This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Economics sidebar template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 360 days

	This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Economics 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.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles

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.[1] 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.

Thank you for your consideration. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-01-26T21:40:00.000Z","author":"Thomasmeeks","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Thomasmeeks-2013-01-26T21:40:00.000Z-Proposal_to_change_the_\"General_categories\"_heading_link_to_JEL_classification_c","replies":[]}}-->

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)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-02-04T03:23:00.000Z","author":"Thomasmeeks","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Thomasmeeks-2013-02-04T03:23:00.000Z-Proposal_to_change_the_\"General_categories\"_heading_link_to_JEL_classification_c","replies":[]}}-->

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.

Alternatively, a separate sidebar could be made for the History of Economic Thought article.Jonpatterns (talk) 12:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2015-03-28T12:41:00.000Z","author":"Jonpatterns","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Jonpatterns-2015-03-28T12:41:00.000Z-Proposal_to_add_more_History_of_Economic_Thought_artictles","replies":[]}}-->

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))[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-12-10T15:16:00.000Z","author":"Lobsterthermidor","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Lobsterthermidor-2016-12-10T15:16:00.000Z-New_image","replies":["c-Minimax_Regret-2016-12-13T06:16:00.000Z-Lobsterthermidor-2016-12-10T15:16:00.000Z"]}}-->

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)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-12-13T06:16:00.000Z","author":"Minimax Regret","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Minimax_Regret-2016-12-13T06:16:00.000Z-Lobsterthermidor-2016-12-10T15:16:00.000Z","replies":["c-128.132.1.10-2017-09-15T15:56:00.000Z-Minimax_Regret-2016-12-13T06:16:00.000Z"]}}-->

Supply and demand is an obsolete theory. How about a illustration of a circular flow? 128.132.1.10 (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)RLV[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-09-15T15:56:00.000Z","author":"128.132.1.10","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-128.132.1.10-2017-09-15T15:56:00.000Z-Minimax_Regret-2016-12-13T06:16:00.000Z","replies":["c-Gagarine-2018-11-16T21:38:00.000Z-128.132.1.10-2017-09-15T15:56:00.000Z"]}}-->

I think the current image (supply/demand) diagram is kind of strange because it put this theory on page that are not related to supply&demand. I think we should remove it. Finding a neutral image isn't bound to fail? Gagarine (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2018-11-16T21:38:00.000Z","author":"Gagarine","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Gagarine-2018-11-16T21:38:00.000Z-128.132.1.10-2017-09-15T15:56:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

I decided to remove the image. Until we do not find a good one, I propose to stay image free. Yet, I'm really doubtful we can find one: economy is macro and micro, is about individual, firm, country, money, environment, etc... some approach are very linked to psychology, when other use model based of mathematical optimization. It's very diverse. Gagarine (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2018-11-16T21:51:00.000Z","author":"Gagarine","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Gagarine-2018-11-16T21:51:00.000Z-New_image","replies":[]}}-->

In my opinion, image used by https://www.core-econ.org/ are pretty good (but it will not works as a vignette). This one in particular https://core-econ.org/the-economy/book/images/web/unit-19-header-2048.jpg . We can find a similar image, that show more "what we study" that "how we study it". Gagarine (talk) 10:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2018-11-17T10:41:00.000Z","author":"Gagarine","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Gagarine-2018-11-17T10:41:00.000Z-New_image","replies":[]}}-->

Disregard. Looks like someone got to it.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add Schumpeter to notable economists. 207.96.32.81 (talk) 08:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20231122085800","author":"207.96.32.81","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-207.96.32.81-20231122085800-Semi-protected_edit_request_on_22_November_2023","replies":["c-Trakking-20231122094000-207.96.32.81-20231122085800"]}}-->

He is already included on the list. Trakking (talk) 09:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20231122094000","author":"Trakking","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Trakking-20231122094000-207.96.32.81-20231122085800","replies":[]}}-->