Miscellaneous desk
< July 7	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 9 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 8

Up and down company hierarchies

Can you go up and down in them? I never hear of anyone going down. Perhaps, because you just get fired instead of going down?--Mr.K. (talk) 10:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my (long) experience there are two movements within a hierarchy: upwards and sideways. Also, of course, exit. It is sometimes prudent to move a person sideways, out of the main career path, when that person has topped out, but is still valuable to the organisation. Sometimes, of course, a sideways move results in a resignation.Froggie34 (talk) 10:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has been observed ~~(by Parkinson?)~~ that a bureaucrat gets promoted to the level of his/her incompetence. This provides employment security in a large organisation where there are plenty of positions for which he/she is incompetent. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually the Peter principle.--Quest09 (talk) 11:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)Yes and thanks. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If their incompetence is uncovered, i.e. if it is found to cost the company big bucks for no benefit, they may be dumped, albeit with a golden (or at least silver) parachute. Although I'm reminded of the Jack Benny Christmas show in which he asks the department store's rude floorwalker, Frank Nelson, if he's working his way up the organization: "Not exactly. I started as Vice President!" In real life, they usually get moved laterally or jettisoned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demotion would be the term for it. The example that springs to mind is not in companies but in governments, when a Cabinet reshuffle might result in a disloyal minister being sent to a less prestigious department, or when the party leadership changes; William Hague used to be party leader, but is now Foreign Secretary; Gordon Brown used to be the British PM and is now not even in the shadow cabinet. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 12:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But governments do not have hierarchies. There is no climbing steadily up. Instead appointments are made by the Prime Minister - always with the political imperative acting on the decision. Civil Servants have clear structure, lines of advancement but not politicians.Froggie34 (talk) 14:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Governments do not have hierarchies" is laughably false. You might be able to get away with saying that "government hierarchies are not like corporate hierarchies", but I'm not sure that even holds up. I think, at best, you could claim that movement within government hierarchies isn't like movement within corporate hierarchies.

Now back to the original question: downward movement within a corporate hierarchy can certainly happen voluntarily: my supervisor realized that a VP role wasn't for him and so he returned to where he could do actual work for which he's professionally trained. I have no idea how common this is, but I expect it happens from time to time at most places. — Lomn 14:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Petraeus was recently demoted, but not for poor performance. --Sean 16:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In a goverment's Diplomatic service there is an arcane heirarchy where a posting, say, to the New York embassy rates higher than to the Icelandic embassy. Since ambassadors are temporary posts, promotions and demotions occur fluidly. See the article Diplomatic rank. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think demotion is the right word for it. Demotion would be something like a reduction in rank. --173.49.10.201 (talk) 06:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My boss's boss was recently put in that position (by his boss) after holding a position with considerably more authority. When announcing this reassignment, his boss made a point of saying that it wasn't a demotion, but everyone knew that it was. Marco polo (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my company there is quite a few bit of up and down in the sales and service departments. There's lots of temporary managers. But people also get authority, screw up, and get put in the position they had before. I guess this isn't that common in other companies? --mboverload @ 02:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the OP: my sister is really good at her customer relations job. But, when she was promoted to management, she hated it. So, she asked to go back to what she does best, and everyone's happier. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problem while editing own talkpage

When I edit my own talkpage and hit preview all text shows up centered although after saving everything is fine. This goes on for several weeks now and while it is not a "huge" problem, it is somehow annoying as I can't see the final format before saving. Not sure if some centered text at the top of my page is causing this. So if someone would be so kind and take a look at it and fix it for me I would be much appreciated for the effort.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has something to do with this message:

Please do not leave me a talkback notice unless an immediate response from my side is essential. If I've left you a message, I've already added you to my watchlist and will respond at your talkpage.|}

Perhaps those stray characters at the end are hosing things up? --Sean 19:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely wacked out in general, not just the OP's computer. While we're on the subject, he should lose the fake "new message" thing. Editors have been taken to task for it in the past. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW. Not that I want to beat a dead horse but the only "instance" I remember is one editors "notice" that logged you out when you clicked it. That sure was annoying and affected people complained for good reasons. As for "my" linking, nobody ever complaint about it (until today) and I removed it right away and would've done so at any point if someone had expressed concerns. Cheers, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear. It's annoying and unfunny. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little funny. 142.104.215.119 (talk) 02:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of fixing your edit notice, which corrected the problem. The problem was the table-ending characters I noted above were not on their own line, as they apparently want to be. --Sean 19:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ Sean: Thanks a lot for the fix. Didn't think this notice would interfere with my talkpage the way it did.

And in regards to the "fake message issue" (which I don't consider an issue at all), I've removed it since it was old anyways and Edison asked me politely to do so. Cheers, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Reference-Desk-related squabbling collapsed

:: The first problem is that it's a lie, intended to deceive your fellow editors into wasting their time checking their messages. The second problem is that you can't seem to understand why any of us would have a problem with it (besides "it's old"). -- Coneslayer (talk) 22:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your drama-seeking approach here and on my talkpage isn't helpful so you might want to consider to cut it out and put it to rest. You're not doing a good service to WP and yourself in my opinion and just wasting editor's time for no reason. If some editors think or feel different I urge them to post their rational on my talkpage and I will consider those. Otherwise I consider this matter as closed as a real "waste of time".The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: What I see is simply one editor trying to pick a fight for whatever reasons.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One editor? At least 4 of us have expressed an objection to the notice. While you removed it, you have repeatedly made it clear that you don't understand why anybody would have a problem with it. You are a master of the "I'm Sorry If You Were Offended By My Perfectly Reasonable Actions" apology so beloved of celebrities. -- Coneslayer (talk) 22:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sure. I'm a bad faith editor who doesn't understand shit and yet a master "of the "I'm Sorry If You Were Offended By My Perfectly Reasonable Actions" apology so beloved of celebrities." Anything else you would like to add on? I really don't want to spoil your fun XD.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to point out that contrary to what was stated here, the fake message thing its a common issue with a whole subpage of discussions Wikipedia talk:User page/UI spoofing as well as I'm pretty sure a whole lot more in other places like the VP, ANI etc. And quite a few users have been asked to remove theirs hence why it's in the guidelines Wikipedia:User pages#Simulated MediaWiki interfaces (and from memory has been for over a year). Even if it isn't so insidious as the one TMC described it's still likely to cause confusion. While it's good that TMC removed it on request, complaining about people asking for it to be removed whatever the shortcomings of the way they asked, particularly when it's in the guidelines (which while it would have been ideal if they had pointed out, experienced users should be familiar with themselves or at least willing to check before they try to defend their actions) and has been the subject of multiple discussions elsewhere not only one as was claimed (which again while it would have been ideal if they have pointed out, anyone could have checked themselves) is not usually the way to go. Nil Einne (talk) 04:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

bike manufacturing

How many bicycles does China manufacture annually, and how do those numbers compare against the USA, UK, India and Brazil? Googlemeister (talk) 19:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lower-right chart on the fifth page of this document has some answers. It looks like 80% China, 10% EU, 4% Taiwan, and the rest everyone else. UK, India, and Brazil don't even register. --Sean 19:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(The UK would be a part of that "10% EU" - so perhaps it's not so negligable.) SteveBaker (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those figures don't represent percentages; they represent millions of bicycles. Deor (talk) 23:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of the same thing at first but then noticed that the table includes Italy, Germany and France (didn't notice the millions/percentage thing until Deor pointed it out). I think but don't know for sure that these are included in the EU figure, if they are it would suggest the UK figure may be lower then France's 1.3. Nil Einne (talk) 03:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]