Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search[edit]

Hello Folks,

I think there is something wrong with this page. The European Union has the number 2 position with $2,173 billion, following no. 1 China with $2,210 billion. However, if you combine for example Germany, France and the U.K. this already counts up to more than China's number.


Hélène Rey[edit]

I've added some initial discussion of the contributions of Prof. Hélène Rey here: [1]. There's a lot more that can be added, if anyone's familiar with her work and contributions.

Input on merge discussion[edit]

I’m requesting input and expertise from uninvolved editors on a merge discussion between distressed securities fund and distressed securities. The discussion has been active since September 12, 2014 with no consensus met yet. Users are in gridlock and discussion has came to a halt. Input on the discussion and eventually closure will be much appreciated. Thank you! Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 17:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Project tags needed, but which?[edit]

help please In ictu oculi (talk) 04:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

European Central Bank's GAR[edit]

European Central Bank, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. GamerPro64 03:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

B-class assessment request for Unemployment in Poland[edit]

I wonder if the article could be submitted to WP:GAR? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Economics: The User’s Guide by Ha-Joon Chang[edit]

Wikimedia UK is delighted to announce that we have been given some copies of E-books from Pelican Books to give to Wikipedia editors, of which Economics: The User’s Guide by Ha-Joon Chang may be of particular interest to people in this WikiProject. More details including application details are at Wikipedia:Pelican Books. Sorry, but for commercial reasons this offer is not available for editors in the USA. Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) (talk) 11:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Launch of WikiProject Wikidata for research[edit]

Hi, this is to let you know that we've launched WikiProject Wikidata for research in order to stimulate a closer interaction between Wikidata and research, both on a technical and a community level. As a first activity, we are drafting a research proposal on the matter (cf. blog post). Your thoughts on and contributions to that would be most welcome! Thanks, -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Request for quick comments and greetings for a class[edit]

Hello. I do outreach in the Wikipedia Education Program. As a volunteer, I presented Wikipedia to a class called "Economics and Developing Countries". I checked some of the students work, and my initial observation is that the students are adding content with references and commenting on each others' work. These are all new students. If anyone here would also comment on what they have done, say hello to them on their talk pages, or otherwise acknowledge their contributions, then I and the class would appreciate it and perhaps the professor would be more likely to continue to do this. I met the professor at a library during a Wikipedia meetup, and he seemed enthusiastic about having Wikipedia better represent issues of economics in the developing world. I would like to sustain his interest in Wikipedia.

If anyone has questions about the Wikipedia Education Program or this class, feel free to ask. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Three-way article merge needed for important economic history topic[edit]

Please take a look at and merge the following: Price revolution, European Price Revolution and Spanish Price Revolution. All three articles are clearly about the same topic, thus they are forbidden content forks. There is almost no overlap of the sources used in each of them, each article concentrates on different aspects of the topic. Unfortunately I know just barely enough about economics to keep my own check account under a modicum of control, so I do not feel at all competent to perform this mandatory merge. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I concur Roger (Dodger67). I've left input over on the Discussion page, and tried to straighten out the merge tags. Please go over yourself and weigh in.
I hope a few other WP Econ editors will go over there and leave a WP:!vote rationale on the matter. N2e (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Could a competent editor please complete the merge. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Is this WikiProject dead? Will someone competent please do this merger asap. There is already another draft article about this exact same topic submitted for review at AFC (See User:Mbarakad/sandbox/). We do not need any further discussion about this - in terms of the content fork rule a merge is compulsory, so please just do it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@Dodger67: There is some activity relating to this project, so I don't think its completely dead. Regarding WP:FORK, the way I read this rule is that its for external copies of articles. Rather than for duplication and overlap within wikipedia itself. Anyhow, thanks for drawing the issue to attention. I will look over the articles later today. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

List of circulating currencies[edit]

The list of circulating currencies now sorts properly when sorted by name of currency. Previously, e.g., "Thai baht" sorted under T; now it sorts under B. See the Talk page there under Sorting the table by "Currency".

If you would like to discuss this with me, please {{Ping}} me. Thnidu (talk) 07:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment - fractional reserve banking[edit]

It has been suggested that I make a "request for comment with participation from people at WP:ECON" with regard this discussion about the fractional reserve banking page. I do not know how to do this formally (maybe I have just done it by virtue of these words?). Can anyone help? Reissgo (talk) 07:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Although RFCs are an informal thing, there exists a process to establish one described at WP:RFC. However, per that page, there's certainly nothing wrong with seeking input from the relevant WikiProjects. WikiProject Economics is probably a good start. Cheers, John Shandy`talk 04:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
So the page at WP:RFC states "If the article is complex or technical, it may be worthwhile to ask for help at the relevant WikiProject." (and the issues in question are indeed technical) but does not state exactly *how* to "ask for help at the relevant WikiProject". Have I already done it by virtue of this thread on this talk page? Or do I need to put something on the main WikiProject Economics page? Reissgo (talk) 15:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
The specific section I linked you to provides a template that you can add to the article talk page as well as some other steps so that bots will add your request for comment to lists elsewhere on the wiki (I imagine to cast a broader net for more commenters). You may not feel the need to do so if your mention on this project talk page garners enough participation. John Shandy`talk 04:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Economic growth#Income equality[edit]

Could we please get some more eyes at Economic growth? People have over the past four or five months been slowly trying to include obscure primary source studies of relatively tiny datasets to try to imply that inequality causing economic growth is still a viable theory. These studies have huge caveats that went unmentioned in the inclusions. And now User:Volunteer Marek is trying to claim that Li and Zou (1998) and Frank (2009) aren't primary source studies, and that my insistance on agreement with secondary sources is against consensus because "at least one other user objects" to my edits. EllenCT (talk) 06:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Please see the talk page as well as my response over at [2].Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

What are the appropriate number of threads on this Wikiproject talk page?[edit]

Regarding [3], what do other editors think the appropriate number of threads to leave displayed on this talk page should be? My understanding is that it is not uncommon for wikiprojects to have dozens of simultaneous projects. EllenCT (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

In my experience, 20 minimum threads seems to be rather high when configured to an age of 90 days. WikiProject Finance & WikiProject Globalization use 6 & 5 minimum threads respectively. However, they are configured to expire threads after only 30 days. I think WikiProject Economics would benefit from a minimum thread count of 5 to 10, and an expiry of 30 to 45 days. My general view is that minimum threads and thread expiry should generally have an inverse relationship: less-active projects warrant threads sticking around longer because it takes longer for them to get attention, while more-active projects may not need threads to stick around as long since they may resolve more quickly, and may instead have a desire to see more minimum threads since there will likely be more things to discuss. Ultimately it boils down to what a project is willing to handle. On talk pages with an aggressive auto-archiving configuration, editors can always include a <!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 12:00, 01 January 2020 (UTC) --> exception at the beginning of a talk page thread to exempt it from archiving (and remove it when the participants deem the thread ready for normal archiving). John Shandy`talk 03:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live![edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Contributions from others requested for Thomas M. Humphrey Wikipedia entry.[edit]

The entry for economistThomas M. Humphrey currently has a COI banner on it. Objective contributions from others with a knowledge of the history of economic thought or the career record of the subject of the article are needed in order to remove the COI (Conflict of Interest) banner. Please include reference information for the footnotes. Thank you for your contributions.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Hugh E. Conway[edit]

Hi folks! I created an article on Hugh E. Conway, a labor economist and professor. It was initially given a START rating. I contacted Meno25, the editor who did the rating, for feedback on the article rating. He replied that he wasn’t an expert on the Wiki-Project areas that applied to that specific article so he suggested that I ask you folks for a re-assessment. While it isn’t a particularly long article, I think it covers Dr. Conway’s life/career pretty well. I even tracked down some hard-copy military documents to ensure all the facts had solid sources. Would someone from Wiki-Econ please take a second look at this article rating? Thanks!--Orygun (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Marginal Standing Facility[edit]

Dear economics experts: Here's an old AfC submission that will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable subject that should be kept and improved instead? —Anne Delong (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: its a shame I didn't see your message earlier. Is there anywhere the text of the draft can be seen? Jonpatterns (talk) 08:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Jonpatterns, it's short, so I'll post it here.—Anne Delong (talk) 12:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Marginal Standing Facility(MSF) announced by the RESERVE BANK OF INDIA in its monetary policy of May 2011 and came into effect from 9th may 2011.[1] With effect from October 2013 under this (MSF) facility the scheduled commercial banks in india can borrow upto 2% of their net demand and time liabilities by pledging approved government securities. The rate of interest charged on this facility has been kept 9%, which is 100 basis points(1% ) above Repo Rate under Liquidity Adjustment Facility.[2] This facility will allow banks to meet short term liquidity needs by availing funds for overnight. MSF will be available to banks on all days for overnight borrowing except on Fridays when it will be available for three days. The Facility will be available on all working days in Mumbai, excluding Saturdays between 3.30 P.M. and 4.30 P.M.[3] Marginal Standing Facility will allow banks to meet short term Asset- Liability mismatch, and the rate is considered penal rate as this will be opted by the banks after they have exhausted the Repo option. Requests will be received for a minimum amount of Rs. One crore and in multiples of Rs. One crore thereafter.[4]


[5] [6] [7]

  1. ^ .org, rbi. "Marginal Standing Facility – Scheme". government of india. Retrieved 10 May 2014. 
  2. ^ .com, allbankingsolutions. "What is Marginal Standing Facility - MSF ? What is MSF?". Retrieved 10 May 2014. 
  3. ^ .org, rbi. "Marginal Standing Facility Rates". rbi. Retrieved 10 May 2014. 
  4. ^ .com, economictimes.indiatimes. "ET in the Classroom: Marginal standing facility May 24, 2011, 06.45am IST". economic times. Retrieved 10 May 2014. 
  5. ^ RBI/2010-11/515 FMD. No.59/01.18.001/2010-11
  6. ^ RBI/2013-14/340 FMD.MOAG. No. 91/01.18.001/2013-14
  7. ^
Jonpatterns, now that you've seen it, do you think it should be made into an article?—Anne Delong (talk) 02:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Anne Delong Yes, but I have run out of time this week.Jonpatterns (talk) 10:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

housing/real estate discusiion[edit]

FYI Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#House_prices:_domino_effect. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Labour economics[edit]

Good morning, can an economist review the changes made to the labour economics article from 22 March and 25 March. My suggestion for the article is:

1. Labour theory of value: concept and history

2. Neoclassical theory of labour and an explanation of why LTV is no longer used by economists

3. Information economics: expand this section with classic references on the field

4. Personnel economics: someone needs to check the old references

5. Criticisms

Morning. Here is the Labour economics diff March 22 -> March 26 for anyone who is interested. @Lbertolotti:'s article structure seems reasonable. It would probably be useful to discuss on the article's talk page to build consensus between editors.Jonpatterns (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Nice work! bobrayner (talk) 19:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)