks until Jan. 7th, 2007, to take any action. Please leave your opinions here. -- Emana 07:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• I support splitting it off. Gogarburn 21:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Supported. Unwieldy is right. AndrewHowse 16:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• I also support this split. I will take on this task since the user that originally suggested it seems to have abandoned the idea (see note about Jan. 7th, above). I hope this is to the majority's liking. Ben K 15:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ben K. After splitting off the Business Organizations section, I wasn't sure if the split was doing any good, so I wasn't too energetic about splitting another section... it is a lot of work. Thanks again! -- Emana 00:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting external links

I am deleting external links that link directly to the corporate website of the subject of the request, as they promote linkspam. It is easy enough to find corporate websites via Google search. I am also deleting links that link to advertisements, and heavily biased sites that are obviously trying to pursuade visitors against NPOV. I left some external links alone as they were genuine resources that were not directly related to or controlled by the subjects involved in the articles. If you disagree, instead of telling ME that you disagree, please prove to everybody else that the subject is worthy to be on Wikipedia by starting a {{stub}} article. -- Emana 19:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any more external links on this page. Can we now remove the Spam-request tag?Anshuk (talk) 04:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't see blatant promotional external links because I've been patrolling like the warning says. Nevertheless, you are free to remove the Spam request tag as you see fit. The warning tag exists for my convenience; I will continue to police advertisements without the tag, but would hate to have to explain myself over and over to people that say, "I didn't see any rule or warning!". --Emana (talk) 00:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Really appreciate the job you are doing. Since this came up in the category 'Wikipedia spam cleanup', I thought there is some cleanup required. I won't touch it, since it looks like it is in good hands. Anshuk (talk) 08:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology

I added definitions under Brand Development Index and Customer Tiering. Neither is exactly rooted in economics but they certainly arise in a business context. --AndrewHowse 01:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Update for clarity - Brand Development Index has been moved to a stub (by another user) AndrewHowse 16:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Corporate blogging policies

When I looked for a place to ask about a Wikipedia corporate blogging policies article, this was as close as I got. There may be a subcategory on the project page into which it would fit, but I wasn't able to select one for this sketch of what I was looking for:

Corporate blogging policy is notable in the encyclopedic sense in at least four ways:

• Advertising medium for employer:

• e.g. SaaScon workshops for a 2005 IDG conference; Signpost article about Microsoft

• Critical of employer:

• e.g. Delta Air Lines/Ellen Simonetti; July 2006 article in The Scotsman

• Integral part of corporate culture:

• e.g. Sun Microsystems policy for company-hosted employee blogs

• Underneath the radar:

• e.g. Electronic Frontier Foundation employee blog advice

See also: a young article, Employee branding…

I posted the points above during a discussion (now archived) on WP:BLP/N about a specific article—the larger context has more scope. Is there anyone here who knows where to take this, or who has an interest in developing it further? — Athænara ✉ 20:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rhetoric of reaction

I've requested an article on this book by Albert O. Hirschman. It is legitimate, although I may create the article myself, time permitting. Bearian 22:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References/Ext links

There needs to be ext. links for people to make articles. I mean if the article is regarding a corp., I don't think it can be link spam. They don't make profit by ads. Most information is only available from the corps. website! --Obsolete.fax (talk) 06:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inseki jinin

Where would I go about requesting an article about inseki jinin (引責辞任), (taking responsibility by resigning) which is a common phenomena among Japanese politicians and business people who are ranked in their group/party/company. -Kaddkaka (talk) 17:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Business combinations

I think there needs to be a separate page for this. The current "mergers and acquisitions" page only highlights the b2b aspects of the global company shuffles going on. There is also not enough clarification on the synonyms/differences of some expressions like "demerger" "spin-off" "spin-out". (Hive-down doesn't appear anywhere so far). Just having a separate page for every expression doesn't help s.o. sorting out what they are looking at. Company groups also move their subsidiaries around. It would be nice to have a page sorting basic concepts and terminology out and linking to the relevant pages. Sorry but I'm a klutz when it comes to business, so I can't DIY it. Anyone here willing to help? Lisa4edit