This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trade, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Trade on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was move to Economy (see Moe's rationale below)
Support. See comment below. Duja 08:40, 13 October 1967 (UTC)
Oppose Same suggestion as Mets501 and Vegaswikian. --Pgreenfinch 10:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Strongly Support following Duja's reasoning, below. If the move-attempt fails, however, then I support GTBacchus' suggestion to temporarily list it on WP:DPL, let it get cleaned up a bit and re-evaluate it later. -- Arvedui 09:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Support - this is a clearly the most widely used definition of "economy" - Bssc81 05:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Support I don't see anything at economy (disambiguation) that comes close to the relevance of this article. I also consider the qualifier (activity) unhelpful. This could quite as well refer to economy as in frugality (which btw, should be merged anyway). ~ trialsanderrors 06:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect to the opposers, it's easier said than done. What links here for Economy shows ~600 incoming links, so a bot intervention would be required to fix them all. Of those, the majority is result of (to an extent indiscriminate) linking like economy of the area is based on fishing and agriculture..., which shows that this is the primary topic. Yet many others are result of misspelling, ...he studied economy (instead of economics). I didn't find usages related with fuel economy, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are those, too. The current situation is not acceptable though -- Economy should be either a dab page or devoted to Economy (activity), but not a redirect. Duja 08:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not an expert in this area. But a quick check of a few of those redirects tells me an expert needs to look at them all and point them to the right article. I'm far from convinced that the majority of these are correctly redirected now. In any case, the number of links that need to be cleaned up is not a reason to not make a change. With a dab page in place, any editor will be made aware of the problem and can fix it. hahahahahahahahah Vegaswikian 00:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
But I still don't see which alternative meaning of economy as listed in Economy (disambiguation) is so important that it justifies making Economy a dab page—it includes world economy, few obscure cities, and few other esoteric terms. Even if we fix all the links now, editors will likely continue to link economy from articles, without bothering to check that they really want economy (activity) (which is IMO reasonable expectation). The only competing term in terms of intended wikilinking seems to be Economics, but it's simply a matter of misspelling/misunderstanding. Economic system is mentioned there, but IMO it's unlikely to be mistakenly wikilinked as economy.
Yes, the incoming wikilinks should be fixed indeed — however, it's far less job (for present and for future) to fix only the wrong ones (of intended meaning "economics" or "fuel economy"), than to fix them all (now and in future). Duja 08:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Did you miss 'I'm far from convinced that the majority of these are correctly redirected now.' The point is that many or the links that are redirected appear to be going to the correct article. I believe that policy is to not redirect many users to an incorrect article. Just being the most common is not in and of itself a good reason. As I said, a quick check convinced me that too many articles are being redirected to the wrong article. If this fails, an alternative might be to redirect to world economy which would list the dab article. Vegaswikian 05:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
A quick check of mine shows that this is the intended article in the majority of cases: end 20 or so of what links here link to economy (activity) as desired. Exceptions do exist, as you noted: judging solely on the article headings, they appear to be in the magnitude of 5-10%. However, we appear to read the policy in a different way. From WP:DAB#Primary topic:
When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase (indicated by a majority of links in existing articles and consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. Where there is no such clearly dominant usage there is no primary topic page.
It is clearly impossible to ensure that all editors will correctly link to the desired article in all ocasions if they don't look—the point of the guideline is to ensure that at least a majority does so.Duja 07:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
The first thing that occurs to me is that, if the dab page were moved to Economy for a while, it could be listed at WP:DPL, where armies of volunteers would sort out all of the incoming links, and redirect them to appropriate locations. At that point, it would be easier to determine that Economy (activity) is the primary use, move the dab page (now link free!) back to Economy (disambiguation), and move Economy (activity) to Economy without messing up any links.
The second thing that occurs to me is — that sounds convoluted. Still, I can't convince myself it's not the best way to handle this situation. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
It appears the article would be better off linked to Economy rather than Economy (activity). Reason(s) being:
The general consensus above was for moving to Economy.hahahahahahahahaha
Economy redirecting here is rather redundant considering the title has a disambigusation in it.
Most things withn the similar name "Economy" are not related in the disambiguation page, as thus doesn't need the (activity) part as it only obscures making links to the most commonly used term.
This appears to be the most common usage of the word for economy and having a disambiguation page linked at the top won't hurt anything
It appears most redirects have been correctly redirected to the appropriate article
People link Economy and theres nothing we can do to stop that. Although, it may be better to convience ourself by having redirect to a disamb. page, there are lots of editors who make these changes all the time and if I'm not mistaken, there is a WikiProject/organization devoted to fixing these kinds of things.
If you have any comments, please contact me or drop me a note here. semper fi — Moe 04:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC) at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
ISBN-13: 978-1608195107 What's the Economy For, Anyway?: Why It's Time to Stop Chasing Growth and Start Pursuing Happiness David K. Batker (Author) and John de Graaf (Author), Publisher Bloomsbury Press (November 8, 2011) 22.214.171.124 (talk) 05:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be great if people in authority had to take an oath not to "clip any coins". What I mean by this is, shouldn't people in appropriate political positions take an oath to do everything in their power not to inflate the economy? Obviously if they were to stop inflating right now it would cause a "Greater" depression. With that said though, I do believe we could ween ourselves off this mess of our economy. -stevenDP 21:33, 3 January 2012 (PST)
Economies with the largest contribution to global economic growth from 1996 to 2011
This seems to be an incorrect list, since according to Herman Daly the Western world has had no capital growth since 1980. Add to text.
The following passage is highly disputable, so it would at least need a citation, if not to be revised completely
«On the other hand, traditional socialism is a command-based economy in which markets and the free exchange of goods and services, as well as manufacturing, production, trade and distribution are replaced or done by government central planning and state owned enterprises. In this economy all private owners of capital (called capitalist) and of land (called landowners) are not allowed or banned; and the only permitted private ownership is of consumption goods. Capital labor, and land are assigned by the state and free movement of labor is severely restricted. There are no profits, dividends, interest or rent. Labor compensation and benefits as well as investment expenditures are decided by central planners».
Especially the sentence in italics, needs clarification. Which 'socialism' are we talking about? If by "classic socialism" it's meant marxism, that sentence surely is wrong, because it contradicts all those which was written about "alienation" and "division of labour" (e.g. in Marxist Encyclopedia, a source which you use in your references, as in Theory_of_alienation#Further_reading). --126.96.36.199 (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)