wikiproject Business/Archive 2

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) 01:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible to create a template that converts currency based on the current exchange rates? There are cases where authors want to translate from one currency to another for comparison purposes. See for example Centurion_Card#Availability_&_Cost.

Currently authors convert the currency at the exchange rate on the day they write. This can very quickly become highly inaccurate, however.

Are we able to create a template that uses external information (like www.xe.com/ucc)?

Here is one proposed format for the template:

{{FX | from_amount =  | from_currency =  | to_currency =  | date =  }} 

with "date" being an optional parameter, used if you wanted the exchange rate on a particular date -- for instance "XYZ corp was acquired for SG$xxx million (US$yyy million) in 2001". If the parameter wasn't specified, the template would use today's exchange rate.

Is this possible?

--Crocodile Punter 01:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there a style guide/advisory note for graphs? From my experience most economics articles have a graph of a different style from most others, or indeed several graphs of a different style within one article. Now there is nothing inherently wrong with any of them, but the resulting fragmented appearance across economics and business article is far from ideal. Might a solution be to choose an application (probably Excel) and list the preferred font, font size, line width, keys etc. Mark83 20:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

If anyone around here is looking for a cleanup assignment, I just stumbled onto the pretty awful article Joint audit. I have absolutlely no relevant knowledge in the area but maybe someone around here can help. Thanks, Pascal.Tesson 19:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've done a basic cleanup. Thanks for pointing it out! --SueHay 18:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The economics articles throughout Wikipedia are a frustrating mess. POV and conspiracy theories everywhere. Amazing.

Nothing constructive to say, I'm afraid. Just venting. I'll (continue to) help where (I think) I can. --Jorend 21:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. And sorry to say this but at a glance "WikiProject Business and Economics" seems to be inactive to me. Mark83 21:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hah - I just came across to say the same thing - I've been looking at some business articles, even being polite - many are pretty shocking - a mixture of guide, self-help book and whatever management fad that has come down the pike. Maybe we could wake this wikiproject up? --Fredrick day 11:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

On Wiki talk:WikiProject Trains#Question about corporate mergers I asked a question about how a merger can be undone three years later. If anyone here could shed light (please reply there), it would be most appreciated. Thank you. --NE2 01:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The name for the article Supply and demand, recently moved from Law of supply and demand, is under discussion at Talk:Supply and demand#Moved. Also, a straw poll is being taken at Talk:Supply and demand#Title of page. Please contribute your opinion. Λυδαcιτγ 22:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I am glad someone took the lead in getting an overhaul started. I feel some wikipedians are going for style rather than adding to articles. I'm in and would be glad to offer a list of articles I am and can contribute to. Accountancy/Bookkeeping is my area of specialisation. NilssonDenver 21:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to the "Frustration" discussion above? Mark83 21:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
It is not frustration but lack of coordination. I have been planning to propose a small list of articles that could be worked on and every two weeks, peer review them and then on to the next group of articles. Which articles to start on and who would help and contribute to them and how a "Draft Final" article could be agreed on I have not worked out yet.
There also appears to be a group of people who are adding, in my opinion "eye candy", to articles rather than expanding or improving content. I watch about 30 articles, which is growing every week, to try and keep them relevant, readable and informative. The Business and Economics section is huge and I work on only a sub section relating to accounting/bookkeeping articles as this is my area of expertise. So taking small chunks at a time in one category with a small team of editors is my proposal. NilssonDenver 22:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
In general I agree. There is nothing more demoralising than feeling like you're trying to move a mountain on your own. It's much easier when you are collaborating with others. However might I suggest rather than a list every two weeks that one article a week would be better? That way one article gets a lot of attention, rather that three or four getting just a bit. Mark83 22:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
My work pattern is erratic. I like to work on a few articles at a time spread over a few weeks, so when I get time or inspiration or both I write. One week at a time is to confining for me as I can have weeks of nothing and then great inspiration (and time to write) lots! But I like constant constructive criticism as I write as the responses focus my mind on what I have written and helps me improve my contributions. So over a month an article will get tweaked to as close to perfection as possible for possibly being considered as a front page article. NilssonDenver 00:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Do you think someone could put a request for bot to start tagging all the articles in the categories listed on the wikiproject, with the template; and then ask some tech wiki friend to make a similar box. I would do this myself but I am really short on time right now; I will become freer after Feb 15; just wondering if anyone wanted to fast track the process. In plans for the major overhaul also includes changing the background colour of the wikiproject to whatever you guys want; And then a Monthly Collaboration (in which we make a to-do list on the talk page & communicating on our wikiproject site or the article talk page) maybe if there is interest; Peace. --Parker007 02:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This is the category I am most familiar with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Accountancy but I can't write about every area as I am not familiar with all areas. But there is a major overhaul in the category breakdown also needed. These are they articles I currently watch;

   * ‎Accountancy    * ‎Accounting software    * ‎Audit    * ‎Auditor's report    * ‎Bookkeeping    * ‎Comparison of accounting software    * ‎Debit and credit    * ‎Debits and Credits    * ‎Debits and credits    * ‎Debtor collection period    * ‎Differences between managerial accounting and financial accounting    * ‎Double-entry accounting system    * ‎Double-entry bookkeeping system    * ‎Double-entry system    * ‎Double entry system    * ‎Financial accountancy    * ‎Financial audit    * ‎Imprest system    * ‎List of accounting topics    * ‎Matching principle    * ‎Purchase ledger    * ‎Sales ledger    * ‎Single-entry accounting system 

Rather than get a bot written, simply tag each article for revision. Tag them "Accounting Four week sprint" or something similar and after compeletion "Accounting Four week sprint completed". This also makes it more manageable as rather than have hundreds of articles you have a small group of targeted articles with suggestions added each month. In the discusison section of the article there can be a review section for those who can comment on the article as to its readability but may not be contributing to it. This section would be more like a book review section with comments from "onlookers". Active discussion on the article can take place elsewhere in the discussion section. NilssonDenver 19:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Is finance included in this project? I'm a newby, but I'm getting better at editing and might be useful soon. By the way, some of the users listed as participants in this project have left notes on their user pages saying that they've quit Wiki. I was looking for a project leader. Is there a project leader, or isn't it done that way? SueHay 23:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There are no "project leaders" in wikiprojects. Most participants who contribute the most to that wikiproject (or are the most active in that wikiproject) are inferred as project leaders, I stress the plural of leaders. But we welcome any new project members, willing to help in this project. --Parker007 02:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I recently rewrote the entire Auditor's report article, adding much more information, references, and fun stuff. Check it out. I usually take the "adopt an article" approach, and it works fine for me. Maybe everyone in the project should do the same. However, beware of original research. If you adopt an article, do the proper research using verifiable sources. - Mtmelendez ^{(TALK|UB|HOME)} 21:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I like the "adopt an article" approach. I find that vigilant maintenance by one person is much better than a spasmodic burst of interest by a group, which is followed by a long period of decay. Mtmelendez, you might be interested in using {{Maintained}} to identify yourself as maintaining certain articles. Λυδαcιτγ 23:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for reposting, but... I think that Original research within the accountancy topics is a major issue. Some users are adding information based on their current knowledge, and not by finding external reliable sources. This leads to innacurate, incomplete, and sometimes inconsistent information in articles. See my arguments in the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (USA) page. - Mtmelendez ^{(TALK|UB|HOME)} 21:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I have collected a (mixed) list of potential subjects and tried to find any relevant redirects, but could anyone have a look at this list of missing topics? - Skysmith 12:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Just as a query - why do we have a Wikiproject Business and economics rather than a Wikiproject Business and a wikiproject economics? As a brit, we tend to look at those as two seperate areas (but with significant overlap of course). --Fredrick day 13:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I have been wondering about that too and I think it would be a good idea to split the project, theoretically. On the other hand the project is small and I am not sure either project would attract enough people yet. What do other users think?--Grace E. Dougle 18:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

True, true - we could rename it project Business, economics and Pokemon - that should drag them in! --Fredrick day 18:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well both subjects are huge, which could span many other mini-pojects. Maybe instead of splitting them up we could section them of to sub-projects? - Mtmelendez ^{(TALK|UB|HOME)} 21:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I've also been thinking about this for a while, and it would probably be a good idea to get some kind of separation. Generally people who are into economics (as in academic economics) would be less interested in bussiness and the reverse applies. I can't really see people interested both in Cox-Ingersoll-Ross and in Donald Trump. For instance, I'm very interested in theoretical economics but I don't care much about bussiness. This split focus is probably pushing people away from the project rather than draw them in, IMO.AdamSmithee 12:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - two separate projects would do a better job in bringing together people with common interests. JQ 05:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I would also support a split. Bracketing business and economics together is an old-fashioned mid-20th century practice that reflects a world when there was little business literature. Even in the 1960s, when the two great business schools (Manchester and LBS) were founded in England, the prestige jobs went to economists (micro and macro, but particularly macro). Now economics has been crowded out in the business studies curriculum by so many new subjects. Thegn 06:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Most comment seems to favour this split. Does anyone know what step should be taken next? JQ 20:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

There is already one subproject wikipedia:WikiProject Finance. So why don't we create one more subproject for economics? Business may eventually have to be split up into several others, like organizational studies and marketing, so it might as well stay tied into this parent project for now. --Grace E. Dougle 20:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like a good plan to me. Can we just implement this unilaterally, or is there some sort of procedure to go through? I might sign up for wikipedia:WikiProject Finance also.JQ 23:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

A project can be started any time in this format: Wiki: WikiProject Economics. There is a lengthy guideline with some good tips here. But there is no official procedure.--Grace E. Dougle 17:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

As an outsider of this project, I would suggest keeping a banner project,and developing taskforces for the seperate 'disciplines'. Being a small project to begin with does not help necessarily. My suggestion would be to start a page for business article co-ordination at Wikipedia:WikiProject Business and Economics - business taskforce and for economics at Wikipedia:WikiProject Business and Economics - economics taskforce. The advantage come in maintaining your Template:WikiProject Business & Economics banner for talkpages. The same banner can be used for both, with some parameters added so that categorization of subpages can be made at the same time. As an example WP:AUS has implemented this successfully, and being a part of that project I can say it works well. Just my outsiders perspective. Cheers. SauliH 21:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI, Category:Adam Smith is up for deletion at WP:CFD. 132.205.44.134 00:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I copied my comment from January at the Talk:Internet_marketing here into the forum. It's the more appropriate place I guess. I just joined the Project. I was thinking about a project myself to clean up the mess we have right now and are glad that others had the same feeling and already started one. Cheers! --roy ^Talk! .oOo. 08:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I can follow your logic. A template is a good idea, and the topics you pointed out are probably the core ones. Probably Internet public relations would be another major topic. This must be the category you are talking about: Category:Internet advertising and promotion — it's quite cluttered. I also agree there should be a template. I don't know what the rules are for templates, but they all seem to be named template:xxx and any page can be tied into any other page by using two brackets ({{). --Grace E. Dougle 18:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Grace. Thanks for the comments. There does not exist anything to "Internet public relations". I believe that this area is also not very well developed and still in its infancy's. A lot of PR work done online is combination with a SEO campaign. Because "Buzz" and "Press Releases" are part of typical link building campaigns. But you are right, it should eventually become its own subject. It's funny how it plays out in reality today.

Yeah, Category:Internet advertising and promotion is a mess. I already created a sub category and moved stuff there Category:Advertising and Affiliate Networks. I don't want to start fizzling around with templates without letting people know, get suggestions and comments and also some backing, because there is always somebody who does not like something. Having a public space to discuss it is always good and helps to avoid "reversal wars" and bad blood.--roy ^Talk! .oOo. 04:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

When I was talking about Online public relations I was thinking more about the 'consumer tests' which are written on sites like doyoo, ciao and the like. Many of these must come from professionals. Also PR-departments do try to influence the content of wikis like wikipedia, there was an article about it on Wikinews recently n:Microsoft to pay blogger to correct Wikipedia article. Also Astroturfing involves the internet. I know that there is no Wikipedia article on this subject, but we should have one. There is literature on this subject (see list here) and there is one study online and an [abstract. --Grace E. Dougle 13:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Grace, Go ahead and create an article. Let me know and I will help you as much as I can. The subject is not "my home turf" so I can't contribute too much to the actual content, but I can help you with the structure a bit and may be finding references. --roy ^Talk! .oOo. 15:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

A bot has placed tags on many (all?) business and economics article, so we can start grading them according to importance category:Unassessed-importance business and economics articles and quality Category:Unassessed-Class business and economics articles.--Grace E. Dougle 15:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Well join the assessment task force, and start assessing :). See main project page for more details. --Parker007 17:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, for some reason User:Alphachimpbot added the WikiProject Business & Economics template to at least two articles on beer styles which aren't business-related as far as I can tell...what's the reasoning for this? --Stlemur 10:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it has added everything marked as brewery-related to this project, because some of these are company-stubs. --Grace E. Dougle 11:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. We'll keep an eye out. --Stlemur 12:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If its not company related remove the template. I asked the bot to tag all company stubs witht the template. --Parker007 19:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It's still doing it (Maris Otter). The template categorizes includes both beer-related and brewery-related articles; the template is definitely relevant and should stay. --Stlemur 20:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

"bot to tag all articles in the Category:Company_stubs and the within sub categories with the template: {{WikiProject Business & Economics|class=stub|importance=}}." That's what I asked. --Parker007 20:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Category:Beer and brewery stubs was listed as a sub category of Category:Company stubs. Removed the subcategorization. --Parker007 20:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
This happened days ago, so the bot must have already tagged many articles in category Category:Beer and brewery stubs and they need to be sorted out by hand. So — if someone is interested in beer this should be fun...--Grace E. Dougle 21:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It's still tagging them. --Stlemur 08:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a similar problem with Category:Motorcycle stubs, there are only very few companies in them, it makes no sense for the bot to tag them.--Grace E. Dougle 10:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the tag from all of the motorcycle articles and actively removed them from the bot's list. My understanding was that beer and breweries were related to business and economics (hence the tagging). alphachimp 18:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

FOr some reason, there are a ton of articles on Louisiana politicians tagged as business. I've been removing them as I come across them, but there are a lot. Is there a quick fix?akronpow 15:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

"bot to tag all articles in the Category:Company_stubs and the within sub categories with the template: {{WikiProject Business & Economics|class=stub|importance=}}." That's what I asked. Why was it in the first place a sub cat of Category:Company_stubs? --Parker007 18:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the bot will fix it now :). --Parker007 03:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I tried to weed out all of the subcats that were badly marked, but I could have missed some. Can you link me to the subcat? (I'll do some deleting.) alphachimp 06:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right WikiProject for this or not... This article is in serious need of cleanup. There's a new editor that's doing his/her best to make a good article, but there are many WP:MOS problems such as lists that need to be turned into prose, excessive use of the forward slash ("and/or"), and awkward paragraphs and organization. I also have Corporate social responsibility, Corporate governance, and Franchising on my watchlist and I'll be removing them to focus on other projects. If someone could put those on their watchlist to keep away the linkspam, that'd be great! I was also going to delist Cooperative as a GA because of the intermixed usage of "cooperative" and "co-operative" (both are correct, but the article should be consistent, as should all of the associated articles so linking between them is easier or redirects are needed). Thanks! --Rkitko 19:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

London congestion charge 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. Gzkn 02:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Microsoft 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)

I can understand this project tagging the talk pages of articles on corporations and companies, specifically aircraft manufacturers, but why is the project tagging individual aircraft model articles, such as Spectrum S-33 Independence and Spectrum S-40 Freedom? Such articles are typically put in the care of Wiki: WikiProject Aircraft. Akradecki 14:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It can be part of 2 wikiprojects many articles are like that. Besides these are business articles. part of Aeronautical company stubs. Peace. --Parker007 02:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't make sense to tag them as business and economics, since any expertise for writing the articles will come from knowledge of aircraft. --NE2 03:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it doesn't make sense to tag the aircraft models for business and econ. We can't review every company product from a financial standpoint, and as NE2 says, we don't have the expertise. -- SueHay 22:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree - the actual planes are for an entirely different project - the impact of those planes on the marketplace or the manufacturing organisations is for us. --Fredrick day 22:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Sigh! Just contact Alphachimp (talk · contribs) to tell him to remove tags from another sub category again. You guys are making me look like an idiot. --Parker007 22:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I've left a note asking Alphachimp (talk · contribs) to do this. I'm not sure if you wanted someone else to contact Alphachimp, but I went ahead and did it. Very sorry if I've overstepped. Hope it's okay. --SueHay 00:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Thankyou Sue. I was not intending on contacting Alphachimp, I wanted someone else to contact him, because I made the original request. --Parker007 01:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Very glad to hear that's okay! I don't have an answer back from him right now, but I'll follow up. P.S. you're NOT an idiot so don't talk such foolishness. -- SueHay 02:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Alphachimp (talk · contribs) asked me what category was causing this, and I can't find the category. I thought it was Business aircraft, but that doesn't seem to be it. Does anyone know what category is tagging those aircraft model articles? -- SueHay 21:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Category:Aeronautical company stubs --Parker007 23:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I looked at Category:Aeronautical company stubs. I didn't check them all, but they seem to be companies, not specific aircraft models. Do you think some aircraft models slipped into that category but now have been corrected? -- SueHay 23:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Yup if you see the history of the above mentioned articles they were listed in that category, but now someone removed it. --Parker007 00:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you, Parker007 -- I didn't look there. So should I go back to Alphachimp and tell him our problem is solved? -- SueHay 00:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I vote yes. Problem Solved. Maybe if some one else has any other comments make them or now, or forever hold your peace. --Parker007 02:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I stumbled on the article Business economics. It was a poorly formatted brochure for a Business economics program in Delhi which I deleted and , since I know nothing about economics, I replaced by a pretty awful stub. I'd be grateful if someone from the project could make it into a more decent stub (or decide that it makes most sense to simply redirect the page somewhere else. Since there is a Category:Business economics maybe some short article might be a good idea though. Thanks for your help. Pascal.Tesson 19:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

What's making a bunch of articles suddenly appear on the unrated list? It's not showing on the count yet, but something is adding a LOT more articles. --SueHay 01:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Parker007 used AWB to add your project's banner to several talk pages. During his last run with AWB, he tagged Primatech, a fictional company from the TV show Heroes. I am removing the banner for now; if someone wants to add it back (without going on an AWB-spree) then that's fine. - fmmarianicolon | Talk 18:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Sheesh I removed all tags from category Fictional companies. I assumed it was part of our project! --Parker007 21:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Participants of assessing please feel free to suggest some important articles you have come across here: Wiki: WikiProject_Business_and_Economics#Collaboration_of_the_Month_.28Beta_version.29. --Parker007 22:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This page 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.