Talk:Service (economics)/Archives/2013
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Damage to the first half of the "Perishability" section -- over a year ago
Does anyone read this stuff? (that is, anyone who is willing to edit it, to fix some obvious damage?) It has been over a year (more like a year and a half) since this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Service_(economics)&diff=next&oldid=452239598 (the "Revision as of 03:57, 29 September 2011").
At that time, the first half of the "Perishability" sub-section of the "Service characteristics" section (shown as "Line 19" in the DIFF listing) was severely damaged -- by the blatant removal of about half of the text there. See the first bullet under "2. Perishability" at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Service_(economics)&diff=next&oldid=452239598#Service_characteristics . The text that has remained there since that edit, looks obviously bogus (to me) -- because it does not make sense without that "amputated" material. Maybe it escaped attention because (or "partly" because?) the same edit (see the "[...]&diff=next&oldid=452239598" URL above) also included a lot of changes to an earlier section that is shown as "Line 5" in the DIFF listing. That is possible.
I intend to restore the missing words -- which I was able to find in the revision history (although it required doing some searching). I thought that this long explanation probably would not "fit" in the limited space available in the "revision history" comment. Hence this explanation on the "Talk:" page. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 22:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Misnomer [the word "equivalent"] in the 2nd sentence of the article
This one is not (quite as 'clearly' an instance of) an obvious case of damage to the text. Hence I intend to wait a while, to see if there are any comments before editing it.
IMHO the word "equivalent" (in the 2nd sentence of the article) is a misnomer. I think the editor or author probably meant [something more like] "example" or "instance". A word such as "analog" would also be correct, but that might sound too technical to some readers. (Any comments on that?) I might edit that word, ...but first I intend to wait to see if there are any comments. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 22:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)