Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business/BEF

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Business (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Urgent and important articles are bold

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Specific companies[edit]

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)
I suggest yes, because those companies are both famous and important. Why write hundreds of articles about all the different tiny parties of the world and not say anything about entities that are often so much more influential? (not that I'm against articles of tiny ridiculous parties. They should also be included of course)7 saturnight 19:03, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

In addition, look at the S&P 500 in the USA as well as equivalent lists of companies in other countries. You'd know that we really had something going if the Russell 2000 was complete.--Fredrik Coulter 04:16, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Who reads this stuff anyway?[edit]

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)
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)
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)

I put in a suggestion about splitting certain articles into separate "theory" and "history/practice" articles. There is a big difference between an article explaining what a stock market is, and an article introducing the theories used to study them. I got this idea because auction is currently kinda messy. It goes into some technical points that really just aren't needed in the main article, and it loses clarity by doing so. There is also potential for confusion between formal and informal te.

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)
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)

It isn't strictly a matter of separating the math from the applied material. It's also a matter of separating "phenomenon X" from material about the study of "phenonomenon X". Economists use classifications and the terminology that are sometimes very different from those who actually implement something, and those who study it. For example, auction theorists consider some things to be auctions even though those who take part don't call them that or think of them that way. Ideally Wikipedia should present both viewpoints while not confusing the two. Isomorphic 15:49, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Archive of Strategic Management feature article discussion[edit]

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)

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)
This nomination was rejected by administrators. I'm not sure why. No reason was given. mydogategodshat 16:29, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
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)
Thanx to all that supported the nomination of this articlemydogategodshat 19:26, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Needed articles[edit]

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)


Shouldn't this page really be a Wikiproject? It seems to serve that purpose. I can only assume it predates wikiprojects and so that's why it was given such a name explicitly. Deco 04:17, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, you're probably right, but I'm not sure how active the page is nowdays anyway. I listed a page under the 'potential FAC' about a month ago and put the page on watch at the same time. I got no feedback and there's been about 2 edits since then. I don't know that making it a proper project page is worthwhile without some active contributors. It's a bit of a shame, the economics on Wikipedia does need some serious work. I mean there isn't even a page on offer curves!! I intend to make one when I have some time. Psychobabble 08:02, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This page was envisioned as something quite different from a Wikiproject. A Wikiproject has very specific goals (for example, to coordinate the format of all biographies, or ensuring a consistent colour to all infoboxes in a subject area. This page is much broader than that. It is a forum where people with an interest in business or economics can raise issues, any issues, relevent to the subject. It is not specificly goal oriented like a Wikiproject: it is an open forum for anything relating to this section of the encyclopedia. It is a sodality, not a project.
I agree that we need more active participation in both the WP:BEF and the economics and business articles. Do you have any suggestions on how to do this?mydogategodshat 18:40, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards[edit]

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)


Hi, I just saw the above project and signed up. All wikipedia articles should meet good scholarly standards eventually. Then I noticed that of the economics relatd featured articles, four have no references:

I think we can do a lot better than that. Please help by at least going through the external links and using them to fact check the above articles, then properly format them as references. Thanks - Taxman 18:53, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

I don't object if people want to include references formatted in academic style. If "format them as references" means that they'd be removed as external links, though, then I disagree. Wikipedia's main audience will benefit more from clickable links than from a formal list of references. JamesMLane 19:35, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree, see Wikipedia:Cite_sources for how to properly format external links as references, once they have actually been used as such. - Taxman 19:52, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Not my area of expertise but...[edit]

...I started an article on Martin J. Whitman. Someone who knows more than I do might want to take it on. I'm not sure that an article on an individual is the best place for some of this material, but I don't know this territory well enough to know where it should go. It is possible that I was out of my depth even in what I already tried to write.

Anyway, it seems to me like Wikipedia is very light on current U.S. controversies about accounting and about regulation of markets, not to mention articles about any of the notable individuals who have been involved in this contentious discussion; however, I am simply not knowledgable enough in this area to be significantly involved in helping to solve this. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:50, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Archive of Supply and demand feature article discussion[edit]

Exert from the article talk page:

This article is probably one of the most linked economics article, and I believe it to be high quality. Jrincayc 02:14, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think that the only remaining work from the above is working on the history section (I just started one, but I don't know that much about the topic), and working on the diagrams (which Fredrik is working on). Is there anything else that needs to be done before this is resubmitted to featured articles? Jrincayc 15:56, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Other suggestions for improvement (summarized from above) are:
  • better transitions between sections and how they fit in ("narrative arc")
  • less major subsections. drop some of the subtopics down a level to group ideas properly
  • removal of the double navtable at the end and/or combination into one
  • more external links to standard sources, perhaps a bibliography of standard works
  • improvements to the discrete example for clarity and correctness (what does it mean to be "at a market", ie why would the first willing person not buy at the lowest price any producer is willing to sell for?
- Taxman 22:51, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
Can anyone help me with a couple of supply and demand diagrams, here. mydogategodshat 18:01, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Great Depression[edit]

I think that I may need some help keeping a POV personal essay out of Great Depression. [1] Please take a look if my attempt to keep it out gets reverted. Works Progress Administration 20:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Free market[edit]

I'll need some help keeping the randroid crap out of this article. 172 16:54, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Come on, you can do this yourself. You're a big boy. (I think I'll buy a Rand book and see what all the fuss is about). (RJII) DEC 29
Some kind of authority/ies for useful definition(s) of the term would probably help. History of its usage (political v economic context; Randroid) would also be interesting/helpful. Rd232 01:29, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On related problems, any comments on:

  • natural monopoly nearly-edit-war because of non-acceptance of standard definition
  • monopoly - needless introduction of POV term "coercive monopoly", a term apparently used by some US conservative websites to mean "government monopoly" (though in academia it refers to a "monopoly on the use of force".
Problem fixed. It doesn't mean government monopoly, but any monopoly that results as a consequence of thwarting the operation of a free market, so include government monopoly. And it's quite common enough to be noteable. Too bad for the advancement of your "POV". (RJII) DEC 30
That def I don't have a problem with, conceptually. But the term is still obscure - too obscure I think. Wikipedia is supposed to be based on well-established knowledge and terms. Rd232 19:58, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
sure...sure you don't have a problem with the concept being indentified and open for public viewing. They should call you Mr. Neutral. (RJII) DEC 30
Sigh. Someone should tell RJII that a true Randroid is too good for both peer-reviewed journals and peer-reviewed encyclopedias. 172 20:08, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that Ayn Rand used the term. I thought it was much newer than that. But thanks. (RJII) DEC 29

Anybody have any thoughts on how to improve statism? Or comments whether it's a pejorative term or not? Rd232 22:16, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Certainly not an inherently pejorative term. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:57, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
I presume you mean that term doesn't contain within itself a pejorative statement or implication; although arguably it does because of a possible implication that supporters of it see the state as a goal rather than a means. But its usage is nonetheless entirely pejorative in my experience. I'm not sure how solid the idea of "inherently pejorative" is anyway; any term that is pejorative has the potential to be "reclaimed" - see "queer". Also terms that start off as polite (even politically-correct) euphemisms can become pejorative - see "retarded". I have never seen "statism" used except by critics, or people directly responding to critics who used the term. That would suggest it's pejorative. The situation is confused by the fact that critics of "statism" may not feel it's pejorative (they're just using it to describe something they don't like), and supporters of the underlying idea which is labelled in this way by opponents don't use the term - because it's generally used pejoratively. Rd232 10:11, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Natural monopoly was put up for peer review; it still needs much work. Just thought I'd point it out here, and encourage people to contribute. (NB I'm curious if people can spot the recently-disputed (and still IMO inappropriate) paragraph purely by looking at the article.) Rd232 17:26, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Econ Terms[edit]

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)

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)
I'll look to find relevant WikiProjects J heisenberg 15:35, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)


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)

Street name[edit]

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) I've created a stub with the title Street name securities. I think disamiguation will be necessary, and probably categorisation too. --Andrew Gardner 10:51, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)


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)

Improvement Drive[edit]

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)

Economy of India[edit]

The Economy of India is at Peer review. Help it achieve Featured article status by commenting on it at Wikipedia:Peer review/Economy of India/archive1. pamri 18:08, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

List of topics for economics[edit]

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)

Corporate jargon[edit]

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)

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 acronymsCategory:Lists of three-character combinations. Thomas Blomberg 13:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
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)

Billboard (advertising)[edit]

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)

Economy of the Republic of Ireland[edit]

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)

Economy of Africa[edit]

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)

Economy of India[edit]

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)


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