Talk:Factory/Archives/2012

Reverted move

I reverted the move of this article because I believe that it was contrary to the guidelines on disambiguation and naming conventions. Most importantly, if there is a meaning that is by far the most common, that meaning gets the undisambiguated name and a link to a disambiguation page, or the other article, if there is only one, is put at the top of the article. The manufacturing meaning is by far the most common. Second, the undisambiguated name should never be a redirect. It should either be an article about the most common meaning or a disambiguation page. If you want there to be a way to tell whether links to a disambiguation page are intentional, the proper way to do it is to make a disambiguated redirect. In this case, factory would be the disambiguation page and factory (manufacturing) would redirect to it. When people intentionally link to the disambiguation page, they would link to factory (manufacturing) and let it redirect to factory. You can put a pipe link in the link so that the "(manufacturing)" part is not seen. Here is what it looks like, [[factory (manufacturing)|factory]]. For these reasons, I reverted the move. If you disagree, please make a move request. Instructions can be found at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Most moves are uncontroversial and can be done without going through the requested move process, but if the move is controversial it should be done. It is also necessary to do it if the page that the article is to be moved to already exists because the other page must be deleted by an administrator before the article can be moved. Thanks, Kjkolb 10:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Regional Bias

I'm well aware that The English and U.S. Industrial Revolutions are commonly cited as forerunners to the global Industrial Revolution, so it makes sense that this article talks a lot about the United States and England. I do find it odd that the article doesn't seem to be interested in German, French or Dutch factories, but my knowledge on this subject is spotty, so I can't argue against it.

The 'Historically Significant Factories' section, though, is 100% U.S. and British factories. That can't be right. No German factories are historically significant compared to the 10 U.S. and British Factories mentioned? No Japanese, Korean or Chinese factories either? Does Mitsubishi not count because it didn't begin a shipbuilding factory until 1890? Is Foxconn considered not historically significant because it wasn't established until 1974?

Like I said, I'm no expert in the subject of Factories, so I don't want to task myself with coming up with a good 'top ten' list. I'd probably do a poor job. I'm pretty sure, though, that it would be in poor taste for me to try to jam ten extra companies onto the article page just to spice things up. Could someone who has a better background in this subject look over that list, remove a few irrelevant factories, and replace them with important factories from non-English speaking countries? Or, alternatively, maybe just a quick explanation here as to why those factories on that page are more culturally significant than, say, the Volkswagon Factory, who's picture graces the top of this article.

Jmgariepy (talk) 08:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Automated factories

Please keep in mind this factory Portsmouth Block Mills. Lin (talk) 11:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)