Talk:Requisite organization
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Proposal to Merge with Hierarchiology
Those two are two completely different topics, hence can't be merged.
- It is not obvious to me that they are different topics. It looks like two different authors have invented two different bits of jargon for pretty much the same thing. Jaques is usually regarded as a serious author, while Peter is usually regarded as a humorist.--RichardVeryard 23:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- I oppose the merge. Requisite Organization focuses on the structure of organizations while hierarchy deals more with the placement of the people (it seems to assume the hierarchy already exists while RO examines if and how the hierarchy and other structures exist). However, almost suggested merging with Elliott Jaques because it seemed to be an article on him and his views (I altered the tone to try to remove this). RJFJR 20:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hierarchiology is defined as "the social science concerned with the basic principles of hierarchically organized systems". This seems to be exactly what Jaques was concerned with. However, I agree that Peter's discussion of hierarchiology fails to address the structural principles, but concentrates on the (humorous aspects of) placement of people within an existing hierarchy. In which case, it should probably be merged with Peter Principle instead. --RichardVeryard 18:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- I oppose the merge. Requisite Organization focuses on the structure of organizations while hierarchy deals more with the placement of the people (it seems to assume the hierarchy already exists while RO examines if and how the hierarchy and other structures exist). However, almost suggested merging with Elliott Jaques because it seemed to be an article on him and his views (I altered the tone to try to remove this). RJFJR 20:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] External links
There have been a series of unexplained edits over the past few months, which have mostly messing around with the format. As a result, a number of external links and categories were lost. (I only spotted this when the page was automatically tagged as uncategorized.) I am reverting to an old version prior to these edits. I have not checked the quality of the external links - some of them may well be linkspam - but I wanted to restore the integrity of the page before making any further improvements. --RichardVeryard 09:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

