Talk:Practice firm

Merge proposal

Wikipedia has an article on business simulation that covers the topic of practice firms in a much better developed way. This article seems more like an ad for one particular implementation of the idea, rather than a general description of the topic. I don't know that there is actually much usable information in this page to merge (as it is completely unreferenced); I rather believe that the entire article should just be reduced to a redirect to the business simulation article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, our organization was the one that created the original page Practice firms. We are an international non-profit organization that is the world body for practice enterprises and practice firms. We work using the practice enterprise concept, we do not do business simulation games. Our firms provide free entrepreneurship training and real-life business training sponsored in large part by the European Commission, the World Bank and other government bodies. We are NOT a business simulation or some type of business game. The origin of practice firms can be traced back to the 17th century with the help of literature. In the year 1660 Mr. Lerice (citizen of Danzig, Germany) described practice firms in his book "Commission and Factory". There are other books that explain the philosophy of a practice firm, as for example Mr. Karl F. Barth who wrote about them in 1776. The practice firm international organization will be holding its 50th annual trade fair in Germany in 2014. The changes made to this article only aim to provide additional general information regarding the practice firm concept and the international organization of non-profit members which was never added when the original page was created by our organization years ago. User 752 17:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sackofrye (talk • contribs)

Practice enterprises are a form of business simulation, they are just not a business simulation game. Now that you have explained the differentiation to me, I see that a simple redirect may be too simple a solution, and that a merge of information may be needed. Unfortunately, this page has no referenced information to merge, and makes a number of unsupported claims of benefits that would fall squarely in the realm of original research at best and promotion at worst. The history of practice firms, as documented in the books mentioned by Sackofrye, might be useful for citing some material in the merged content. But overall, I don't see the need for a separate article for this topic. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've denied the speedy delete of Practice Enterprise as it's not an unambiguous copyright violation, even though some text was copied and some text was closely paraphrased. I've allowed the redirect to Business simulation from Practice Enterprise to stand. To be consistent, I've redirected this article to Business simulation. As for Sackofrye's comments, it is impermissible for you to edit at Wikipedia on behalf of an organization. I will leave a message on your talk page. --Bbb23 (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite with sources

@Bbb23: I became aware of this concept after reading a recent NYT article on the topic. IMHO it's quite different from the concept covered at business simulation, so I've tried to resurrect and improve this article. I found a few sources, some academic, one news article, and some from the various organisations. Please let me know what you think! --Slashme (talk) 23:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Slashme: My, that was a long time ago. I didn't read the newly crafted article carefully or check it against the cited sources, but it certainly looks much better than it did, and although I did see some borderline close paraphrasing, I also see that you tried to avoid infringement. I do agree it is different from business simulation (now, that article is really hard to read and a bit of a circular creation).--Bbb23 (talk) 02:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]