Talk:Risk management/Archives/2016

Enterprise
This section contains useful formulae, but some of the symbols (notably, S) are not defined.

Industrial Process link
The Wikipedia link for "Industrial Processes" within this article goes instead to "Individual Psychological Assessment". Please fix, thanks much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.183.224.2 (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

ISO
What's the use of all these ISO references? Advertising? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.199.188.222 (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ISO is an organization which defines standards, thus ISO references help to clarify definitions. Not usually to be seen as advertising. User:Hamburg-1982

Megaprojects
I do not think Megaprojects are sufficiently distinct from "project risk managment" to merit its own section. I will delete unless there are objections.GESICC (talk) 02:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree, go ahead.Hamburg-1982 (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

See also vs. Category:Risk management
The whole See also section was removed with the remark that Category:Risk management includes all and more. One issue is that that is not true: some of the entries in See also are - as of yet - not in the category. I have recovered some of them, which I see as "tangential" to the article and potentially of interest.

While the list as it was, was way too long, I don't think removing everything is the right solution. Is someone aware of a policy, guideline or rule of thumb of how to keep See also section compact yet reasonably rich/extensive? Hamburg-1982 (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hamburg-1982, as I generally understand it, categories and "see also" sections (as well as the broader concept of the list article) are complementary, meaning one does not replace the other. So articles being listed in a category does not preclude their inclusion in a see-also list and vice versa. James Hare (NIOSH) (talk) 15:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In general I would agree, but the article article at hand is on a general subject. Therefore everything in the category is "complementary" in the sense they give more details of each separate sub-subject. And therefore formally the whole  category must be listed in "See also", which is pointless. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Merge with Risk
Should this be merged with Risk? GESICC (talk) 00:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to say no. IMHO risk and risk management are different concepts, and particularly the psychological aspects of risk have little to do with risk management, which is more of a management/finance/engineering thing. Instead, I think many of the linked articles under See also should be integrated in the articles Risk and Risk managementHamburg-1982 (talk) 18:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Do not merge. A controlled property is not always the subject of a control or management system; Speed is not merged with Cruise control, Temperature is not merged with Thermostat or Thermal management. That said, we may consider (and differentiate) that there are forms of risk that are more closely associated with risk management (and some that are not), yet there are different Practice areas and they are concerned with different forms of risk.  IveGoneAway (talk) 01:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC); edited 15:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)