Template talk:Economics sidebar
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Economics sidebar template.
|Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Any threads with no replies in 1 year may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
|WikiProject Economics||(Rated Template-class)|
- 1 Proposed re-simplification of 'Technical methods' section from 7 to 4 links below heading
- 2 Proposal to move "The economy" box to top as heading for Economies-by-country map
- 3 Proposal to change the "General categories" heading link to JEL classification codes
- 4 Proposal to add more History of Economic Thought artictles
- 5 New image
or "JEL proportionate" vs. "fair synopsis" of 'Technical methods' section
The following concerns templates (A) (favored by me) and (F), the current Econ sidebar, both to the right & labelled as to differences under consideration in this subsection. Recent removal of the Economic statistics link from the 'Technical methods' section in the Econ sidebar is a convenient occasion for considering more broadly the number of lines & links in that template section. I number the following paragraphs for ease of reference (if that's necessary per discussion below).
1T. I'd like to make a case for returning from 7 links and 4 lines in (F) to 4 links and 2 lines in (A) for the technical-methods section with 2 links in (F) migrating to the "Fields & Subfields" section of (A) below & the addition of Personnel economics reflected in (A), for a total of one fewer lines in (A) compared to (F).
1T1. The object of (A) is an austere parsimony (economy!) and simplicity in the 'Technical methods' section, esp. appropriate for accessibility of the sidebar to the curious general reader. (Note: The 4-links-only of (A) in 'Technical methods' is not new. It is the same as for sidebar from November 2008 to October 2010, which followed a fairly lengthy discussion among 5 editors in 2008 at Template talk:Economics sidebar/Archive 1#Proposed edit stemming from "Methodologies" section when "Game theory" was also placed in the (A) position, which similarly helped to simplify that earlier section.
1T2. (A) and (F) represent different paradigms. The heading link for that section is JEL classification codes#Mathematical and quantitative methods JEL: C Subcategories. (A) is "JEL proportionate" in the sense of having no more than 2 lines and 4 links. None of the subject links in the template exceeds those numbers as to the 19 primary JEL classification codes categories and subcategories. The added 2 lines and 3 links in (F) over (A) arguably bog down the general reader to whom presumably the template should be appealing in the 'Technical methods' section. Another discussant earlier argued for the added links as going toward a "fair synopsis" of 'Technical methods' section. The heading link to JEL section with detailed links arguably makes so much detail unnecessary.
1T3. The first paragraph of Mathematical economics rightly cites the advantages of clarity, generality, and simplicity noted in the footnotes there as to application of mathematics to economics. Similarly Paul Samuelson and William Nordhaus in their influential introductory economics textbook describes econometrics as allowing economists "to sift through mountains of data to extract simple relationships." (2004, 18th ed., p. 5). I believe that most general readers and most economists would, in the present context, see an advantage in representing the Technical methods of the sidebar section with similar simplicity.
1T4. Moving down Game theory and Computational economics to the "Fields & subfields" section further greatly simplifies the 'Technical methods' section and places those subjects in a narrative context relative to preceding and succeeding links that might not be obvious otherwise, thereby increasing information to the general reader as to their connections to nearby economics (sub)fields.
- 1T4.1. One unnecessary & muddy nested hierarchy is thereby avoided, namely that in the 'Technical methods' in going from the Math econ to the subareas of Game theory etc. Instead, "Fields & subfields" serves the the same function for Game theory and Comput. econ but more simply (one less hierarchical device).
As to further particulars:
2T. Per JEL classification codes#Mathematical and quantitative methods JEL: C Subcategories link for the 'Technical methods' section, there is no current disagreement expressed on this Talk page on inclusion of Math econ, Econometrics, & Experimental economics in that section.
3T. National accounting/national accounts is usually discussed at the beginning the macro section of Econ Principles textbooks, which argues for its appropriateness in the 'Technical methods' section per economic data referred to in the JEL classification codes, so it was argued at Template talk:Economics sidebar#Placement of National accounting in "Methods" or "Fields & subfields" section of Template? and Template talk:Economics sidebar#Economic data v. Economic statistics as template links below.
- 3T1. In particular, depending on emphasis, National accounting may be properly classified in the JEL classification codes#Mathematical and quantitative methods JEL: C Subcategories at JEL: C8, found via the 'Technical methods' link. True, not all economic data are discussed there, but economic data does have a prominent link in the Lead there and in the last paragraph of National accounting#Scope, where other prominent macro measures such as the CPI and the unemployment rate in relation to national accounts measures.
4T. Computational economics is surely something Econ grad students or researchers might be interested in, but a more specialized component of the approach has its own section in Mathematical economics#Agent-based computational economics, about the same length as the Game-theory section, making that part of computational economics (in particular its 2nd paragraph) redundant in the Tech. methods section of the Econ sidebar. In a similar vein:
- Experimental economics#Agent-based computational modeling section, makes its presence in Tech. methods redundant as to its (very strong) relation to Experimental econ.
- Econometrics#Methods, last paragraph, though brief, has a link to computational economics & the same 6 linked references as in the latter as pertaining to econometrics. So, that aspect of comp. econ. is covered in econometrics, reducing the need for separate link in the Tech. methods section to show the connection.
5T. The Mathematical economics#Mathematical optimization sub-section (including 3 sub-sub-sections) now incorporates most of the Mathematical optimization#Economics + more than 2X as much additional material as the sidebar link to Mathematical optimization#Economics. So, that arguably makes Mathematical optimization redundant in the template. Arguably, the Math econ article should be the go-to article as to Math. optim. in econ. That has added cogency given the (unique) Good-article ranking among general field/area-econ articles of Math econ. (I note as an aside the high quality of the Mathematical optimization, whose most frequent contributors are User:Rinconsoleao, an economist, and User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz, a major contributor to Mathematical economics.)
6T. What about the other part, "Fields & subfields"? (A) moves Computational econ to that section of the sidebar following Managerial economics. The latter mentions and links to computational econ at the end of the 1st paragraph, making the transition seamless. The 1st sentence of Computational economics is:
- Computational economics is a research discipline at the interface between computer science and economic and management science (per fn. link there to Computational Economics)
That quotation also makes its connection to Managerial econ. clear enough, in effect providing an Econ. sidebar narrative as to the relation of the 2 subjects. Placement there in the sidebar arguably gives better context to the subject, rather than expecting the uninformed reader to make the connection.
7T. That leaves open appropriate placement of Game theory as between (A) & (F). By parallel argument, the higher-level discussion of GT in Math econ makes its placement of GT in that section less urgent, given the entré provided by the "Fields & subfields" section and a good place to put it. Now, if readers could be expected to read successively successive articles in the template, there would be no harm in its earlier placement. I just believe that ME gives the reader a chance to link GT there, and a pause (that refreshes?) later on under the "Fields & subfields" heading, which places GT in a relevant context of Information economics (whose last Lead paragraph a GT connection per games with perfect information, complete information, and incomplete information) and Industrial organization (per 2nd para. of IO with mention of the GT connection). It's not an accident that most econ principles texts that treat GT at all do so in connection with IO, since IO provides a vivid illustration as to uses of GT, for example, Paul Samuelson and William Nordhaus in their Economics textbook.
8T. The placement of Personnel economics after Labour economics is obvious, given the serious overlap now noted in each respective article. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 13:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC) + (1T4.1) above per another simplicity dimension of the proposal & (3T1) per discussion of national-accounts data & other econ. data as discussed in national accounts. --19:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
9T. I am restoring and reactivating this thread (currently referenced and linked to in the section that follows titled "Bad proposal") from archiving earlier today because of its possible relevance to future "Technical methods" section adds to which comments above might apply. Of course someone might make a proposal to add back something in the "Technical methods" section, but it may be reasonable to make more apparent what contrary arguments have been made above, the better to respond to them if a better contrary argument can be made. Thank you. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 11:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Proposal to move "The economy" box to top as heading for Economies-by-country map
The proposal here is to go from the current sidebar (A.1) to (A.2) below. In (A.1), The economy: concept and history at the bottom is a stand-alone box and has the only such econ-article-sidebar link, because it does not fit under any of the headings above it. An argument for moving it up to the top just below Economics is that it would serve there as a heading-link between Economics above it and the Economies-by-country map below it. Having a heading for the map is also consistent with the heading/contents sequence of the sections that follow.
Also, at the bottom, The economy: concept and history might look like an afterthought to Economics. Arguably, the dimensions of an economy are anything but that. Economics as an academic field is concerned with study of phenomena in "the economy", whether at the local/micro or macro/world level and whether at a period in time or over time. Placement of the The economy box immediately after Economics represents by its juxtaposition a connection between the two. The shortened form of "The economy" in (A.2) is facilitated by its proximity to Economics above it and the Economies-by-country map that follows, which add context. The Economy article is conceptual and general while the Economies-by-country map is applied and particular in its elements (the respective economies by country) as is appropriate in a heading-contents relation.
'The economy' in (A.2) is arguably better than 'Economy' as a heading to distinguish the economy as an economic system from other uses, including the top of Economy (disambiguation) & the definitions at wiktionary:economy. Clarity arguably trumps an alleged WP:HEADINGS problem from use of 'The' in the heading.
The non-bold font of Economies by country in (A.2) (and unlike the bold of (A.1)) serves to distinguish it from the bold-like font in the heading above. In this respect the non-bold is consistent with the non-bold of links in contents boxes of sections that follow.
As in the previous section above, the heavy lifting of technical assistance to facilitate the formatting changes reflected in (A.2) was generously provided by Frietjes. Documentation and related prior discussion leading up to (A.2) is at Template talk:Sidebar#How to have a heading box appear before the top figure in the sidebar?. Comments are welcome. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 13:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
|Fields and subfields|
|Business and economics portal|
Currently the "General categories" link of Template:Economics sidebar (as reproduced at the right) is Outline of economics. The proposal of this section is to replace that link with another, JEL classification codes (from the Journal of Economic Literature). Below are arguments for the proposal. Some points there are related to an earlier discussion now at Template talk:Economics sidebar/Archive 1#"General classifications"?, but circumstances have changed since then, and there are added arguments below that I hope warrant reconsidering the issue. I number the arguments for ease of reference.
1T. Anyone who links from the current Econ sidebar to Outline of economics via the "General categories" link will note from the bold black of the sidebar that Outline there is there twice in the Econ sidebar, 1st as the General categories link, 2nd under the Lists section as Outline. It is properly placed in the latter location (just as its counterpart is in Template:Psychology sidebar). It falls in the Category:Economics lists#Pages in category "Economics lists", right at top in fact. Its earlier names reflect that as well, which until 2008 were some variant of List of basic economics topics. One link of Outline of economics in the sidebar is fine but arguably enough.
2T. The Outline link in the earlier location may discourage use of other links in the sidebar. The early location of the link gives no close approximation to the 3 white-background contents sections that follow in the sidebar, starting with the first, 3/5 of which includes Microeconomics, Economic methodology, and Heterodox economics. These 3 are not even listed in Outline of economics (except in the Econ sidebar). The omissions could be remedied in Outline of economics, but their inclusion would still be submerged in the multiple & sometimes diffuse lists there, obscuring the connection. By contrast, they are near the top of primary codes in the lead of JEL classification codes. Moreover, the latter link lists other primary codes there that also fit the description of the sidebar heading "General categories" and many of which appear under the Fields and subfields. That's a plus in listing other areas that can be similarly described. Content boxes of the sidebar shouldn't be expected to do everything. So, the JEL codes link functions both as a heading for the content section following and a general heading for that section and the 2 sections that follow, like a book-chapter title that also introduces headings within the chapter.
3T. It could be argued that the preceding ignores that fact that the Fields and subfields section of the sidebar has the same link as proposed above for "General categories", and so that the JEL codes links would be redundant. But some redundancy may be acceptable, if as suggested above different headings & associated links serve different functions. The interested reader might well prefer the proposed JEL link in directing to links more inclusive than just those listed immediately below the heading to show how closely they are related to other fields, right from the start and based on a professional source. At the JEL codes link, if the proposal is adopted, the reader would see the same link for Fields and subfield. Would s/he be disappointed? No, just informed. One who instead links to the JEL codes link through "Fields and subfields" would immediately encounter in the text most of the fields in the sidebar (including one earlier listed in sidebar) but ordered in an analytical way that satisfies a professional standard. That standard might be of independent interest. The reader could also dig deeper in scanning the rest of the article. It hard to see what harm the redundancy would be in this case.
4T. There is IMO a related point worth making. Given the 33 currently links listed under Fields & subfields', it may be that many readers would feel daunted at the prospect of linking to the heading above it, especially if s/he had previously linked to Outline of economics currently at the General categories link above it, which has some really large & possibly intimidating lists. So, the earlier placement of the JEL classification codes at General categories might be the most likely way of guiding the reader to that more comprehensive & professionally ordered lead section. Most readers might appreciate that. They'd also see from the bold white backgrounds for both heading boxes go to the same link. So, for future use, the first one would be easier to reach (closer to the top of the sidebar). Thank you. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Proposal to add more History of Economic Thought artictles
The History of economic thought article need shortening, with information transferred to 'child' articles covering various time periods. It would be good to incorporate these into the History Types Classification section. JEL classification codes could be move to List becoming Classification Lists. Microeconomics, Macroeconomics, and Methodology could move to 'Concepts Theory Techniques'. History Types Classification could become History Schools.
I have replaced the image File:Countries by GDP (PPP) Per Capita in 2015.svg, with an image of a supply & demand graph. Reason: the map is verging on pov, and is quasi-sociological, quasi-political. It is an example of how economic data is used to make political statements, a valid function of economics, but one step up from the topic itself. A supply and demand graph is one of the most basic assumptions of Economics, and thus suitable for a template covering a wide range of articles.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC))
- I agree the image should not be POV or quasi-political. However, Adam Smith, Ricardo etc. all believed a commodities price and value came from the labor that was taken to create it, the later idea that labor's contribution to a commodity price and value should be ripped out is completely political. Such a price graph is a basic assumption of neoclassical Economics, not Economics in general.
- I've replaced it with a picture of the Phillips curve. There may be a picture more neutral and non-political than the Phillips curve, in which case that would be better. Maybe something like the image above. Minimax Regret (talk) 06:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)