Talk:Organizing

Starting the article

Sorry, I have no sources. That's even one reason why I've set it as stub.

I wrote this just now, out of my thoughts, hoping it will better fit this article needs and that it will be commonly agreed.

It took me fairly an hour to write just this small article, because it is very compact and well taken care of.

So... Please, if you think this information doesn't belong in here, just be nice and "organize" it better, instead of removing it. ;)

Thanks for understanding. --Cacumer 09:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup & stylization

This, coupled with organization (two articles that should not be merged, I feel) makes for a sloppy little random trip around Wikipedia. Despite being very comprehensive in terms of quantity, it may very well be the worst article of its length for quality. I'm going to add it to my list of things to fix up, but I make no guarantees; the subject of organization is a pretty darn uninteresting one. -- Randall00 ^Talk 22:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed uncited information

I removed the following:

Recently there was the advent of computers and in the last decade, a huge Internet usage world wide. Notably, the Internet growth is directly related to the advent of websites to search the internet, which also means organizing the internet, since nobody would know how to get anywhere without either guessing, hints or those websites.

It could be improved by instead linking to search engine and fixing the tone a little, but as is it's original research, and needs a reliable source first. Ichibani 16:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Organize vs. organizing vs. organization

I set out to learn about the methods used in organizing, and was redirected to this page. This article starts out describing organizing, and then quickly slips into organizing from an Organization's point of view. That info is best inserted into the "Organization" article. What is needed in this article is best or proven methods of organizing items. Those items can be lists, info, children's toys, a family reunion, etc. General organizing rules/methods, with each properly sourced, of course. An article like this will take time, but, with respect to the original editor, will be of more use than only focusing on how Organizations organize. I am more than willing to help refocus this article towards a range of organizing methods, if no one has any objections to my doing so. Thank you. Tell someone (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a great idea to me. Thanks! Libcub (talk) 02:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy game

This article breaks the philosophy game! The first link goes to wiktionary! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.0.36.8 (talk) 02:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too many subjects

This page covers very different unrelated topics that share the same name "organize", "organizing", "organization", etc. This is like a disambiguation page that also gives you the first paragraph of each article. I think the things it lists should become mostly part of the disambiguation page for Organization. The content itself could be picked over to add to the pages of the respective subjects it talks about, though, as the author said, it is a stub; the content is pretty much filler.

In my opinion Structure and Sorting cover whatever would be left of the general topic of Organizing, and they should be part of the disambiguation page. Cesoid (talk) 01:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this lk will still reflect only the changes that i am seeing, from the time of Ces's comment to the time of this comment by me. (Since it reflects changes attributable to "78 intermediate revisions by 55 users not shown", and most recent editor (an IPs) edited it on no other occasion, it shows the net effect of 79 edits by a group of registered users (nominally each a distinct person) and of IP-users (who may represent a larger or smaller number of distinct people) totaling 56 all told. I consider it worthy of mention bcz that's within 10% of two years, and the resulting change is confined to:

Reciprocating the link from Organization (disambiguation) to here
Rewording and grouping the 2 pre-existing overall-shortcoming tags
Replacement or deletion, in the 5-sentence section "History" of 7 units (single words or phrases of no more than four words)
In the 6-sentence section "Specialization and division of work", reordering the words of that title, Americanizing one word, and downcasing a bunch of nouns.
Breaking the former heading "Differentiated functions"
In "Work specialization", adding a good clause to one sentence, and remedying some subjectivity and/or excessive informality in its pre-existing clause.
In the section "Types of authority (and responsibility)", i kid you not, changing
... responsible for the result—the subordinate ...

(which contains the — construction) to
... responsible for the result and dash;the subordinate ...

(while adding two credible -- if carelessly drafted -- sentences in a new 'graph of that section)

Well, i didn't come to this talk page just to whine, but i am claiming license to make some minor fixes to these Augean stables while holding my nose against most of it.
--Jerzy•t 05:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All that said, i endorse Ces's assessment tho i dread the need to do more than toss out the excess material. Maybe the next thing needed is a list of dict senses of either "organization" or "organizing", and practical assessments for each of which we have anything encyclopedic to say about it. What do you think?
--Jerzy•t 05:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bold breakup

Looking some more, the history of discussions here is one of no conflict, no explanation of the diverse accretions, and most proposers failing to edit the article.
Without prejudice (of course) to primary Dab'n (once the splitting out of topics and perhaps consolidation of some of the resulting pages makes an argument that there is a primary topic feasible, i am boldly doing equal disambiguation: the bulkiest topic is not even a candidate for primary topic if "Organizing" is a poor title for it, or if it is better merged with another topic.
--Jerzy•t 06:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The preceding talk sections concern material that is now almost all at Organizing (management) -- more specifically, they concerned for the most part the need for breaking up the page whose main content provided the initial content of Organizing (management), rather than the substance of the former "Organizing" article. So that article should not much miss its former close role to this talk page.
--Jerzy•t 07:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]