Template talk:Economics sidebar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Economics      (Rated NA-Class)

v • d • e 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. NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale. NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Note for assessment 2 Purpose of sidebar 3 Portal link 4 random design chat 5 General Aspects vs related Fields 6 Suggested replacement picture for current graph image on top 7 Why Related fields & subfields? 8 Case and other cosmetics 9 Part of a series 10 Giving it a try 11 Energy economics 12 Portal link discussion... part two 13 Is Accounting not part of Economics? 14 Heterodox Economics 15 "General classifications"? 16 Nice job 17 Proposed edit of "Fields and subfields" section 18 Proposed edit stemming from "Methodologies" section 18.1 Proposal to group "Techniques" under "Methodology" section

[edit] Note for assessment

Note for assessment: WikiProject Economics doesn't have a "N/A" class, so class and importance on the template are left blank. Since this isn't an article it should probably stay un-assessed. CRETOG8(t/c) 04:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the NA is in the template code. We can put it in there... it just won't add the tag to any categories, which is the idea. Morphh ^(talk) 4:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Duh. Thanks, Morph. That's the way to go. CRETOG8(t/c) 04:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Purpose of sidebar

Should this sidebar be specific for the Economics article or designed to be used in economics articles in general? CRETOG8(t/c) 23:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Both. Lets make it so that it is designed to express concepts that are directly related to economics. How about that, it can be used for multi purposes connected with economic subjects... a general primer. skip sievert (talk) 02:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would say that it would be placed on most of the main articles that are listed on the bar itself if appearance of the bar does not appear to disrupt the presentation. It would normally be placed at the top of the article (under the picture if there is one - see what looks appropriate). Morphh ^(talk) 12:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Morph... it looks great. Could we get rid of the business/political/economics portal on it though. That muddles up the economics orientation because that other portal is covering different territory. skip sievert (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Made the change, though I do think the portal link should go somewhere on the page (perhaps the see also section using the portal tag). I understand it covers a different territory, but I think it is useful for the overall topic. Morphh ^(talk) 15:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind.. the portal tag is already in the see also section. :-) That looks fine to me. Morphh ^(talk) 15:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. You and WikiIdea probably deserve a medal for the interesting and creative work done recently. skip sievert (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Since we will be using this template on other articles, I think the portal should belong on the template. --Patrick (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Portal link

I think the portal link belongs. Almost all the links on the sidebar appear elsewhere in the article, more prominently than the "See Also" section. Skip seems to have a POV dispute with the current content of the portal, but I think that's irrelevant. The Portal is intended to be just that--a way for folks interested in Economics to access economics articles and news and such. Such a thing certainly belongs on such a navigation bar. CRETOG8(t/c) 17:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The portal does not belong because it is peppered with politics and business ... and the whole point was to create an economics ... directly related topic side bar. The point is moot right now any way because the Portal link as has been noted is already in the see also section... where I do not think it belongs either. How is it that you were so insistent Cretog about not having the economic systems side bar ... when you now want a business/political theory related portal on the article? I do not have a POV dispute with the current content of the portal either. It just does not belong rubbing elbows with the economics article... and especially not in this new economics sidebar. How is it a good idea to introduce unrelated business/political information into the new creation of an economics sidebar? Not a good idea... it wrecks the whole project... and is antithetical to its purpose. As said.. that information is already in the see also section... for now. skip sievert (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The portal belongs since it deals with economics. Nobody agrees with you skip, so just give up on this idea. --Patrick (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

While I understand the dispute, I tend to agree with Cretog8 and Patrick. From the average reader's point of view, I think the link would be valuable. I don't think it is a necessary component, so I could go either way, but I fall on the side of including it. Morphh ^(talk) 17:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

We do have some other options though if we include it - it doesn't have to be at the top. We could place it at the bottom of the template. Morphh ^(talk) 17:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I added it under the "Categories & Lists" section as an example. Thoughts Morphh ^(talk) 17:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks good. It tends to be at the bottom in most other templates too. --Patrick (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I shifted it to its own line. The "Categories & Lists" items seem to me to be things only specialists will care to check out (Journals, extremely fine-grained list of economics topics). This way it's still on the bottom, but it's distinct. CRETOG8(t/c) 20:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Patrick ... although you like to turn content and idea disputes into personal advice columns The portal belongs since it deals with economics. Nobody agrees with you skip, so just give up on this idea. I am not interested in your opinion as expressed in the derogatory way you express it now, or in the recent past... so please do not tell me what nobody agrees with ... or what I should give up on. Ok? The sidebar looks crummy now and leads to ... in my opinion... information chocked full of unrelated political and business information, or not connected to basic economic information. That is a pity... I would not suggest putting it on the article now. With the bad ending on the bottom... skip sievert (talk) 01:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't expect this will help much but I reduced the size of the text slightly. The full title in the link may help readers understand that it is both "Business and Economics", perhaps avoiding the confusion. Morphh ^(talk) 3:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we please keep talk about the portal in a section about the portal, rather than it popping up in all the other sections? It makes it hard to keep track of what's going on. Others might be willing to compromise on this, but absent someone coming up with a brilliant solution, Skip and I are at an impasse on the portal link. Besides arguing to get rid of it altogether, Skip keeps proposing ways to de-emphasize it. I will argue against any move to de-emphasize it. It is the link for the portal for economics. It should be on the Economics sidebar, and not de-emphasized. I suppose if someone comes up with a clever design principle which simultaneously convinces Skip that it's de-emphasized while convincing me that it's not, that could work. But I think we're just going to have to make a choice. CRETOG8(t/c) 14:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is an example of what Skip is proposing for maintaining the portal link. I prefer the current design where the economics portal is alone at the bottom. It seems to me that unless someone wants to create a specific economics portal, we've agreed to share the portal space with some aspects of business. IMO, that is the economics portal (it's a Featured Portal) and I think it should go on the economics sidebar. We may need to move this discussion to someplace with more visibility, such as the WikiProject, to get some additional viewpoints. I expect the editors here will respect whatever consensus is achieved through the discussion, so I just think we need to solidify the issue one way or another. Morphh ^(talk) 15:21, 02 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] random design chat

Thanks to Morph for doing such a nice job on the template! I'm not sure it's ready for prime-time yet. Here's some thoughts:

1. Morph did a pretty good job reformatting the links, but (I think?) they're still the same links in the same order that I set them up. I'd love to claim I was brilliant right off the bat, but I did it pretty quickly, so there's probably still room for discussion about what belongs where.
2. With "Portal" moved to the bottom, "History" looks quite lonely up top. I'm not sure it belongs in such a place of honor.
3. Do the overall sections make sense? I find it tempting to make a "Microeconomics" and "Macroeconomics" section, except that some things straddle that divide.
4. As I mentioned over at Economics talk, I'm also somewhat uncomfortable with the expanding section on ideologies, because it seems to give it undue weight. I asked over there, "How do you think the sidebar would look if we had an expansion for every, or almost every, category?" That wasn't a rhetorical question; I have no problem with Economic ideologies being there, I just don't want it outweighing other things. If the sidebar could be designed so that those other things also expanded usefully, that would probably be very cool. Otherwise, the ideology stuff is just a click away at Economic systems, and I'd get rid of that lone expansion.
5. Again, thanks, Morph, and sorry to leave so much of this to you, but you seem to have a better handle on the template editing. CRETOG8(t/c) 20:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and not a problem with taking up the editing. You make some good comments here. I'm also not sure about the best placement. My economics knowledge is more focused - I don't have the broad understanding of all these areas to suggest what goes best together and what weight to give them. I have no problem adding additional show hide areas. I can place the others (from the other template) on there and we can see how it looks. Suggestions for additional areas? If there are many, we could make the category a higher level - like "economic systems" has a show/hide, which essentially displays everything on the other template (including headers) in one click. Morphh ^(talk) 20:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I added methodologies, although I'm not sure if it is appropriate for the template or not. I figured it would easy to add it and then have discussion on what components we should include or not include. Morphh ^(talk) 15:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking at List of basic economics topics as some basis for organizing the sidebar. I'm not sure what is best for inclusion but I thought I would put that out there for others to review and consider. How do the categories currently look? Should we show/hide anything else, should we remove anything (skip's portal noted), should we include anything else, should we change one of the show/hide sections to a full section, etc. Organizational options... Overall, I think it's looking pretty good and will be a nice addition for many economics articles. Morphh ^(talk) 20:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I would be all for putting it on the article now... (as no doubt Morph will monitor feed back for and about it for a while).. if the economics and business portal were on it but not on the surface... but in a misc. category, that had to be opened,... after all this is an economics article and not a business/political article. If not for that... I would have put it on the main article today for sure. The information is great... looks good.. and expands things to good effect. skip sievert (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have some additional links in mind to add to the Misc? I think for a show/hide, we should have more than one or two items. If other general related subjects can be included, perhaps it would make sense. For the moment, I'm of the opinion that it should be included. While not specific, it is our portal and seems like an appropriate thing to include at the bottom of a sidebar. I think it provides enough description to not be confusing or misleading to readers. The consensus at this point seems to include it, but perhaps the show/hide will provide a good compromise on the issue. Morphh ^(talk) 23:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking at that list, one thing which might make sense to add in an expanding section would be the Economies of present-day nations and states, with the large regional breakdowns. I'm thinking (albeit slowly) if there's natural and useful breakdowns for other areas, but I haven't figured any out yet. Hiding the portal link is not a good compromise. It's the economics (and business, yes) portal so it's bizarre to try to hide or otherwise de-emphasize it on an economics navigation template. CRETOG8(t/c) 00:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

For now, I added that link to the Categories and Lists section. Morphh ^(talk) 0:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops, we semi-duplicated each other. How's the expanding menu for that? It occurred to me that if we're using the GDP map up top, this might be one thing we want to put up top with that. Not sure. CRETOG8(t/c) 00:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Just saw that. :-) I deleted my entry. Expanding menu looks great. Morphh ^(talk) 0:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I did a quick test with higher level placement of the show/hide cats. I think I like it better when there all together at the bottom, but wanted to know what everyone else thought. Morphh ^(talk) 1:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Now that I look at it more, I'm not sure which one I like better. haha Morphh ^(talk) 1:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

This is something like what I was thinking. I think "other economics","sectors","ideologies" make sense all together. (Not sure if I actually like the arrangement I show better than putting regional economies also at the bottom or not.) CRETOG8(t/c) 02:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... I can't decide what I like best. I tweaked on it a bit more using the idea of subsections, played with font size, background color, and placement. Morphh ^(talk) 2:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I like the single mono color best on the main face of the bar... the darker of the ones used. The contrast of darker lighter together, may be too much. The economics systems bar just has a single color, and seems easier on the eyes because of that... the darker also I think. That provides enough contrast to make a contrast between the areas without breaking up the visual focus/field too much. So... single color .. the darker.. on the surface of the bar (my opinion) the contrasting serves no great purpose... and is a little harder when used, for the eye to flow over the chart. skip sievert (talk) 02:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I just tweaked your template so that the background color on the show/hide was white, removed the top border, and realigned the text - so it looks like it's part of the picture. I think this looks really cool. Morphh ^(talk) 2:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

That does look really cool. Easy on the eyes and flows very nicely. It also gave a slightly different shade to the Business and economics portal which... if that is on there, and I do not think it should be... should be differentiated... as something different than the rest... I still think it is the only thing marring the presentation here... and should be part of a hidden misc part... maybe a category of portals and sidebars related to business, sociology, and politics, philosophy, etc ... as they relate to economics ? Or something like that. A catch basin of graphs .. charts .. bars .. portals etc... the Economics side bar should be a stand alone, for any Economics article and not a vehicle for Business. .. and not carry the baggage of politics/business theory and opinion... on the main surface of the new bar.

Very clever having this under the main picture Economies of present-day nations and states skip sievert (talk) 02:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Very snazzy! It looked a bit off before, but having it look like part of the picture definitely makes me like it. CRETOG8(t/c) 03:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I've also noticed some templates that do everything in a show/hide. Example Template:Politics_of_the_United_States and Template:Communism sidebar (check out what they did with the "Prominent communists"). Morphh ^(talk) 14:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Those look nice, too. as long as it's kept somewhat under control (as the current version is), I think having some sections exposed is nicer. Probably just a personal taste. CRETOG8(t/c) 14:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] General Aspects vs related Fields

I think that apart from History of economic thought, Macro and Micro, all other topics should be moved down to Fields. Or else we'll have disputes later about what field is a 'general aspect' and what is a related field. lk (talk) 13:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Moved them down. Morphh ^(talk) 14:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested replacement picture for current graph image on top

See Economics talk page for further info. skip sievert (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Changed it, and replied on the economics talk page. Morphh ^(talk) 17:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why Related fields & subfields?

Looks very nice. A quibble though, why Related fields & subfields, and not just Fields & subfields? Also, I think Mathematical economics should probably in Methodologies, not 'fields & subfields'. I would move it myself, but am afraid to mess up the template. lk (talk) 10:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Done and Done. Thanks :-) Morphh ^(talk) 12:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

"Related fields" could be useful as a different header to branch out to sociology, political science, etc. Hmm, now that I mention it I'm not sure it's worthwhile. I'll mull it over. CRETOG8(t/c) 14:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Case and other cosmetics

We have a mix of case on the second word in a few of the categories. It seems we should make them either caped or not. "General Aspects" or "General aspects", "Fields & subfields" or "Fields and Subfields" (one wikilink), "Categories & Lists" or "Categories & lists" (two wikilinks). Normally Wikipedia title MOS states the second word should be lower case unless it is part of the proper noun, but I'm not sure how it works in sidebars and stuff.

Also, while subtle, there are two gray colors used. The top and bottom are a slightly lighter shade of gray than the categories (probably most noticeable on the bottom). This was intended to make them slightly distinct but no so much that it was tough on the eyes. Too subtle, change to same color, looks good... thoughts? Morphh ^(talk) 13:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think sticking to the manual of style is the right thing to do in this situation. It promotes consistency in subheadings of all sorts, sidebars included. I changed it accordingly.

Now for something I don't presume to know the answer to: do we standardize the headings to use ampsersands or the word "and"? Right now they're mixed, and maybe there's a good reason for this. Not sure, but I'd lean towards standardization. Thoughts?

And I like the colors, Morphh. -FrankTobia (talk) 14:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I changed the "and" to "&" on Sectors & systems. The only one left is on the portal link at the bottom, and I think that one fits better as "and". Frank, what is your take on including the portal link. Skip has an issue with including it, so we're trying to gather the different viewpoints. Morphh ^(talk) 14:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the standardization is good on capitals and "and". I think the colors look good, but the differentiation is extremely subtle. I'm not one for subtle, so if it were me I'd be using hot pink and lime green or something, so you probably don't want my advice on that. CRETOG8(t/c) 14:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Changed it to "and" before I even read your message. :-) The only one that looked odd to me was the Categories and lists due to the split wikilinking. I'd like to use something just a little more distinct with the colors but need to find a good color pallet. Morphh ^(talk) 14:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

One way to de emphasize the Business and economics portal would be to include other portals along with it on the bottom ... otherwise it looks like the Economics article is hooked up like a horse and carriage to business, pretty much alone... and that forgets about everything else which is just as important... so why pick on one special aspect to highlight?... when a series of portals and sidebars could be linked on the bottom ... with a differentiating color to show separation of each one... or one general color to show all are different and different in info from the straight economics articles, from the main part of the side bar. All this then could be shown or not shown, as long as business is not highlighted as the only thing in this area.

Is there some reason why Other economies is emboldened or bold..?. and not just Other economies... Other economies? Probably just regular emphasis seems more appropriate? skip sievert (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

In my browser at least, "Other economies" already looks de-emphasized relative to the other section headings, just because it's not a link. Formatting emphasis might be necessary to make up the difference. (Unless there's a good article to link that heading to?) CRETOG8(t/c) 17:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The show/hide cats are in a smaller font than the main categories. This is partly due to the space requirements for the show/hide dialog. All the cats are bold. I tried to remove the bold wikimarkup from the "Other economies" but it didn't unbold it - made no difference. So the coding must be deeper in the Navhead class. The portal link is currently a smaller font with no bold. Morphh ^(talk) 17:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I linked it to Economy, which has a large history section. Perhaps not the best fit, but I think it works. Morphh ^(talk) 18:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The Other economies seems fine now... it leads off in lots of good directions. skip sievert (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the single un-wikilinked "and" looks kind of off, but not sure what to do with it. I do prefer that to mixed "and"s and ampersands. As for the Business and Economics Portal, not sure I have a strong opinion either way. On one hand, it branches away from "Economic topics you might be interested in" and expands the scope of the sidebar, perhaps too much. On the other hand, it may introduce new users to the Portal (indeed, I was only passingly familiar with it), which serves both WikiProjects as well as potentially interested editors and readers. I would caution against "Portal creep": the Business and Economics Portal fits well into the purview of this sidebar, but I'm wary to include any others, as the connections are likely tenuous. -FrankTobia (talk) 04:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

One possible way to eliminate the now only black or darker word on the side bar, and, would be to leave the gap between Categories and lists now occupied by the word and, then capitalize... the second word also... Lists. In other words the and, may not be needed, if Lists, is (Capitalized), and indicates a different area.like this :

..Categories(gap)Lists .... the gap, and the capitol then (Lists) indicates two different reference clicks, as the length of a gap would also.. about the size of removing the word and, seems like a good distance to create a sense of difference... plus.. someones cursor would tell them they are going in two different areas. skip sievert (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Changing the cap on "Lists" does improve the odd look. I'm not sure I like just a gap, but something like "/" could be used. So I guess we have to weigh the look with possible guidelines. Morphh ^(talk) 19:08, 01 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it should actually say Economic lists..... in that spot... with a general gap between the two Categories(gap)Economic lists. That makes it more a direct description of what it is going to... and makes a complete thought between the two... or a distinction. Or Categories could be a separate box... and Economic lists could be a separate box... or a panel divisor | could separate them in one box. skip sievert (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we'd have enough room for "Economic lists" and not enough items for two categories. mdash might be another option "Categories — Lists". I don't know.. haha Morphh ^(talk) 20:00, 01 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that looks better..."Categories — Lists". it gets rid of that big old and which is not needed. skip sievert (talk) 04:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I was about to make this change and than I thought... why do we need "Categories". None of the articles under it are categories, and categories are not articles. I'm not sure we should have categories there. Perhaps it should just be "Economic lists" or "Lists". Morphh ^(talk) 14:24, 02 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point. None of the articles under it will ever be categories. I support removing it from the title, which then solves the unwikified "and" problem. Nice catch. -FrankTobia (talk) 04:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I cut "Categories" from there, but I like the idea of having it on the sidebar. So I tried putting it on the bottom with the portal link. Let me know what you think. I also got rid of "Part of a series" as is discussed below. CRETOG8(t/c) 06:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Now it looks like the business/economics portal is just another subdivision of economics... Business and Economics Portal being not at the bottom of the article any more, where it was in a separately shaded area that gave it distinction... now gone. It is debatable that it should be in this economics side bar at all... but now an actual economics related page being at the bottom (Categories) so it is sandwiched in. This creates the impression that the business and economics article is a totally economics link, especially because of the different shading that was there before... to separate these two things, that is now gone. I reverted it for that reason. As it was, the distinction was lost as to the business/economics bar... being a separate entity which it is. skip sievert (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Topics seems to be similar to Categories. If we want to maintain both, than I would just suggest we put Categories under the "Lists" section. Have "Topics · Categories" on one line and "Journals · Publications" on the next. This would maintain the Cat link and should satisfy Skip's objection. Morphh ^(talk) 21:00, 03 September 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. Thanks, Morph. CRETOG8(t/c) 22:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Part of a series

I'm not sure the "Part of a series" phrase is appropriate for this box. For me, that implies relatively independent articles in a category, while this is more over-arching, covering lots of different kinds of material.

Templates without "Part of a series": Electromagnetism, Psychology, Atmospheric sciences, Sociology, Human history, Rock music

Templates with "Part of a series": Evolution, Quantum mechanics, Economic system, Politics (kinda), Politics of the United States

Anyway, it's probably a minor point, and may again be a matter of taste. CRETOG8(t/c) 17:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

What that usually means to me is that the article with the sidebar is "Part of a series on economics". I could go with or without it. I don't see that it really adds anything. Morphh ^(talk) 17:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree... it does not really add any thing. Economics side bar could be a title... that is what it is.. mostly, and we could just call it what it is, or, Related economics information... or Economics...further reading. I suggest plain and simple... Economics side bar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skipsievert (talk • contribs)

I would only go with "Part of a series on Economics" or just "Economics". This seems to be the standards on Wikipedia. The part of a series identifies with the article on which it is placed. "Economics" alone implies the same thing just by the placement of tag on the article but does not directly say it. That's my thought anyway... Morphh ^(talk) 21:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Either/or seems fine then. skip sievert (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Giving it a try

Ok, I decided to be bold and put it on an article. Perhaps this will provide a little more discussion of any outstanding issues. As of now, we still have the "Portal" dispute outstanding but I don't think that should hold back the use at this point. Morphh ^(talk) 22:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think a gradual roll-out is the way to go. Giving it exposure will increase the number of eyes on it, which should help steer how it should continue to evolve. So far it looks damn good in all the articles I see it in. -FrankTobia (talk) 04:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Just saw it in Regional Science. I think it looks great there.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 04:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Energy economics

Energy economics could also be in Fields and subfields in the bar. This is an important part of economic study... example: http://telstar.ote.cmu.edu/environ/m3/s3/05account.shtml . Energy economics has a far ranging set of interconnectors concerning economics with an energy focus. This probably does not fit into heterodox economics either... as it is used as a focus in mainstream price system economics and environmental economics as well as ecological economics. Therefore it seems like an important add, to the info in economics side bar. Conceivably, ecological economics could be taken out of the side bar ... and this space then filled with energy economics... How ever it could also be left in... because it is almost in a category (science) that is a stand alone in the economics focus, but still totally connected because of the reality of viewing things through economics. skip sievert (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is a grouping of portals that could be added to the economics bar... instead of having just one out side the sphere one... namely business..

These are all connected to economics, at least as much as the one heading business... which is an isolate in the bar now. All of these could be in a hidden portal chamber... or on the surface. These could be along with the business/economics side bar used now... as said either hidden.. or with these others on the surface without a tab to get to. skip sievert (talk) 14:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll apply these to an example so everyone can see what it would look like. Morphh ^(talk) 14:30, 02 September 2008 (UTC)

Good... I would not have a problem, if all this info was connected into the side bar... an not just business... with then putting it on the ecological economics article. skip sievert (talk) 14:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Please go above for conversation about the portal. CRETOG8(t/c) 14:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

My feeling is that Energy economics probably shouldn't be there. It's certainly an important topic, but the article isn't at all well-developed, and it's not listed at the top level of the JEL classification codes. Natural resource economics, which includes energy is on the template--even thought the article is a piddly stub which we're leaning toward merging with environmental economics. CRETOG8(t/c) 14:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Instead of complaining about these things in a deprecating manner... why not improve them? Energy economics article is very good as is... it has a multitude of good article connectors.. but could no doubt be improved as every article could be. Why ignore something that is a very focused discipline currently in all business. Energy runs it all. Energy conversion... so improve the article if you think it is lacking. As an argument for not including something? I don't think so. skip sievert (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a complement thing. (It's not on the JEL codes) & (It's not a well-developed article). Or you could think of it as a substitute thing--either being on the JEL codes or being a well-developed article might make me think it should be listed. Plus, I'm comparing it to Ecological economics which satisfies the first, though still needing a lot of work on the second. CRETOG8(t/c) 14:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Portal link discussion... part two

Here is an example (see bottom area of economics bar...people not familiar with this discussion) of what Morph cooked up for maintaining the portal link that is there now Business and economics... but also adding other portal links that are connected to economics.... Environment and economics, Philosophy and economics Science and economics... what ever portals are out there connected with economics. By doing that the stress on business is taken off.... and other topics besides just one are included. Business may be the thread that runs through all these subjects... even ecological economics which claims to put the environment always first... but just having one other focus (business and economics) as the only other economics portal focus... leaves off too much other information that is crucial to economic thinking. This portal mock up could be expanded just a bit probably.... I am not sure what is out there as to portals that could be viewed as connected... or in Morphs mock up, it looks pretty good for starters. I could see.. Business, Environment, Energy & other portals as a descriptive heading. skip sievert (talk) 22:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Others might be willing to compromise on this, but absent someone coming up with a brilliant solution, Skip and I are at an impasse on the portal link. Besides arguing to get rid of it altogether, Skip keeps proposing ways to de-emphasize it. I will argue against any move to de-emphasize it. It is the link for the portal for economics. It should be on the Economics sidebar, and not de-emphasized. I suppose if someone comes up with a clever design principle which simultaneously convinces Skip that it's de-emphasized while convincing me that it's not, that could work. But I think we're just going to have to make a choice. (copied from above CRETOG8(t/c) 22:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do not personalize this. I am not interested in doing that. I have stated my reasons above how it is I think it makes more sense to have related items either in the same area or an area that is see also. So... you are mischaracterizing what I am talking about in regard to the design here also. I have also noticed that you have followed me around the last few days from article to article ... throwing up as many road blocks as possible... to what ever I am editing. I am asking you to stop that now. I am not interested in an ideological battle about content. I am only interested in making good information known or expanding information. skip sievert (talk) 05:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is Accounting not part of Economics?

Should Accounting not be included in the Economics sidebar? Pacluc (talk) 21:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that's probably more business and finance. Morphh ^(talk) 23:48, 06 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. -FrankTobia (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Heterodox Economics

I'd like to propose including "Heterodox Economics" in the Methodologies section so that our Heterodox colleagues don't feel ignored and "shut out". Any thoughts?radek (talk) 23:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, I'm not sure that "social psychology" belongs in THIS particular sidebar under methodologies. Why is it in there?radek (talk) 06:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll replace social psychology with Heterodoxical. Morphh ^(talk) 22:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I think "Heterodox" would be better than "Heterodoxical". Changed it accordingly.radek (talk) 22:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "General classifications"?

Please excuse (or ignore) this digression. I have had a chance to peruse or at least skim the above (but, no pop quiz, please). IMO, it's a model of what a productive Talk should be as to clarity, brevity, and cogency. Even where there was an occasional lack of focus, attention was called to that, & things got back on track. I believe that persons knowledgeable in the subject would appreciate the hard choices confronted at every turn in the development of the Template. The Template itself is pleasing to the eye,

May I suggest an added "section heading" to the Template under "General aspects" titled "General classifications" linking to JEL classification codes? For ease of reference, let me number the following.

1. True, "General aspects" is properly titled as to its link. But a 2nd heading might better inform the reader that headings too have links (unlike most article-section headings).
2. "General classifications" would have the obvious meaning as to the section following (Micro etc.) and also the advantage of delivering on both words in the heading as to the link.
3. The link alerts the reader from the start of a classification system widely-used in economics, comparable to a library cataloging system for finding published material.*
4. True enough, the “Fields and subfields” heading later in Template has the same link. But the 20 some fields listed there may be daunting enough to still the reader's interest (if a link is suspected).

* Not just in theory either. With "JEL: XXX," anyone can do an instant online search. -–Thomasmeeks (talk) 20:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I meant to reply to this and forgot. I'm not sure I see Journal classifications of economics as a major point for the normal reader. As you stated, we have it linked to "Fields and subfields". I moved it to the section - instead of an entire header, but I'm not sure it should be given that much weight. Morphh ^(talk) 17:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it looks good the way it is now. And it's very useful to have it in there. Not everyone will use it but those with a bit more interest/knowledge in economics definitely will.radek (talk) 18:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Giving it another look - I'm good with including it as an additional specific link. I think we might want to move it below the "Lists" section though. This is a list, not an article on general aspects of economics. It would also be right above the link for List of scholarly journals in economics. Morphh ^(talk) 19:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are still the advantages of (1-4) as to "General classifications" placement. If it's useful as a link for the "Fields and subfields" heading (doubtfully, according to (4) above), arguably it might be more so as a heading/link earlier and more generally. The move of "General classifications" to under "Lists" may be lost from where it could be most helpful. It is also not just a Wiki invention or list. Placement undicating that givea the template more scholarly cachet (without being stuffy}. I believe that earlier placement would result in greater use of the template. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I moved it into the same section as "General aspects", which I much prefer over a second section butted up against it. However, I don't particularly care for the way it looks. Let's see what others think. Morphh ^(talk) 21:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your response. Well, anyhow 2 successive headings. I do think that one advamtage of a separator line between "General aspects" and "General classifications" ia that "General classifications" would fit & link both the "lead" section and sections after that (not huge but neat). --Thomasmeeks (talk) 02:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I really think we shouldn't have TWO header links to the JEL classification codes. It makes the title ungrammatical, doesn't reflect what is in that section, and takes up space besides. It's obvious to anyone familiar with the classification codes that 'fields and subfields' is a synonym for classifications, and that a click there will probably take you a list of fields, which is what the classification codes are. lk (talk) 08:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The preceding takes no account of points (1), (3), and (4)-with-footnote at the top. The assertion that "General classifications" (with its JEL classification codes link) does not reflect what is in the section(s) following is very puzzling. A general audience (not one familiar with the JEL classications) could benefit from either the "General classifications" or "Fields and subfields" link, though arguably per (3) above, more from the "General classifications" link. "General aspects" and its List of basic economics topics link are only incidentally related to the section(s) following, not as closely, systematically, or usefully related as the JEL-codes link. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

On an earlier point, one aspect of lk's description of the box content I believe makes most sense if lk was treating:

General aspects

General classifications

as a single title (ungrammatical, so considered). One alternative is to give each line a separate box. That raised a concern above. With M's forbearance, let me try to address the concern further. An appropriately charitable interpretation of the 2-box alternative might be this. General aspects is a kind of bridge linked to what precedes it (Economics) and to what follows it. The GA link (List of basic economics topics) suggests that. As a bridge, it warrants a separate box. General classifications with its JEL link is more closely related to the section(s) that follow, warranting its own heading box. I believe that the general reader would appreciate their clearer distinction. One alternative that would more clearly distinguish the functions of each box would be to re-label "General aspects" as "Basic aspects," which is closer to the name of the link. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 13:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't support the having two sections at the top - it just looks bad. I've merged them into one section with a line separator, which gives an acceptable appearance, but I still don't think it should be placed up there. I still think the lists section, or just having it linked in the Fields area is acceptable. It's not an article (it's a list) and doesn't provide much beyond journal classifications. I expect it is of little interest to the vast majority of readers - the topic is certainly of little interest to me and I study it - the normal reader could probably care less. So we really have to consider why we're giving this primary weight and visibility. Morphh ^(talk) 13:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Economics
Economies by region  AfricaTemplate: North America South AmericaTemplate:Asia EuropeTemplate:Oceania
Basic aspects
General classifications (A)

Economics
Economies by region  AfricaTemplate: North America South AmericaTemplate:Asia EuropeTemplate:Oceania
Basic aspects General classifications (B)

To allow a direct comparison, the relevant sidebar portions, (A) and (B) (a subsequent Edit), are reproduced here. I continue to believe that (A) has the advantage that Basic aspects seems (appropriately) to refer to what precedes it, similar to a bottom caption, while General classifications refer downward to section(s) that follow. There is also more parallelism in (A) than (B). as to treatment of General classifications in a stand-alone box like the later Fields and subfields heading -- a net plus. (B) is unnecessarily ambiguous as to the purpose of the broken separator line and the relation of Basic aspects to General classifications. It also removes parallelism. No need to overplay it, but the JEL system would not have gained such wide currency across journals and books without its uses. The curious would be rewarded from the General classifications link IMO. Even the non-users of the link might be happy at ins unintimidating accessibility (per (4), top). It might also be likened to money for a rainy day. Needless to say, I believe that a better case can be made for A than for B. I hope that there might be continued discussion if there is more to be said. The object is of course is to find a way to improve the sidebar. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I moved the basic aspects, which as been retitled like the article to Topic outline of economics, into the subarea and left the classification as the header. Perhaps this will work for everyone. Morphh ^(talk) 16:38, 03 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, a disadvantage of Topic outline of economics in the area under General classifications is that it is not as such an Econ subject, unlike other items in the white areas of the Template. One alternative would be to shorten "Topic outline of economics" (say to "Outline of topics"), so it could fit where "Basic aspects" was in M's 16:32, 3 October Edit. The Topic outline of economics link does provide a Wiki-based outline of Econ, unlike the General classifications link, which has a different function. I continue to believe that their juxtaposition has the advantage of (1) at the top. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 11:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I moved it back, but I don't like having both up there. I don't think classification should be there. I think it should either go under the Outline of topics section, Lists section, or leave it just linked to Fields and subfields. I think we're giving it too much weight up top (and via duplication) for the topic. I also just don't like the appearance of two header boxes at the top. Lk also seemed to express this opinion. I'll leave it as is for now as the proposal in hope that we can get some additional opinions. - Morphh

I just want to concur with what Morph said above. I think that a) the double titles are just confusing, and b) having two different title lines link to the same JEL classification page is a little too much. I liked how it was when it was just a single line title on top. I vote to get rid of the second title line. lk (talk) 14:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

That is my preferred option as well. Morphh ^(talk) 14:29, 05 October 2008 (UTC)

Economics
Economies by region  AfricaTemplate: North America South AmericaTemplate:Asia EuropeTemplate:Oceania
Outline of topics
General classifications (C)

The relevant portion of the Template discussed above is reproduced here, labelled (C). The comments immediately above do not defend the placing of the Outline of topics in the white-background box with with Micro, Macro, etc. following General classifications (the point of my previous Edit) but instead return to arguments against the General classifications box and ocrresponding JEL link. Any reader will see that I have tried to defend the latter in each case.

I am surprised at how there would be agreement on removing General classifications without stating the alternative title of Outline of topics. Any help on that one? --Thomasmeeks (talk) 02:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. "Outline of topics" is the same link that went to "Basic aspects", just renamed to match the article title (and modified based on your recommendation above). We could put it back to basic aspects if that is preferred. What if "Field and Subfield" were renamed to "General classifications" or "Field classifications"? Would that better identify it and address your issue? Morphh ^(talk) 13:25, 06 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding -- & in a non-peremptory way. I think that the new article name and associated "Outline of topics" are closer to the mark than "Basic aspects." If General classifications were removed, I was expecting that "Outline of topics" would be renamed to fill in the gap. In that case, I was wondering whether & what "Outline of topics" would be renamed.*

A point possibly worth making even so late is this. The JEL classification codes Lead is a much closer fit to the Template as a whole (including order and content) than Topic outline of economics is, whether in its Lead or later. That's not a coincidence, as the 1st Template editor CRETOG8 makes clear at Talk:Economics#Creating a new side bar, 00:02, 29 August 2008. ection), the close fit is be a distinct argument for keeping the link early in the Template. There the link would serve a function similar to a "Main article" link in an article section.

IMO the "Fields and subfields" header is fine, better than "General classifications" at that location of the Template. For what its worth, I think that that title is better there in distinguishing itself (at least by usage there) from everything that precedes it the way of blue- or white-background boxes. The few whom I'd guess would link there should not be disappointed to find JEL A-D there as well.

* The earlier name was "General aspects" of course. An argument for keeping that name it is that one can conceive of aspects of economics "less general" than the sections that follow it before "Fields and subfields." An argument against ia that the associated link does not obviously track the structure of what follows in the Template up to "Fields and subfields," somewhat misleading the reader. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. A little bit more on reflection. In the absence of the "General classifications" header (with the JEL link), I do acknowledge that "Genaral aspecte" is adequate as a header in the sense that HOET, Micro, Macro, and Methodologies, which follow, are "general aspects." {It is the "General aspects" link that I'd find less satisfactory by comparison as per 2nd para. above.) --Thomasmeeks (talk) 11:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if we should consider a merging JEL classification codes and Topic outline of economics. We also have List of economics topics. Too many articles that cover essentially the same thing. I think we could easily put JEL classification as one of the top headers in the Outline of topics article. Then we would only have one link. Haha Morphh ^(talk) 13:20, 07 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this whole disagreement is caused by a separation of Macro, Micro & History of thought from the other fields & subfields. If we merge them together in on category, then we would only need one title line. I can't see a good reason to keep them separate. LK (talk) 08:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

For clarification, the preceding proposal is that the "Methodologies" section would come after/before the merged HOET-Micro-Macro-Fields section? --Thomasmeeks (talk) 12:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nice job

Morph, you took the economic bull by the horns... and made a really nice job of the Economics sidebar. My only complaint (still) is the Business and economics portal on the bottom... which I think should go with a bunch of portals to related things... business and other... and there is plenty of other, in a hidden section called related portals. But... right now the bar provides an easy way for people to skim around to articles. Nice work. skip sievert (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed edit of "Fields and subfields" section

Economics abbreviated

Economies by region  Africa · North America South America ·