Talk:Factory system/Archives/2012

Fair use rationale for Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg
Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:26, 6 July

Merge with Factory?
It's not quite clear why this exists as a separate article to Factory, particularly as neither article particularly good and the subject they represent is of exceptional importance in human history.

Would we be better consolidating them into one decent article rather than having two poor ones with an ambiguous inter-relationship?

JimmyGuano (talk) 10:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Factory and factory system are somewhat different concepts as factory is physical plant and equipment and factory system is a organizational concept.Phmoreno (talk) 13:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * They are not completely identical but they are very closely related. The idea of a factory has several components - organisational, technological, architectural - of which the "factory system" is one. It's hard to see what would go in this article that shouldn't also be covered by factory. If the factory article was huge and comprehensive and this article provided an opportunity for more in-depth coverage of a specific aspect then that might be a useful reason for this to exist, but at the moment isn't the division getting in the way of a decent coverage of the subject, rather than helping it? JimmyGuano (talk) 08:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Saying that neither article is particularly good is not very helpful. Can you make some specific recommendations for improvement?Phmoreno (talk) 13:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I have made one! Seriously though, one of the problems is that both articles have quite patchy coverage of the subject, which means neither add up to a clear and convincing narrative or explanatory thread. Combining the two together would automatically bring more of a critical mass which would then make the task of filling the gaps easier. JimmyGuano (talk) 08:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not strongly opposed to merging, but the proposed change should be posted in Talk:Factory system. If no one seriously objects after a week, then merge it into Factory.Phmoreno (talk) 11:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)