Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business/BEF

message: Most of the companies listed in the Fortune 500 don't have articles.  Gaps include about 20 of the top 100.  Are articles on specific companies considered to be within the scope of this Forum? JamesMLane 14:56, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Specific companies

message: Every article writer must decide, consciously or not, who they are writting for. What educational level do we assume of the reader? How much background material should be supplied? Are guidelines necessary? or even possible?
In some cases, it may be appropriate to create two articles, each for a different audience.   One article explains what something is at the layman's level (history, basic concepts, and notable examples), while the other discusses the economic theories used to describe it.   Candidates for such treatment might include auction, corporation, international trade, and stock market.
:It varies from article to article, but I write for a range of readers from advanced high school to advanced undergrad. mydogategodshat 17:08, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: One alternative to creating two articles is to structure the article so that all the material suitable for a layperson comes first, and the more technical / specialist / theoretical material comes later in the article. Not all articles lend themselves equally well to this type of organisation, though. — Matt 11:56, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Great point to keep in mind for these articles.  Personally I find most of Wikipedia's math articles inscrutable.  Tempshill 01:20, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: An "article" that says what something is, is just a definition and belongs in Wikitionary. An encyclopedia article goes beyond this to includes the who, when, how, and why. I understand what you are trying to do (having readers with a range of skill levels is difficult to write for), but I think an advanced vs simple categorization would be more useful than a theory vs practice one. On the theory vs practice system economics articles would go under "theory" whereas business articles would go under "practice". Also physical science, physics, chemistry, and biology articles would go under "theory" but engineering articles would go under "practice". I don't think this division would be useful. A more useful division is to identify what educational level you are writing for. My prefered approach is neither of the above. I try to write for a range of readers. This requires that we build each article from the basics to the more advanced. mydogategodshat 19:22, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that I have had a day to think about your suggestion, I agree that there are some instances where the "theory/practical" split might be useful. In fact, when I did the marketing research articles I deliberately seperated the applied technique from the mathematical theory. Logit analysis, intent scale translation, preference-rank translation, conjoint analysis, factor analysis, multi dimensional scaling, discriminant analysis, cluster analysis, and preference regression are all written as applied articles. Seperate articles of pure theory can be written if a mathematician wants to do so. By doing this, it spares those interested in practical matters from having to wade through screens of arcane mathematical proofs. mydogategodshat 17:02, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Who reads this stuff anyway?

message: Strategic management - This is an "umbrella article" covering many strategic management topics. It is comprehensive giving the 40 year history of the topic and describing current theory and practice. It is very accessible to the average reader, containing little specialized jargon or mathematics. Of all the areas of business, this is interesting enough to have a general appeal. It is well referenced, with over 100 citations to journal articles and books, everyone of which is cited in the body of the article. I know of no better source of information on this topic (but then, I am a little biased). mydogategodshat 17:50, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to those that have contributed to this article while it was listed here. There have been no additions for a week so I am going to list it on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. mydogategodshat 19:54, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This nomination was rejected by administrators. I'm not sure why. No reason was given. mydogategodshat 16:29, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I read it, and thought it worthy of being a featured article.  Since there were no objections, and it had been up for a week, I added my support on the featured log, and added it to the featured articles. I added it under economics, but it doesn't quite fit there, so feel free to move.  Jrincayc 01:13, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanx to all that supported the nomination of this articlemydogategodshat 19:26, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive of Strategic Management feature article discussion 

message: Open economy had no entry for some reason, I started it but it maybe useful for other people to work on it as well. --ShaunMacPherson 17:51, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needed articles 

message: Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards is a new voluntary association is getting started on Wiki with a mission related somewhat to that of the Business and Economics Forum.  Anyone interested should take a look. Thanks, 172 03:23, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards]]

message: I think that I may need some help keeping a POV personal essay out of Great Depression.  Please take a look if my attempt to keep it out gets reverted. Works Progress Administration 20:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Great Depression

message: Here is a list of econterms that are not yet in WP: Requested articles/Social Sciences and Philosophy   J heisenberg 15:00, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of those are statistical. Is there a statistics/maths forum where the list could be pointed out as well? Rd232 15:26, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll look to find relevant WikiProjects J heisenberg 15:35, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Econ Terms

message: Have any of you highbrows considered writing a course or book on economics on the above sites. No proper course or book exists as such and would serve to solve this perennial problem of "How technical should my article be? Should I teach the economics theory in this article?" As a sixth form student studying economics at school (with inevitably specific emphasis on the UK and Europe), I fear making a fool of myself trying to write an authoritative text book! I appreciate your time is clearly busy here, but I think it could be a very useful cause. --Mark Lewis 21:59, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikibooks/Wikiversity? 

message: The article on Street name is up for deletion.  It consists of a list of street names of drugs.  I responded (on the article's VfD entry) that we should have an article about the business meaning of "street name" as a way of owning stocks.  I'm a little out of my depth on the subject, though.  Maybe someone more familiar with the practice could throw together a stub?  Deletion of the article might cause difficulties when and if someone tried to do an article about the business meaning. JamesMLane 08:06, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Street name

message: The business, economics and finance categories each have probably at least 150 articles for which the business, economics and finance category should be removed for more narrow subcategories. I've been working on doing in this in the business section, but in case anyone wants to help, I'd appreciate it. Maurreen 04:29, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories

message: The following business topics are currently nominated on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive: Subsidy, Developing countries' debt, Grameen Bank and Spice trade.You can support these articles with your vote if you want them to be improved!--Fenice 11:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement Drive

message: Does the economic section have an article like List_of_legal_topics? It appears to be very useful, esp. using the trick of clicking the link near the top of that article viewing related changes, you can review all edits done relating to law.
A similiar List of economic topics would be useful for economics and other subjects I think, should one be created or if it is created would you tell me the link? Thanks, --ShaunMacPherson 13:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of topics for economics 

message: I created a small list of some terms and abbreviations used in corporations, which I would like to be expanded, I am not sure if it's useful, but maybe. Also, is there a template that contains the table at the end of List of accounting topics? I would like to add it into this article. Samohyl Jan 09:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A list with coprorate jargon could be useful, but unfortunately your list is a list of accronyms, which can't be regarded as jargon (although the use of accronyms is definitely typical for jargon speech) and also isn't very useful. Anyone searching "CFO", "COO" "CEO" etc. will find out what it means, as he/she will either be re-directed to the page containing the full phrase, or - more often - end up on a disambiguation page with links to all the different meanings of the accronym. And anyone just interested in the meaning of accronyms can always spend tim browsing the List of TLAs or the category :Category:Ambiguous three-letter acronyms:Category:Lists of three-character combinations. Thomas Blomberg 13:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I didn't planned it to be a list of acronyms, it just happened (because some of the terms are explained on Wikipedia). I planned to get more terms here, but I am still not quite sure what exactly is jargon and what isn't (I am not native english speaker). Samohyl Jan 19:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Corporate jargon]] 

message: Billboard (advertising) is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality.  Sandy 21:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Billboard (advertising)

message: Economy of the Republic of Ireland is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality.  Sandy 21:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Economy of the Republic of Ireland

message: Economy of Africa is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 14:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Economy of Africa

message: Economy of India is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 14:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Economy of India

message: Saving (money) might be a good addition. Brian Pearson 03:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saving