This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Note for assessment: WikiProject Economics doesn't have a "N/A" class, so class and importance on the template are left blank. Since this isn't an article it should probably stay un-assessed. CRETOG8( t/ c) 04:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Should this sidebar be specific for the Economics article or designed to be used in economics articles in general? CRETOG8( t/ c) 23:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the portal link belongs. Almost all the links on the sidebar appear elsewhere in the article, more prominently than the "See Also" section. Skip seems to have a POV dispute with the current content of the portal, but I think that's irrelevant. The Portal is intended to be just that--a way for folks interested in Economics to access economics articles and news and such. Such a thing certainly belongs on such a navigation bar. CRETOG8( t/ c) 17:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Can we please keep talk about the portal in a section about the portal, rather than it popping up in all the other sections? It makes it hard to keep track of what's going on. Others might be willing to compromise on this, but absent someone coming up with a brilliant solution, Skip and I are at an impasse on the portal link. Besides arguing to get rid of it altogether, Skip keeps proposing ways to de-emphasize it. I will argue against any move to de-emphasize it. It is the link for the portal for economics. It should be on the Economics sidebar, and not de-emphasized. I suppose if someone comes up with a clever design principle which simultaneously convinces Skip that it's de-emphasized while convincing me that it's not, that could work. But I think we're just going to have to make a choice. CRETOG8( t/ c) 14:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to Morph for doing such a nice job on the template! I'm not sure it's ready for prime-time yet. Here's some thoughts:
I've been looking at List of basic economics topics as some basis for organizing the sidebar. I'm not sure what is best for inclusion but I thought I would put that out there for others to review and consider. How do the categories currently look? Should we show/hide anything else, should we remove anything (skip's portal noted), should we include anything else, should we change one of the show/hide sections to a full section, etc. Organizational options... Overall, I think it's looking pretty good and will be a nice addition for many economics articles. Morphh (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that apart from History of economic thought, Macro and Micro, all other topics should be moved down to Fields. Or else we'll have disputes later about what field is a 'general aspect' and what is a related field. lk ( talk) 13:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
See Economics talk page for further info. skip sievert ( talk) 16:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Looks very nice. A quibble though, why Related fields & subfields, and not just Fields & subfields? Also, I think Mathematical economics should probably in Methodologies, not 'fields & subfields'. I would move it myself, but am afraid to mess up the template. lk ( talk) 10:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
We have a mix of case on the second word in a few of the categories. It seems we should make them either caped or not. "General Aspects" or "General aspects", "Fields & subfields" or "Fields and Subfields" (one wikilink), "Categories & Lists" or "Categories & lists" (two wikilinks). Normally Wikipedia title MOS states the second word should be lower case unless it is part of the proper noun, but I'm not sure how it works in sidebars and stuff.
Also, while subtle, there are two gray colors used. The top and bottom are a slightly lighter shade of gray than the categories (probably most noticeable on the bottom). This was intended to make them slightly distinct but no so much that it was tough on the eyes. Too subtle, change to same color, looks good... thoughts? Morphh (talk) 13:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure the "Part of a series" phrase is appropriate for this box. For me, that implies relatively independent articles in a category, while this is more over-arching, covering lots of different kinds of material.
Templates without "Part of a series": Electromagnetism, Psychology, Atmospheric sciences, Sociology, Human history, Rock music
Templates with "Part of a series": Evolution, Quantum mechanics, Economic system, Politics (kinda), Politics of the United States
Anyway, it's probably a minor point, and may again be a matter of taste. CRETOG8( t/ c) 17:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I decided to be bold and put it on an article. Perhaps this will provide a little more discussion of any outstanding issues. As of now, we still have the "Portal" dispute outstanding but I don't think that should hold back the use at this point. Morphh (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Energy economics could also be in Fields and subfields in the bar. This is an important part of economic study... example: http://telstar.ote.cmu.edu/environ/m3/s3/05account.shtml . Energy economics has a far ranging set of interconnectors concerning economics with an energy focus. This probably does not fit into heterodox economics either... as it is used as a focus in mainstream price system economics and environmental economics as well as ecological economics. Therefore it seems like an important add, to the info in economics side bar. Conceivably, ecological economics could be taken out of the side bar ... and this space then filled with energy economics... How ever it could also be left in... because it is almost in a category (science) that is a stand alone in the economics focus, but still totally connected because of the reality of viewing things through economics. skip sievert ( talk) 13:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Here is a grouping of portals that could be added to the economics bar... instead of having just one out side the sphere one... namely business..
These are all connected to economics, at least as much as the one heading business... which is an isolate in the bar now. All of these could be in a hidden portal chamber... or on the surface. These could be along with the business/economics side bar used now... as said either hidden.. or with these others on the surface without a tab to get to. skip sievert ( talk) 14:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Here is an example (see bottom area of economics bar...people not familiar with this discussion) of what Morph cooked up for maintaining the portal link that is there now Business and economics... but also adding other portal links that are connected to economics.... Environment and economics, Philosophy and economics Science and economics... what ever portals are out there connected with economics. By doing that the stress on business is taken off.... and other topics besides just one are included. Business may be the thread that runs through all these subjects... even ecological economics which claims to put the environment always first... but just having one other focus (business and economics) as the only other economics portal focus... leaves off too much other information that is crucial to economic thinking. This portal mock up could be expanded just a bit probably.... I am not sure what is out there as to portals that could be viewed as connected... or in Morphs mock up, it looks pretty good for starters. I could see.. Business, Environment, Energy & other portals as a descriptive heading. skip sievert ( talk) 22:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Should Accounting not be included in the Economics sidebar? Pacluc ( talk) 21:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to propose including "Heterodox Economics" in the Methodologies section so that our Heterodox colleagues don't feel ignored and "shut out". Any thoughts? radek ( talk) 23:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, I'm not sure that "social psychology" belongs in THIS particular sidebar under methodologies. Why is it in there? radek ( talk) 06:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Please excuse (or ignore) this digression. I have had a chance to peruse or at least skim the above (but, no pop quiz, please). IMO, it's a model of what a productive Talk should be as to clarity, brevity, and cogency. Even where there was an occasional lack of focus, attention was called to that, & things got back on track. I believe that persons knowledgeable in the subject would appreciate the hard choices confronted at every turn in the development of the Template. The Template itself is pleasing to the eye,
May I suggest an added "section heading" to the Template under "General aspects" titled "General classifications" linking to JEL classification codes? For ease of reference, let me number the following.
* Not just in theory either. With "JEL: XXX," anyone can do an instant online search. -– Thomasmeeks ( talk) 20:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I think it looks good the way it is now. And it's very useful to have it in there. Not everyone will use it but those with a bit more interest/knowledge in economics definitely will. radek ( talk) 18:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I really think we shouldn't have TWO header links to the JEL classification codes. It makes the title ungrammatical, doesn't reflect what is in that section, and takes up space besides. It's obvious to anyone familiar with the classification codes that 'fields and subfields' is a synonym for classifications, and that a click there will probably take you a list of fields, which is what the classification codes are. lk ( talk) 08:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
On an earlier point, one aspect of lk's description of the box content I believe makes most sense if lk was treating:
as a single title (ungrammatical, so considered). One alternative is to give each line a separate box. That raised a concern above. With M's forbearance, let me try to address the concern further. An appropriately charitable interpretation of the 2-box alternative might be this. General aspects is a kind of bridge linked to what precedes it ( Economics) and to what follows it. The GA link ( List of basic economics topics) suggests that. As a bridge, it warrants a separate box. General classifications with its JEL link is more closely related to the section(s) that follow, warranting its own heading box. I believe that the general reader would appreciate their clearer distinction. One alternative that would more clearly distinguish the functions of each box would be to re-label "General aspects" as "Basic aspects," which is closer to the name of the link. -- Thomasmeeks ( talk) 13:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Economics |
|
Basic aspects |
---|
General classifications (A) |
Economics |
|
Basic aspects General classifications (B) |
---|
To allow a direct comparison, the relevant sidebar portions, (A) and (B) (a subsequent Edit), are reproduced here. I continue to believe that (A) has the advantage that Basic aspects seems (appropriately) to refer to what precedes it, similar to a bottom caption, while General classifications refer downward to section(s) that follow. There is also more parallelism in (A) than (B). as to treatment of General classifications in a stand-alone box like the later Fields and subfields heading -- a net plus. (B) is unnecessarily ambiguous as to the purpose of the broken separator line and the relation of Basic aspects to General classifications. It also removes parallelism. No need to overplay it, but the JEL system would not have gained such wide currency across journals and books without its uses. The curious would be rewarded from the General classifications link IMO. Even the non-users of the link might be happy at ins unintimidating accessibility (per (4), top). It might also be likened to money for a rainy day. Needless to say, I believe that a better case can be made for A than for B. I hope that there might be continued discussion if there is more to be said. The object is of course is to find a way to improve the sidebar. -- Thomasmeeks ( talk) 18:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I just want to concur with what Morph said above. I think that a) the double titles are just confusing, and b) having two different title lines link to the same JEL classification page is a little too much. I liked how it was when it was just a single line title on top. I vote to get rid of the second title line. lk ( talk) 14:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Economics |
|
Outline of topics |
---|
General classifications (C) |
The relevant portion of the Template discussed above is reproduced here, labelled (C). The comments immediately above do not defend the placing of the Outline of topics in the white-background box with with Micro, Macro, etc. following General classifications (the point of my previous Edit) but instead return to arguments against the General classifications box and ocrresponding JEL link. Any reader will see that I have tried to defend the latter in each case.
I am surprised at how there would be agreement on removing General classifications without stating the alternative title of Outline of topics. Any help on that one? -- Thomasmeeks ( talk) 02:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I think this whole disagreement is caused by a separation of Macro, Micro & History of thought from the other fields & subfields. If we merge them together in on category, then we would only need one title line. I can't see a good reason to keep them separate. LK ( talk) 08:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Morph, you took the economic bull by the horns... and made a really nice job of the Economics sidebar. My only complaint (still) is the Business and economics portal on the bottom... which I think should go with a bunch of portals to related things... business and other... and there is plenty of other, in a hidden section called related portals. But... right now the bar provides an easy way for people to skim around to articles. Nice work. skip sievert ( talk) 17:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Economics abbreviated |
|
Outline of topics |
---|
General classifications |
Fields and subfields (A) |
Growth ·
Development ·
History (1A) |
Fields and subfields {B} |
Development ·
Growth ·
History (1B) |
At the right is the Econ Template abbreviated to concentrate on the "Fields and subfields" section. A proposed reworking of that section (A) is listed first, followed by the current version (B). The bolded line numbers are only for convenience here, not for the edited Template. I have stared embarrassingly long and hard at the Template for more than a month but avoided proposing piecemeal changes that might be better dealt with together at one time. The 19 primary
JEL classification codes are below for comparison purposes.
Elements that guided formulation of (A) include these:
Someone else might use the same list to come up with a different arrangement -- and make a better case. Things are not always simple, and one tries to sort out what is more or less persuasive based on considerations presented. No matter what the arrangement, there are likely to be trade-offs of oourse.
Changes in (A) from (B) and reasons for them include the following.
The above is a lot to take in at once. I propoae to edit "Fields and subfields" along the lines of (A) as early as 3 full days from now to allow time for comment. -- Thomasmeeks ( talk) 02:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Economics |
|
Outline of topics |
---|
General classifications AGC |
Microeconomics ·
Macroeconomics 1AGC
|
General classifications BGC |
History of economic thought 1BGC |
Quantitative methods AQM |
Mathematical ·
Econometrics 1AQM
|
Methodologies BM |
Behavioral ·
Computational 1BM |
Fields and subfields FS |
Behavioral ·
Cultural ·
Evolutionary 0AFS |
Lists |
Business and Economics Portal |
At the right is a proposed reworking of Econ-sidebar sections, each followed by the corresponding current section. They are respectively labelled A and B (followed by an abbreviation for the section title, such as AGC for the reworking (A) of the General-Classifications section). The line numbers, followed by section abbreviation, are of course only for reference, not for the edited Template. Most of the proposed changes stem from the Methodologies section. A total of one subject was dropped and 3 were added.
I do respect the great care and thought that went into (B). As in the preceding section above, only more so, that is one reason I have stared embarrassingly long and hard at the Methodologies section of the Template but avoided proposing piecemeal changes that might be better dealt with together at one time. The 19 primary JEL classification codes, which the sidebar took as a point of departure, are below for comparison purposes.
Elements that guided formulation of (A) include these:
To repeat from the preceding section, someone else might use the same list to come up with a different arrangement -- and make a better case. Things are not always simple, and one tries to sort out what is more or less persuasive based on considerations presented. No matter what the arrangement, there are likely to be trade-offs.
Changes in (A) from (B) and reasons for them are discussed as follows.
I like the present bar... and suggest we do not do the proposed edit by Thomasmeeks. Right now the bar does what it is designed to do... navigate people around. It is simple. Simple is better in my opinion... Anyone with any interest at all in the subject will find a wealth of information in the present incarnation of the Economics bar. Complicating it may not improve it. Right now it is base line... and that may be enough for all practical purposes. skip sievert ( talk) 18:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, I hope that another look might be possible. I do agree that keeping things simple is important. But simplicity can take different forms. The current "Methodologies" section of the sidebar (BM above) uses alphabetical classification but mixes up non-quantitative and quantitative subjects (3 & 5 of each respectively), which makes them, I believe, easier to ignore & less likely to be used, since there is no obvious connection -- like mixing up the chapters of a book. In this it is inconsistent with the other sections in not using a subject-related grouping. Of course, the JEL codes don't mix together quant-math methods and methodology. Rather, methodology/heterodox there is paired with another general classification of econ: economic thought, as in AGC at the top sidebar. I believe that most readers would find the Quantitative methods section of (A) here simpler than the Methodologies section of (B) here and the differences in the other sections of (A) and (B) unproblematic -- so net advantage (A).
On the 2nd comment, as I tried to note at General classifications AGC above, if putting:
together with History of economic thought was good enough for JEL classification codes#Schools of economic thought and methodology JEL: B Subcategories, that might also be acceptable under General classifications as well, not b/c they are the same (any more than Micro & Macro are the same), but b/c they complement each other. There may be agreement on Behavioral economics. It is the JEL: D01 - Microeconomic Behavior link and of course a subfield of microeconomics. So, if we have Micro under General classifications, no one should be offended at Behavioral going under Fields and subfields. Rather than it getting overlooked in a stormy sea of Methodologies, it has the "last word" (or anyhow, line) at (A). The last comment also applies even more to Evolutionary economics: it has the last words at (A). In addition, on that last line "Evolutionary economics" has appreciably more Google Scholar hits with "cultural" (9700) or with "behavioral" (11,900) than with any of the qnantitative subjects in Methodologies BM. I believe that most readers will make that same connection more readily as well. Again I believe that readers are more likely to use the links if they can see that they are connected, like consecutive chapters of a book. Similarly, for Information · Game theory · (6AFS above) · Industrial organization. If readers think there may be a connection other than alphabetic ordering, I believe that their interest is more likely to be stirred.
I think that Computational economics is a very interesting field for an economist to be in, but in the sidebar it may tend to drive away the general reader as a special-interest field, esp. given the listing there of Math econ and Econometrics. What the sidebar should do is pique interest. A parsimonious sidebar section such as at (AQM) above may do that. There, the heading link Quantitative methods takes one instantly, to Computational. -- Thomasmeeks ( talk) 18:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Better yet, a side-by-side comparison of (A) and (B) [added later for clarity: Thomasmeeks ( talk) 00:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)]:
Proposed Economics boxes, versions (A) and (B)
| ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
* Replaces "Quantitative methods" per discussion below.
Placement in sidebar (A) of:
at the top of the Fields and subfields section has an added advantage (besides those mentioned above) of continuity with:
in the General classifications above it, rather than their dilution among Math/quant methods. Such ccntinuity is likely to result in greater use of the sidebar links to the articles, instead of being ignored as merely decorative. -- Thomasmeeks ( talk) 21:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
The Economic methodology article was expanded recently to include significantly more topics and in-line citations with links per Talk:Economic methodology#Continuity in and additions for a recent Edit, which addresses the "pragmatic, short-term" considerations expressed above as to moving up the placement of "Methodology" in (A).
Most readers might agree that the long-standing Econ sidebar (labeled (B) (immediately above) could be improved with the simplifications & additions of (A) as amended (also above). Simplifications include a 2-line "Quantitative methods" section replacing the 4-line Methodologies section (vs. 9 lines, total, for the "Fields & subfields" section) — details & rationale above. In light of the preceding comment, I withdraw the "Quantitative methods" heading of (A) in favor of Techniques, which has a close-fitting dictionary definitionof that term and corresponding usage in The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics#Subject Index.§ That revised heading is shorter and more precise, like that section. It leaves little doubt that its contents are distinct, if not dichotomous, from what precedes or follows it. (B) classifies by mixing together techniques & methodologies rather than moving the latter to the "General classifications" and the "Fields" sections, where they all fit seamlessly in (A). In such mixing, the (B) classification follows neither The New Palgrave Subject Index nor the JEL classification codes (in particular, the Economic thought/methodology vs. Math & quantitative methods sections). These carefully constructed classification systems suggest an analytical advantage in the simpler, less ambiguous (A) classifications. They have the added advantage of reflecting WP:VER. The techniques in principle are applied to Micro, Macro, or any of the Fields and subfields that follow, whereas the methodology associated with a field (say Evolutionary economics) is specific to that field.
§ Digression: The New Palgrave classifies game theory not under "Techniques" but with Industrial organization, just as (A) does & where principles textbooks often do to provide an accessible context, as also appropriate for a sidebar that appears in the Lead of an article (discussed at WP:Lead#Provide an accessible overview). -- Thomasmeeks ( talk) 14:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
This subsection heading was added to precede the following exchange of comments to distinguish from possible areas of agreement in the above. -- Thomasmeeks ( talk) 05:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I really dislike having "Methodology" & "Heterodox methods" in General classifications, followed by by a section called Techniques below. Aren't the Techniques listed Methods? Why have a link and then a section below about the same thing? Also, I've thought for a long time that the double headers at the begining are unnecessary and confusing. I much prefer a header called for example General Topics. I suggest changing the sidebar to (C) below: -- LK ( talk) 14:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Proposed Economics boxes, versions (A) and (C)
|
---|
|
(1) (C) changing the Outline of topics blue box to General topics but with the same link to Topic outline of economics.
The following are arguably advantages of (A) over (C) (with numbering below for ease of reference).
This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Note for assessment: WikiProject Economics doesn't have a "N/A" class, so class and importance on the template are left blank. Since this isn't an article it should probably stay un-assessed. CRETOG8( t/ c) 04:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Should this sidebar be specific for the Economics article or designed to be used in economics articles in general? CRETOG8( t/ c) 23:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the portal link belongs. Almost all the links on the sidebar appear elsewhere in the article, more prominently than the "See Also" section. Skip seems to have a POV dispute with the current content of the portal, but I think that's irrelevant. The Portal is intended to be just that--a way for folks interested in Economics to access economics articles and news and such. Such a thing certainly belongs on such a navigation bar. CRETOG8( t/ c) 17:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Can we please keep talk about the portal in a section about the portal, rather than it popping up in all the other sections? It makes it hard to keep track of what's going on. Others might be willing to compromise on this, but absent someone coming up with a brilliant solution, Skip and I are at an impasse on the portal link. Besides arguing to get rid of it altogether, Skip keeps proposing ways to de-emphasize it. I will argue against any move to de-emphasize it. It is the link for the portal for economics. It should be on the Economics sidebar, and not de-emphasized. I suppose if someone comes up with a clever design principle which simultaneously convinces Skip that it's de-emphasized while convincing me that it's not, that could work. But I think we're just going to have to make a choice. CRETOG8( t/ c) 14:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to Morph for doing such a nice job on the template! I'm not sure it's ready for prime-time yet. Here's some thoughts:
I've been looking at List of basic economics topics as some basis for organizing the sidebar. I'm not sure what is best for inclusion but I thought I would put that out there for others to review and consider. How do the categories currently look? Should we show/hide anything else, should we remove anything (skip's portal noted), should we include anything else, should we change one of the show/hide sections to a full section, etc. Organizational options... Overall, I think it's looking pretty good and will be a nice addition for many economics articles. Morphh (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that apart from History of economic thought, Macro and Micro, all other topics should be moved down to Fields. Or else we'll have disputes later about what field is a 'general aspect' and what is a related field. lk ( talk) 13:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
See Economics talk page for further info. skip sievert ( talk) 16:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Looks very nice. A quibble though, why Related fields & subfields, and not just Fields & subfields? Also, I think Mathematical economics should probably in Methodologies, not 'fields & subfields'. I would move it myself, but am afraid to mess up the template. lk ( talk) 10:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
We have a mix of case on the second word in a few of the categories. It seems we should make them either caped or not. "General Aspects" or "General aspects", "Fields & subfields" or "Fields and Subfields" (one wikilink), "Categories & Lists" or "Categories & lists" (two wikilinks). Normally Wikipedia title MOS states the second word should be lower case unless it is part of the proper noun, but I'm not sure how it works in sidebars and stuff.
Also, while subtle, there are two gray colors used. The top and bottom are a slightly lighter shade of gray than the categories (probably most noticeable on the bottom). This was intended to make them slightly distinct but no so much that it was tough on the eyes. Too subtle, change to same color, looks good... thoughts? Morphh (talk) 13:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure the "Part of a series" phrase is appropriate for this box. For me, that implies relatively independent articles in a category, while this is more over-arching, covering lots of different kinds of material.
Templates without "Part of a series": Electromagnetism, Psychology, Atmospheric sciences, Sociology, Human history, Rock music
Templates with "Part of a series": Evolution, Quantum mechanics, Economic system, Politics (kinda), Politics of the United States
Anyway, it's probably a minor point, and may again be a matter of taste. CRETOG8( t/ c) 17:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I decided to be bold and put it on an article. Perhaps this will provide a little more discussion of any outstanding issues. As of now, we still have the "Portal" dispute outstanding but I don't think that should hold back the use at this point. Morphh (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Energy economics could also be in Fields and subfields in the bar. This is an important part of economic study... example: http://telstar.ote.cmu.edu/environ/m3/s3/05account.shtml . Energy economics has a far ranging set of interconnectors concerning economics with an energy focus. This probably does not fit into heterodox economics either... as it is used as a focus in mainstream price system economics and environmental economics as well as ecological economics. Therefore it seems like an important add, to the info in economics side bar. Conceivably, ecological economics could be taken out of the side bar ... and this space then filled with energy economics... How ever it could also be left in... because it is almost in a category (science) that is a stand alone in the economics focus, but still totally connected because of the reality of viewing things through economics. skip sievert ( talk) 13:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Here is a grouping of portals that could be added to the economics bar... instead of having just one out side the sphere one... namely business..
These are all connected to economics, at least as much as the one heading business... which is an isolate in the bar now. All of these could be in a hidden portal chamber... or on the surface. These could be along with the business/economics side bar used now... as said either hidden.. or with these others on the surface without a tab to get to. skip sievert ( talk) 14:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Here is an example (see bottom area of economics bar...people not familiar with this discussion) of what Morph cooked up for maintaining the portal link that is there now Business and economics... but also adding other portal links that are connected to economics.... Environment and economics, Philosophy and economics Science and economics... what ever portals are out there connected with economics. By doing that the stress on business is taken off.... and other topics besides just one are included. Business may be the thread that runs through all these subjects... even ecological economics which claims to put the environment always first... but just having one other focus (business and economics) as the only other economics portal focus... leaves off too much other information that is crucial to economic thinking. This portal mock up could be expanded just a bit probably.... I am not sure what is out there as to portals that could be viewed as connected... or in Morphs mock up, it looks pretty good for starters. I could see.. Business, Environment, Energy & other portals as a descriptive heading. skip sievert ( talk) 22:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Should Accounting not be included in the Economics sidebar? Pacluc ( talk) 21:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to propose including "Heterodox Economics" in the Methodologies section so that our Heterodox colleagues don't feel ignored and "shut out". Any thoughts? radek ( talk) 23:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, I'm not sure that "social psychology" belongs in THIS particular sidebar under methodologies. Why is it in there? radek ( talk) 06:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Please excuse (or ignore) this digression. I have had a chance to peruse or at least skim the above (but, no pop quiz, please). IMO, it's a model of what a productive Talk should be as to clarity, brevity, and cogency. Even where there was an occasional lack of focus, attention was called to that, & things got back on track. I believe that persons knowledgeable in the subject would appreciate the hard choices confronted at every turn in the development of the Template. The Template itself is pleasing to the eye,
May I suggest an added "section heading" to the Template under "General aspects" titled "General classifications" linking to JEL classification codes? For ease of reference, let me number the following.
* Not just in theory either. With "JEL: XXX," anyone can do an instant online search. -– Thomasmeeks ( talk) 20:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I think it looks good the way it is now. And it's very useful to have it in there. Not everyone will use it but those with a bit more interest/knowledge in economics definitely will. radek ( talk) 18:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I really think we shouldn't have TWO header links to the JEL classification codes. It makes the title ungrammatical, doesn't reflect what is in that section, and takes up space besides. It's obvious to anyone familiar with the classification codes that 'fields and subfields' is a synonym for classifications, and that a click there will probably take you a list of fields, which is what the classification codes are. lk ( talk) 08:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
On an earlier point, one aspect of lk's description of the box content I believe makes most sense if lk was treating:
as a single title (ungrammatical, so considered). One alternative is to give each line a separate box. That raised a concern above. With M's forbearance, let me try to address the concern further. An appropriately charitable interpretation of the 2-box alternative might be this. General aspects is a kind of bridge linked to what precedes it ( Economics) and to what follows it. The GA link ( List of basic economics topics) suggests that. As a bridge, it warrants a separate box. General classifications with its JEL link is more closely related to the section(s) that follow, warranting its own heading box. I believe that the general reader would appreciate their clearer distinction. One alternative that would more clearly distinguish the functions of each box would be to re-label "General aspects" as "Basic aspects," which is closer to the name of the link. -- Thomasmeeks ( talk) 13:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Economics |
|
Basic aspects |
---|
General classifications (A) |
Economics |
|
Basic aspects General classifications (B) |
---|
To allow a direct comparison, the relevant sidebar portions, (A) and (B) (a subsequent Edit), are reproduced here. I continue to believe that (A) has the advantage that Basic aspects seems (appropriately) to refer to what precedes it, similar to a bottom caption, while General classifications refer downward to section(s) that follow. There is also more parallelism in (A) than (B). as to treatment of General classifications in a stand-alone box like the later Fields and subfields heading -- a net plus. (B) is unnecessarily ambiguous as to the purpose of the broken separator line and the relation of Basic aspects to General classifications. It also removes parallelism. No need to overplay it, but the JEL system would not have gained such wide currency across journals and books without its uses. The curious would be rewarded from the General classifications link IMO. Even the non-users of the link might be happy at ins unintimidating accessibility (per (4), top). It might also be likened to money for a rainy day. Needless to say, I believe that a better case can be made for A than for B. I hope that there might be continued discussion if there is more to be said. The object is of course is to find a way to improve the sidebar. -- Thomasmeeks ( talk) 18:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I just want to concur with what Morph said above. I think that a) the double titles are just confusing, and b) having two different title lines link to the same JEL classification page is a little too much. I liked how it was when it was just a single line title on top. I vote to get rid of the second title line. lk ( talk) 14:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Economics |
|
Outline of topics |
---|
General classifications (C) |
The relevant portion of the Template discussed above is reproduced here, labelled (C). The comments immediately above do not defend the placing of the Outline of topics in the white-background box with with Micro, Macro, etc. following General classifications (the point of my previous Edit) but instead return to arguments against the General classifications box and ocrresponding JEL link. Any reader will see that I have tried to defend the latter in each case.
I am surprised at how there would be agreement on removing General classifications without stating the alternative title of Outline of topics. Any help on that one? -- Thomasmeeks ( talk) 02:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I think this whole disagreement is caused by a separation of Macro, Micro & History of thought from the other fields & subfields. If we merge them together in on category, then we would only need one title line. I can't see a good reason to keep them separate. LK ( talk) 08:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Morph, you took the economic bull by the horns... and made a really nice job of the Economics sidebar. My only complaint (still) is the Business and economics portal on the bottom... which I think should go with a bunch of portals to related things... business and other... and there is plenty of other, in a hidden section called related portals. But... right now the bar provides an easy way for people to skim around to articles. Nice work. skip sievert ( talk) 17:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Economics abbreviated |
|
Outline of topics |
---|
General classifications |
Fields and subfields (A) |
Growth ·
Development ·
History (1A) |
Fields and subfields {B} |
Development ·
Growth ·
History (1B) |
At the right is the Econ Template abbreviated to concentrate on the "Fields and subfields" section. A proposed reworking of that section (A) is listed first, followed by the current version (B). The bolded line numbers are only for convenience here, not for the edited Template. I have stared embarrassingly long and hard at the Template for more than a month but avoided proposing piecemeal changes that might be better dealt with together at one time. The 19 primary
JEL classification codes are below for comparison purposes.
Elements that guided formulation of (A) include these:
Someone else might use the same list to come up with a different arrangement -- and make a better case. Things are not always simple, and one tries to sort out what is more or less persuasive based on considerations presented. No matter what the arrangement, there are likely to be trade-offs of oourse.
Changes in (A) from (B) and reasons for them include the following.
The above is a lot to take in at once. I propoae to edit "Fields and subfields" along the lines of (A) as early as 3 full days from now to allow time for comment. -- Thomasmeeks ( talk) 02:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Economics |
|
Outline of topics |
---|
General classifications AGC |
Microeconomics ·
Macroeconomics 1AGC
|
General classifications BGC |
History of economic thought 1BGC |
Quantitative methods AQM |
Mathematical ·
Econometrics 1AQM
|
Methodologies BM |
Behavioral ·
Computational 1BM |
Fields and subfields FS |
Behavioral ·
Cultural ·
Evolutionary 0AFS |
Lists |
Business and Economics Portal |
At the right is a proposed reworking of Econ-sidebar sections, each followed by the corresponding current section. They are respectively labelled A and B (followed by an abbreviation for the section title, such as AGC for the reworking (A) of the General-Classifications section). The line numbers, followed by section abbreviation, are of course only for reference, not for the edited Template. Most of the proposed changes stem from the Methodologies section. A total of one subject was dropped and 3 were added.
I do respect the great care and thought that went into (B). As in the preceding section above, only more so, that is one reason I have stared embarrassingly long and hard at the Methodologies section of the Template but avoided proposing piecemeal changes that might be better dealt with together at one time. The 19 primary JEL classification codes, which the sidebar took as a point of departure, are below for comparison purposes.
Elements that guided formulation of (A) include these:
To repeat from the preceding section, someone else might use the same list to come up with a different arrangement -- and make a better case. Things are not always simple, and one tries to sort out what is more or less persuasive based on considerations presented. No matter what the arrangement, there are likely to be trade-offs.
Changes in (A) from (B) and reasons for them are discussed as follows.
I like the present bar... and suggest we do not do the proposed edit by Thomasmeeks. Right now the bar does what it is designed to do... navigate people around. It is simple. Simple is better in my opinion... Anyone with any interest at all in the subject will find a wealth of information in the present incarnation of the Economics bar. Complicating it may not improve it. Right now it is base line... and that may be enough for all practical purposes. skip sievert ( talk) 18:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, I hope that another look might be possible. I do agree that keeping things simple is important. But simplicity can take different forms. The current "Methodologies" section of the sidebar (BM above) uses alphabetical classification but mixes up non-quantitative and quantitative subjects (3 & 5 of each respectively), which makes them, I believe, easier to ignore & less likely to be used, since there is no obvious connection -- like mixing up the chapters of a book. In this it is inconsistent with the other sections in not using a subject-related grouping. Of course, the JEL codes don't mix together quant-math methods and methodology. Rather, methodology/heterodox there is paired with another general classification of econ: economic thought, as in AGC at the top sidebar. I believe that most readers would find the Quantitative methods section of (A) here simpler than the Methodologies section of (B) here and the differences in the other sections of (A) and (B) unproblematic -- so net advantage (A).
On the 2nd comment, as I tried to note at General classifications AGC above, if putting:
together with History of economic thought was good enough for JEL classification codes#Schools of economic thought and methodology JEL: B Subcategories, that might also be acceptable under General classifications as well, not b/c they are the same (any more than Micro & Macro are the same), but b/c they complement each other. There may be agreement on Behavioral economics. It is the JEL: D01 - Microeconomic Behavior link and of course a subfield of microeconomics. So, if we have Micro under General classifications, no one should be offended at Behavioral going under Fields and subfields. Rather than it getting overlooked in a stormy sea of Methodologies, it has the "last word" (or anyhow, line) at (A). The last comment also applies even more to Evolutionary economics: it has the last words at (A). In addition, on that last line "Evolutionary economics" has appreciably more Google Scholar hits with "cultural" (9700) or with "behavioral" (11,900) than with any of the qnantitative subjects in Methodologies BM. I believe that most readers will make that same connection more readily as well. Again I believe that readers are more likely to use the links if they can see that they are connected, like consecutive chapters of a book. Similarly, for Information · Game theory · (6AFS above) · Industrial organization. If readers think there may be a connection other than alphabetic ordering, I believe that their interest is more likely to be stirred.
I think that Computational economics is a very interesting field for an economist to be in, but in the sidebar it may tend to drive away the general reader as a special-interest field, esp. given the listing there of Math econ and Econometrics. What the sidebar should do is pique interest. A parsimonious sidebar section such as at (AQM) above may do that. There, the heading link Quantitative methods takes one instantly, to Computational. -- Thomasmeeks ( talk) 18:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Better yet, a side-by-side comparison of (A) and (B) [added later for clarity: Thomasmeeks ( talk) 00:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)]:
Proposed Economics boxes, versions (A) and (B)
| ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
* Replaces "Quantitative methods" per discussion below.
Placement in sidebar (A) of:
at the top of the Fields and subfields section has an added advantage (besides those mentioned above) of continuity with:
in the General classifications above it, rather than their dilution among Math/quant methods. Such ccntinuity is likely to result in greater use of the sidebar links to the articles, instead of being ignored as merely decorative. -- Thomasmeeks ( talk) 21:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
The Economic methodology article was expanded recently to include significantly more topics and in-line citations with links per Talk:Economic methodology#Continuity in and additions for a recent Edit, which addresses the "pragmatic, short-term" considerations expressed above as to moving up the placement of "Methodology" in (A).
Most readers might agree that the long-standing Econ sidebar (labeled (B) (immediately above) could be improved with the simplifications & additions of (A) as amended (also above). Simplifications include a 2-line "Quantitative methods" section replacing the 4-line Methodologies section (vs. 9 lines, total, for the "Fields & subfields" section) — details & rationale above. In light of the preceding comment, I withdraw the "Quantitative methods" heading of (A) in favor of Techniques, which has a close-fitting dictionary definitionof that term and corresponding usage in The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics#Subject Index.§ That revised heading is shorter and more precise, like that section. It leaves little doubt that its contents are distinct, if not dichotomous, from what precedes or follows it. (B) classifies by mixing together techniques & methodologies rather than moving the latter to the "General classifications" and the "Fields" sections, where they all fit seamlessly in (A). In such mixing, the (B) classification follows neither The New Palgrave Subject Index nor the JEL classification codes (in particular, the Economic thought/methodology vs. Math & quantitative methods sections). These carefully constructed classification systems suggest an analytical advantage in the simpler, less ambiguous (A) classifications. They have the added advantage of reflecting WP:VER. The techniques in principle are applied to Micro, Macro, or any of the Fields and subfields that follow, whereas the methodology associated with a field (say Evolutionary economics) is specific to that field.
§ Digression: The New Palgrave classifies game theory not under "Techniques" but with Industrial organization, just as (A) does & where principles textbooks often do to provide an accessible context, as also appropriate for a sidebar that appears in the Lead of an article (discussed at WP:Lead#Provide an accessible overview). -- Thomasmeeks ( talk) 14:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
This subsection heading was added to precede the following exchange of comments to distinguish from possible areas of agreement in the above. -- Thomasmeeks ( talk) 05:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I really dislike having "Methodology" & "Heterodox methods" in General classifications, followed by by a section called Techniques below. Aren't the Techniques listed Methods? Why have a link and then a section below about the same thing? Also, I've thought for a long time that the double headers at the begining are unnecessary and confusing. I much prefer a header called for example General Topics. I suggest changing the sidebar to (C) below: -- LK ( talk) 14:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Proposed Economics boxes, versions (A) and (C)
|
---|
|
(1) (C) changing the Outline of topics blue box to General topics but with the same link to Topic outline of economics.
The following are arguably advantages of (A) over (C) (with numbering below for ease of reference).