Template talk:Infobox economist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Economics (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Biography / Science and Academia (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by the science and academia work group.

Unknown parameters used[edit]

I have checked Category:Pages using infobox economist with unknown parameters (0). First I have OK-ed |color= that is still present in ~400 parameters (editing them would be trivial).

I also met these parameters, maybe they could be added:

  • |occupation=
  • |residence=
  • |ethnicity= (unk in parent template {{Infobox person}}!)
  • |relatives= (parents, children) - useful when they are known/wikilinked?
  • |religion= (?)

In some cases I have turned that info into |notes=. -DePiep (talk) 00:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Remove the parameter "influenced = "[edit]

I propose getting rid of the parameter "influenced = ". First, there's no way to tell from the text of an article who the person has influenced. With "influences", we can check in the article itself. When a name is added to "influenced" we can't tell what is real and what is spam. Second, there is no reasonable rule we can follow about whether an influenced person should be added to the infobox. Third, the category is a magnet for spam, with fans adding their own names, or adding various other names in order to bulk out the "influenced" list of their heroes. I see no reason to keep the "influenced" parameter. LK (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The parameter should be kept IMHO, but I agree that the criteria ought to be reviewed. @Lawrencekhoo: You may want to start an Rfc on the matter.--Nevéselbert 19:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

RFC: Should the parameter "influenced = " be on this template?[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The consensus was to remove the parameter as it is inappropriate for the infobox. LK (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Should this template have the parameter "influenced" (meaning those people who the economist has influenced as an economist)? And if it does, what criteria should be used to determine what names may be added to that parameter? LK (talk) 00:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


  • No There is no easy way to determine who should be added. In many articles the list gets too long, as it's a magnet for spam. LK (talk) 00:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • No Whenever an infobox goes beyond straightforward facts it becomes just O/R & massive oversimplification. North8000 (talk) 13:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • No - the bot sent me. It's an interesting idea but the names of those the economist has influenced can be listed within the body of the article, in it's own section with links. The info box is more of a fast-facts device and is not meant to be comprehensive. It will get too long, and the criteria for addition of any particular individual will likely be contested. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  • No (Summoned by bot) I agree with SW3 5DL. Determining who would be worthy to be counted on that list is going to be very hard. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 13:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes It is not hard to determine who has been influenced by a particular economist. In an academic domain, the person always knows who influenced them, and who they are influence. It seems to be an intrinsic property of academic life, that the academic always knows who is using their work and building on it, and whose work you are using in turn. An academic takes a viewpoint, Peer groups are built, sometimes informally, sometimes by design, where knowledge is shared and new knowledge is discovered, and as people age, people naturally know who is using their knowledge, to push the knowledge bubble further out, and it is that mechanism which enables new dynamic knowledge to be used to create new knowledge. That knowledge, is partly in books, and papers when published, but there is always the brand new stuff, kept in the head, which influences new people, new work somewhere else, via the writing of new thesis, which is one mechanism in the peer group. The person who is writing the thesis must, must choose that subject, be influenced by it. Otherwise it the whole system would break. You can take a direct line, from who discovered the atom, right through to string theory. It is critical that this goes in, otherwise is will partially break the bio articles, because you will miss a key of how knowledge is transferred. The person themselves would like to see it, in an professionally written biography, or autobiography. It a point of pride. L3X1, the information is always available, always and easy to find if the work is done, and if you believe the article is worth it, then it will get done. There is always attribution, it is a professional courtesy at the very least, and a point of pride. scope_creep (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
That is persuading. What limit (if any) should be instituted? I believe a relevant example is how on many music BLPs, the associated acts section is always having one musician or another added to it. Here, I believe we will have an easier time determining association/influence (per Scope creep's comment), but many many will count as influenced. Dozens perhaps. Should the most notable, or the least notable, or how should we determine who makes the list? We can't have all 34*, can we? Thanks, *random example number L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 02:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
That is problematic and some arbitrary limit will need to be agreed, perhaps based on what field or culture the actor is in. For people in STEM fields, the number of people that some people influence can be absolutely enormous, e.g. Einstein, so it is always limited to several of their closest collaborators, within a time period. For Niels Bohr, they mention and many others. On music BLP and popular culture, it is driven by fandom, and always a subjective decision. So some limit within a cultural frame will need to agreed, perhaps established for each field is needed? I have some refs here, but brain is fried, more later:
  • "Artistic Influence". Computational Biomedicine Imaging and Modeling Center, Rutgers University. Retrieved 15 July 2017. 

scope_creep (talk) 10:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

  • No (Summoned by bot) Criteria for appropriateness of inclusion in such a list is too subject to debate for an infobox, and would likely be different for different economists, which also makes it inappropriate for an infobox, the whole idea of which is to be uniform. Out of context, it's not really clear what "influence" means. Influence could mean that an economist builds on another's ideas for a particular article, for his or her whole body of work, or by reacting against the other person's ideas, for example? Also, for many significant economists (including but not limited to just about anyone who had won a nobel prize), lists would be ridiculously (in context of infobox) long. Important influences can be in body of article with appropriate citations.Federalist51 (talk) 18:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • No (Summoned by bot) It is too tough and maybe controversial to determine who is really worthy of being mentioned there, and sometime the list can be too long, making it perfect spam.--Kostas20142 (talk) 10:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes (Summoned by bot) the template documentation already says how to decide who should be added to the influences section: Entries in influences, notable_students, school_tradition, and contributions should be explained in the main text of the article. Those that are not mentioned in the main text may be deleted. The example in the template - Milton Friedman - shows a long list of names after Influenced. I don't have time to check them all, but looked at Rand Paul and saw that Friedman was mentioned in his article. So, if you add someone to the influenced category, the economist whose article you're editing should be mentioned in the influenced person's article as well, or it can be deleted. Seems sensible, consistent and easy to maintain. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • No - As noted above there's gonna be edit wars etc over who should and shouldn't be named etc etc so it's best to simply not have it at all. –Davey2010Talk 14:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • No The issue is fraught with "opinion stated as fact" for Wikipedia, especially since it is often impossible to aver who is, or is not, an "influence" of someone else unless there is clear self-identification. As "opinion" it may be placed in the body of an article, but use of opinions-as-fact-in-infoboxes seems errant at best. Collect (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion[edit]

  • What if there was a clear rule, like: "In order to be on the list, the person must mention in a published work that they were influenced by the subject"? L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 13:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I.e. genuine and specific self-identification which I have often iterated about BLPs. Collect (talk) 13:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
As per above, I think any reliable source should be OK. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 15:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.