Talk:Organization
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Organization is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images. |
 |
This article is within the scope of the Organizations WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of organizations. We are developing a framework that will sort every category by location, field, ideology, and type. We need a few more people to help coordinate this ambitious project. If you have any technical experience with templates, or just have an interest in the topic, add your name, and check out the talk page to get involved. |
 |
This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to Sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Organization, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of Business and Economics WikiProject. |
| Start | rated as start-Class on the assessment scale |
| Top | rated as top-importance on the assessment scale |
This is not very NPOV. The revolting Jack Welch is no moral example. Mere mention of him should trigger a rather high-voltage discharge on GE's practices under his management.
Contents |
[edit] Not NPOV
A brief scan of this article reveals it to be nowhere near NPOV -- a great example: "Don't bet on it in the long term. Success outgrows the ability of the genius. There just get to be too many special cases." 'Don't bet on it?' This needs to be changed, heavily. And what's with all the exclaimation marks?
[edit] Advertising
Continued viewing of this article reveals editing for advertising purposes by what appears to be something related to Second Life. No real bearing on the nature of the article. --Admiraljustin
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 12:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Organization versus organisation
At 3 November, Jachin copied the article organization to organisation and made the former into a redirect, but forgot to also move the talk page. Please do not move an article without also moving its talk page! --Kernigh 20:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- If in Britland they use both, and in America only one is correct, and if the "z" usage is etymologically correct, why does the page redirect to the less-used, less-proper spelling?Polyhymnia
[edit] Move back to Organization
The article started out as Organization. In November 2005, it was incorrectly moved (copy and paste!) to Organisation by Jachin. There was no good reason to move the article and the move was performed secretly. The article should be moved back to Organization. Since both articles have an edit history, the move has to be performed by an administrator. The two edit history should be merged if possible. SpNeo 21:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support Despite my usage of the 's' variant and the move, either form is correct and the original article was at 'z'. Moreover, online instances of "organization" outnumber those for "organisation" by more than 4 to 1. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit] Organisation vs. Organization (a proposal)
I propose that the page be changed do a dual title "organisation - organization" or "organization - organisation"
Just because 3/4 of articles found in a search engine use "organization" is no justification to abandon the use of "organisation". It would be like saying we should pretend African Americans do not exist because 85% of Americans do not identify as such.
One can point out that the Commonwealth has 600 million people in it (1.7 billion if we include india) almost twice that of the United States. This is true even if we were to include Canada and some other members that use both spellings as part of the U.S.
The English language has one of the most diverse histories of any language in the world. Let's respect that, and the right to self-determination and international use of this language.
S! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hrimpurstala (talk • contribs) 18:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
- While I appreciate the spirit of your proposal, the best way forward is with the status quo. Organizations from the UK or elsewhere that use the "ise' version of the word in their title should retain that in their articles and title of the pages, but all other categories and pages should reflect the international (not american) standard. Please visit the WikiProject, where we are moving towards taking a lot of action in this field. Oldsoul 15:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merging Organized
Qualified No. This particular article deals with human organizations. Organizing deals will just about anything that isn't entropic - both animate and inanimate. However, it might not be a bad idea to
- rename organized to organization (titles should normally be nouns, yes?)
- rename this topic to organization (business) or organization (social)
- add see also/disambiguation links in the organizing-->organization topic
Egfrank 15:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
