Talk:Good (disambiguation)

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Good as a Word?[edit]

I believe that the main problem with fixing links to this disambiguation page is that it seems that there is no page on Wikipedia that is a counterpart of 'evil'. Does anyone agree on this and should such a page be created? Or am I simply overlooking one? The goodness and value page is a lot more complicated than it needs to be and in some cases it's simply not what most people mean by 'good'.

The Hooded Man 00:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

fixing links and have a question[edit]

What the difference between the accounting sense, the economics sense and the business sense? Tedernst 19:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As far as a I can tell, accounting deals with actual physical "stuff," like the "goods" in "goods and sevices." I'm thinking inventory-- the beans the bean counters count.

Economic deals with a thing that is desired, whether it be physical or intangible. Kind of a cross between good and good (accounting). It appears to be irrelevant whether the thing is sold or not.

Business deals with a good or service that is sold.

At least that's what I got from their Wikipedia articles. If no one complains, that's how I'll disambig the remaning links in a day or so. D-Rock 00:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ALL THESE IS CRAP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.50.154 (talk) 06:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why cant good have its own page?[edit]

Is goodness not force of its own?! Chavatshimshon 18:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC) avg 8MEH-RFR8J-PTS8Q-92ATA-04WHO-JEMBR-ACED — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.45.52.63 (talk) 15:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination[edit]

This is clearly a Good article. It's even in the name, what more could you want? CodeCat (talk) 02:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC) ^{[April Fools!]}[reply]

Hey, cut this crap out. There's no need to disrupt the serious Good Article Nomination process with something that's clearly destined for Featured Article status. Tezero (talk) 06:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]