Talk:Marketing management/Archives/2012

Page protection needed

Main page: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

I see that a lot of vandalism as well as unhelpful edits have been made to this article. Let's form a consensus as to whether this article needs Page protection so that only established users may edit it. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 07:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Fancy layout

I don't think these kinds of fancy layout for other links are a very good idea. It is introducing rather useless html code, and cut scare away some contributors. What do you think ? User:Anthereyeah yeah

I find these navigational aids really useful. Not only do they help you get where you want to go with excessve typing, but they also make the 'opedia visually more interesting. It is far more enjoyable reading articles with graphics, pictures, and charts like these.

As for them being intimidating to some users. Maybe. I considered doing a jpeg images, but that still introduces HTML codes, and they have the additional disadvantage that others cannot modify them ( ie. put their own links in the charts). The compromise I cam up with, was to put all the code in one block. People will see that it is a module and they can ignore that section if they dont want to get into codes. user:mydogategodshat

I agree with you these navigational aids are very useful.

It would be a very bad idea to put these in jpg, as they would have been non-editable.

I agree graphics...make wikipedia more enjoyable. However, I still maintain that these introduce unnecessary complexicity. Also, I think many people desire that we maintain a rather common layout for articles, for consistency. It is the first time I see this layout. This troubles me. Besides, you appear to add them in articles for which all of these links are not relevant. I think if you are going to do that, it should be community approved.

For example, I think some of the links you put at the Donella Meadows' twelve leverage points to intervene in a system are irrelevant to this topic. Why adding these ones and not others ?

User:anthere

At this point I just put together a standard chart: the same one as for all business and economics pages. But if you feel that there are other lists that are more appropriate for any given article, then change them. If you don't feel that the list of economics articles, for exampl, should be included, then where you see the link [[list of economics topics|List of Economics Topics], just replace it with [[list of whatever]. Keep in mind that the chart was designed strictly for lists, not for "See also Articles". It was not intended to replace the "see also" section.

user:mydogategodshat

As for community approval, we will see what happens. Already, I have noticed people changing the content of the chart and using it for their own purposes, and the charts are only 12 hours old. The people will speak.

user:mydogategodshat

Service marketing

I miss a section on service marketing, and a service perspective on marketing (SD Logic et cetera). Services contitue 75% of US GDP, this is relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.236.36.213 (talk) 14:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Is someone messing with this article? There are a lot of blatant strange errors.. Offthewoll (talk) 10:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

manage

how to manage the product? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.93.161.12 (talk) 11:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)