Talk:Inventory/Archives/2015
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Inventory. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Link removal, people!
vInventory and the applications that manage inventory are synonymous. Any organization with a serious collection of inventory is reliant on a software package. Given this, why are we removing relevant links to inventory software packages from the External Links section?? It seems like a very appropriate place for something that Inventory and Inventory Management is so reliant upon.
- Because Wikipedia is not a links directory. This is an encyclopedia, not a replacement for Google. Links to products and services are unwelcome as they detract from the quality of the encyclopedia. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- I concur that Wikipedia is not a links directory, but your assumption that links to products and services are unwelcome is incorrect. This is taken directly from the page you listed above, "External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs. See also WP:CORP for guidelines on corporate notability. "
- Those are links to major corporations, not products and services. That's a fine but extremely important difference. Links to products and services are unwelcome. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- By your definition, a link to any product or service is unwelcome but a link to major corporations is welcome. But by linking to a major corporation that offers a product or service whatsoever, you're establishing a link to products and services. So using your definition (along with the transitive property), linking to major corporations that offer any product or service is unwelcome. That logic invalidates the majority of external links posted in wikipedia.org (including all links to Microsoft.com for example), does it not?
- No, that's not my logic at all. My "logic" was merely pointing out that you had misread the policy that you quoted and it didn't say what you thought it said, and so it didn't support your position at all.
- Here's the lay of the land: links to a corporation or product are welcome when the article is about that specific corporation or product. There is no such product called "Inventory", so links to products are unwelcome on this page. You are welcome to link to a page about SPAM on the article on SPAM, or to Microsoft.com on Microsoft. We are very conservative about links here because they are typically abused for profit, and that makes the encyclopedia suck. — Saxifrage ✎ 07:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- The generalization is what did not make sense to me. links to products and services are unwelcome is a generalization that I don't agree with as I stated above. But put in the context of, There is no such product called "Inventory", so links to products are unwelcome on this page, makes sense. Thanks.
- You're welcome! The implications of our content policies and guidelines can sometimes be counter-intuitive, I know. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- The generalization is what did not make sense to me. links to products and services are unwelcome is a generalization that I don't agree with as I stated above. But put in the context of, There is no such product called "Inventory", so links to products are unwelcome on this page, makes sense. Thanks.
- By your definition, a link to any product or service is unwelcome but a link to major corporations is welcome. But by linking to a major corporation that offers a product or service whatsoever, you're establishing a link to products and services. So using your definition (along with the transitive property), linking to major corporations that offer any product or service is unwelcome. That logic invalidates the majority of external links posted in wikipedia.org (including all links to Microsoft.com for example), does it not?
- Those are links to major corporations, not products and services. That's a fine but extremely important difference. Links to products and services are unwelcome. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- I concur that Wikipedia is not a links directory, but your assumption that links to products and services are unwelcome is incorrect. This is taken directly from the page you listed above, "External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs. See also WP:CORP for guidelines on corporate notability. "
In this debate there is a good point hiding here.... we should have a section on software and inventory in the article, as was said above they are closely linked and has a big impact upon inventory. Mathmo Talk 23:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
This link http://www.inventorymatters.co.uk/what-we-do---expertise seems to be commercial one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsamtor (talk • contribs) 01:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Stock rotation
The section on stock rotation looks pretty much bogus to me, although I don't have access to the book cited so I can't check. As far as I'm aware, "stock rotation" normally refers to making sure older items get sold first, as described at stock rotation. If changing the shop layout to force customers to search for their product is a different (retail jargon?) meaning of the term, perhaps there should be a note of that. I wouldn't be surprised if changing the shop layout had a different term, but I can't think what it is. Pippin (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it's call alienating customers and giving them a reason to check out other stores. older ≠ wiser 13:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)