Talk:Commerce

Merge with trade

There is no need for this article and should be merged with Trade. The difference can be explained there. if no one oppose I will merge.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vorpzn (talk • contribs) 03:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I oppose this merger. As you yourself noted, there is a difference between the two topics. This commerce article has hundreds of edits and is a long-established article that has been in existence fifteen years, since 2002, and as such, merging away such an article needs discussion and consensus. If you feel such an article should be merged, please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Merging: list this merger proposal on Wikipedia:Proposed mergers so many editors can know about it so we can discuss it on this talk page to establish a consensus whether to merge or not to merge. —Lowellian (reply) 08:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Let's not. I think this article can be improved further by adding sections about how the present world views it - what it means to study commerce, how it is a part of business, what are the other parts of business, how it is also different from Economics.RenZut^ↂ 14:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I as well oppose the merging as the two are definitely not the same. Trade is exchange of goods, while commerce involves all the elements involved in trade, like transport, insurance, warehousing, advertising and so further. I see no benefit in merging and i think that making Commerce as a section of Trade article would just open up a space for confusion. SRBeen (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Please DO NOT merge this with "Commerce" article. Commerce ≠ Trade. Commerce is profit-seeking per se - to CAPTURE "value", often more asymmetric in power and approach by the parties thereto, while trade in kernel form is more ad hoc social cooperation designed to reallocate value to he/she whom will benefit most from the exchanged artifacts or acts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philanthro (talk • contribs) 01:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

YES! Unlike the former comments, I am totally for it! I don't think that nowadays there is such a big difference which requires such a distinction. Actually, in Latin commercium means precisely trade, and as you can see very few languages in Wikipedia make this distnction. In Spanish, comercio means both. But the article "comercio", like other 115 articles, is linked to Trade, not Commerce(!), which can also be very confusing for someone who is looking for a version in his own language. The article in German "Kommerz", which is linked here, is more about the old definition of the word, and even there it is defined Handel (trade). The caduceus symbol appears in most other language articles also under "trade". Now, I know English Wikipedists like to be "unique", but there is really no factual reason to leave the article as is. It is very short, the longest section is "see also" (which I think is here to make it look longer), the second longest section is "History", which is actully the history of trade(!), mentioning the word "trade" itself 7 times! All that is left, apart from Etymology, is one line! There have been articles which were merged for less reasons. Law Insider defines both with the same meaning ("Trade or commerce means any and all economic activity carried on wholly or partially in this state which involves or relates to any commodity or service.") According to WikiDiff: Trade is a synonym of commerce. Commerce is a synonym of trade. As nouns the difference between commerce and trade is that commerce is the exchange or buying and selling of commodities, especially the exchange of merchandise between different places or communities; Ttrade is buying and selling of goods and services on a market." In short, a difference which in most situations in the business world (which I am in) is insignificant. Is there a difference between the two? To some extent. Is it enough for 2 separated articles? No, by any means. Commerce should be a redirection page to Trade, where a section about commerce may be added (although there would not be a lot to say, just like there isn't in this article). --Virum Mundi (talk) 04:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: English 102

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2023 and 5 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jeremytm3 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jeremytm3 (talk) 14:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Lead section image

Does this article need an image in the lead section? I think that it does not. But a picture of a boat doesn't serve to educate the reader, and a dictionary definition as an image caption (let alone one that is copy and pasted/plagiarized from the cited source) serves no purpose. MrOllie (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Ship image

There has been some edit-warring over this image in the lead. At a glance I don't think it belongs in the lead; it's not really a general representation of commerce. It's possible that the article could have a subsection on shipping, where it might go, but we don't have that yet, just a very brief mention. In the lead, though, having a dictionary definition of commerce under a picture of a random ship full of crates doesn't seem to me like it improves the article much. --Aquillion (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Dear friend, Commerce simply is trade that is done on a large scale. Although commerce can be done in other ways (land or air transport), the best image that can evoke it, is this, Because most of the big trades are done by commercial ships that carry a large amount of cargo.Even if you look at the logo of the US Department of Commerce, you will notice this.Merchant ships have been a symbol of commerce since ancient times. Kavehkdf1402 (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Commerce simply is trade that is done on a large scale. That is not a correct understanding or definition of "commerce". I agree with Aquillion that the image is better suited for a subsection on shipping, but adds little value to the lead. Grandpallama (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, let's skip the trade-based definition. What do you think of the United States Department of Commerce logo? There, the image of a commercial ship is used as a symbol of Commerce.

However, let me say that I do not insist on adding this particular image. I think any other commercial ship would be the best evocative of commerce for readers of the article. Kavehkdf1402 (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

let's skip the trade-based definition That's probably a good idea, because this very article has an entire section distinguishing "commerce" from "trade". Grandpallama (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

You are right. What do you think about adding image with a change in its caption ?

For example, in the caption, it can be written :"A huge volume of goods commerce in the world is carried out by Maritime Transportation".Of course, many reliable sources can be found for this. Moreover, it probably shows the relevance of the image to the subject better.

Or it can be written "Commercial ships are always known as a symbol of commerce" Kavehkdf1402 (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Adds even less value. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't make the article better and arguably makes it worse. Boats and ships can be used in commerce, but the concept of commerce does not inherently require a ship or a boat. They're simply examples of things that can be used in the furtherance of commerce; it doesn't clarify the concept in any way. There's an image of a ship in Maritime transport because it actually aids the article in that case. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Well then please take a look at trade. With the reasons you give, the images of that article have nothing to do with it because they don't create a general association of its concept and should be removed. Kavehkdf1402 (talk) 11:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I count five editors (including MrOllie) objecting to the image as a lead image. That seems like a consensus to me. I would suggest that perhaps that image (or one like it) could be more acceptable if subsections were developed. The notion of a maritime subsection has already been raised, but I could also see a general subsection about modes of transport, where it might be appropriate. In general, however, I think it's important to keep in mind that commerce is a much larger concept than just the modes of transport that move goods around, which is very much at the heart of the editor objections here.

Separately, I strongly suggest you consult WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:1AM. The former will help you understand that there may be issues with other articles, but those are not relevant to this article. Grandpallama (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, I disagree on your analysis that they have the same relationship to Trade as your proposed image to this article. But even assuming, for the sake of argument that the photos in Trade aren't appropriate, that has little to do with this article and the consensus being discussed here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

By the way, I never think that those in the Trade are irrelevant. But I wanted to get my point across. Of course, there are many other examples.if you look at the Economy of Kazakhstan, you will notice that there is a picture of the downtown of its capital.

Well, this image definitely does not mean the entire economy of this country, but it has the role of conveying its meaning to the audience.

Concepts of economic and social sciences (such as Commerce) don't have clear examples, so other images are used to convey the concept. For example, there are two images of markets in Trade or the image of the city center is placed in the Economy of Kazakhstan. Kavehkdf1402 (talk) 08:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)