Talk:Corporate social entrepreneurship/Archives/2012

Opening heading
Gosh, what a Palava! Thanks to everyone for your time and concern. The saying isn't in common parlance, as I coined it. I've explained to Tony on an email that exploratory empirical suuport for these people (CSEs) shows that they are very rare. Business schools have a responsibility to improve their teaching of business ethics to address and prevent the lapses in integrity that have become common. I hope that as academics strive to improve education in this area, then we will begin to see more CSEs (and as a corollory, the term will be in common parlance and so we can eventually drop the capitals!). That is the most important issue. Best wishes, Chris Chemingway (talk) 09:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much to Station 1 for assistance Chemingway (talk) 21:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Chris, sorry it's a fuss. I guess there's a feeling among many editors that lots of article in economics, business, accounting, management, and technology have been started over the years by editors who, quite justifiably, weren't aware of WP's house style on capitalisation, particularly pertaining to our article and section titles, and the expansion of what are really common terms from an abbreviated form (the latter, by convention, using caps). Delighted you created the article, and please keep going with your good work here. Could I make a small comment? A few bits of the article are not quite what the denizens around here refer to as encyclopedic style, and it might at a later stage be regarded as a little slanted towards essay style. I noticed this: "All this leads us to the inherent complexity surrounding the subject of CSR ...", which would be fine in a direct quotation, but is possibly on the informal side for stade old WP. Please buzz me if you want assistance in this respect. Also, you're welcome to comment below, whether you still feel strongly about keeping the caps or not. And thank you again. Tony   (talk)  09:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony. CSR is a highly complex and controversial subject! I wanted to show the connections to CSR, but not get into the discussion about CSR itself, too much. (BTW the CSR page needs a great deal of editing. I only glanced at it the other night, but the quality looked rather dubious, to me. I think that it has been invaded by consultants driven by the profit motive! Unfortunately I don't have the time to get involved with that page). At the moment, the CSE is very tightly defined and I do hope that more studies will be done and we can learn more about this (rare) behaviour. Yes, please keep the caps for the time being. Chemingway (talk) 09:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested move
I moved what was the title "Corporate Social Entrepreneur" to the downcased version per common practice and WP's house style. It has been moved again solely to reinstate the capital letters. In the process, the grammar of the title has been changed to avoid having to get an admin to do it (an admin would have insisted on an RM). Now the grammar of the title doesn't even match that of the article, which refers throughout to a "corporate social entrepreneur (CSE)". This is unacceptable behaviour by both editors to ram through a breach of WP's policies and guidelines. Tony  (talk)  00:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, that is incorrect. Tony1 moved Corporate Social Entrepreneurship (not "Entrepreneur") to Corporate social entrepreneur. There's nothing wrong with a bold move, but another editor objected and asked for reversion. I complied with that request and suggested a move request, in accordance with WP:RM and WP:BRD. Nothing was done to avoid an admin. Accusations of unacceptable behavior are, I think, uncalled for. Station1 (talk) 03:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Moving an article to a title that reflects the topic as stated in the lead is normally considered correct. Reverting the move because a newbie who is unaware of WP naming and style objects is not usually right response.  But you are right that Tony misstated what the name was before he fixed it.  Dicklyon (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Corporate Social Entrepreneurship → Corporate social entrepreneur –

Per WP:CAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and WP:TITLE, this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. In addition, WP:MOS says that a compound item should not be upper-cased just because it is abbreviated with caps. Lowercase will match the formatting of related article titles. , per WP:TITLE. The grammar of the title is now inconsistent with that of the article (grammatically), and with the title of the sibling article, Social entrepreneurship, listed under "See also". There's an WP:OWNERSHIP issue, it appears: the editor User talk:Chemingway has referred to "my article". Tony  (talk)  00:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Support the move to lower case, since almost all books treat it as generic, lower case. Both the simple and "ship" form are common in books, both with CSE acronym, both lower case:, .  Why was it capitalized by several editors?  Anybody's guess.  Dicklyon (talk) 02:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. A clear case of applying normal and widespread editorial standards for capitalisation (and its avoidance). Wikipedia guidelines give no justification for capitalising this generic term. There is no question of a proper name (if that is thought relevant), or any other justification to depart from normal practice here. Usage in "reliable sources" is not relevant, even if there were sufficient of those to appeal to in this instance and even if they were weighted in favour of capitals. This is a pure style issue, decided by Wikipedia's own style guidelines. (Why have them at all, otherwise?) N oetica Tea? 03:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

This should have the same capitalization as Chief executive officer, so support. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.