If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
I don't know how to insert that banner "needs revision by an expert" or something of the sort, but this article really needs a closer look. Not only the reference to the researcher (Jake Verdoorn, born in 1988!? I graduated in Economics just a few years after that, this Jake was probably still learning to read by then), but the definitions are imprecise. I´ve corrected the part about the author, but for the moment cannot recall exactly what the law states and could not find the proper reference to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
See for example: "many who cite Verdoorn's Law have never read the original article in Italian (...) I find it difficult to agree with Rowthorn's interpretation of the law.". ngrams shows more capitalized usage. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 list was downcased by an editor who took upon himself to downcase all laws.
Fictious laws are capitalized in the real world "The new office professional's handbook" by American Heritage Dictionary . --Enric Naval (talk) 09:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Support, in accord with WP:MOSCAPS, where the first sentence is "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization." The most relevant of the subsidiary principles:
In science and mathematics, only proper names that are part of a name for an idea should be capitalized (Hermitian matrix, Lorentz transformation). A small number of exceptions exist (abelian group).
This is a sound principle, in harmony with a great number of style guides, and it readily covers the present case by a rational generalisation of coverage. It is absurd to pick and choose among such minor resources as The new office professional's handbook, all the while ignoring OED which favours lower case. OED's current examples for physics, at the entry "law, n.1":
Avogadro's lawn. the law that equal volumes of different gases, pressure and temperature being equal, contain the same number of molecules. Charles's lawn. the law discovered by Alex. César Charles (1746–1823) that for every degree centigrade of rise in temperature, the volume of a gas increases by ·00366 of its amount at zero. Dulong and Petit's lawn. the law that all the chemical elements have approximately the same atomic heat.
(OED is not yet entirely consistent. It has an entry for "Murphy's Law" (capped), but also one for "Parkinson's law" (uncapped). This is typical in the history of that constantly revised 20-volume leviathan. The clear preference is for lower case, as can be seen throughout the main entry that I have just cited.)
8.147 Laws and theories
Though usage varies widely, Chicago recommends that names of laws, theories, and the like be lowercased, except for proper names attached to them.
Avogadro’s hypothesis (or Avogadro’s law)
the big bang theory
(Einstein’s) general theory of relativity
Newton’s first law
The time has come for us to give sort shrift to such divisive and unsystematic RMs, based on little more than personal preferences and woefully inept appeals to "reliable sources" and their own varied style choices. Wikipedia has its own style guidelines, and they exist for a purpose.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.
When there is a change in worker's labor-effort, the output will vary according to the Cobb-Douglas relationship, and not according a square-root of change, which is what Verdoorn's law apparently is all about. The index on labor in the CD relationship is less that the O.5 of Verdoorn's law, and it should be obvious that only in a very special case (where the capital to which it joins is very small) that it properly applies. Macrocompassion (talk) 12:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)