Template talk:Economics sidebar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming
Archives: Index, 1

EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles	WikiProject Economics	(Rated NA-Class)
	Business and economics portal 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 template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Contents 1 Proposal to remove drop-down menu in "The economy" box at bottom 1.1 Proposal to remove drop-down menu in "Economic ideologies" box 2 Proposal to remove drop-down menus 3 New colors of World map showing per capita GDP

[edit] Proposal to remove drop-down menu in "The economy" box at bottom

Currently there is box at the bottom of the Econ sidebar with this content:

The economy: concept & history [show]

There is overlap is visual of "history" and "[show]" making both more difficult to read. In the course of trying to fix that, I came to conclude that something more basic needs to be fixed. I believe that if the points below had been raised earlier (discussed at Template talk:Economics sidebar/Archive 1#random design #4), the same result might have been reached as proposed below.

It is here proposed to remove the drop-down menu (linked to from "[show]" in "The economy" box. Arguments in favor of it include these:

1. The drop-down menu largely duplicates a similar portion from the much more extensive sidebar at Economic systems higher in the Econ sidebar. Without a good reason for such redundancy, why should it remain?
2. There would be a gain in simplicity of that box, making a link to the remaing Economy link more likely. That link is more fundamental to begin with. It is the empirical raw material on which the study of economics depends. A significant fraction might think that there is no link except the drop-down menu if they are nudged by "[show]" to select it first.
3. Anyone who wishes to could copy content in the drop-down that might otherwise be lost into the Economic systems sidebar or at the "See also" section there.
4. There would no longer be the blurry overlap of "history" and "[show]."

Comments welcome. I would propose acting on the proposal in a week if a consensus permits it. Thank you. --Thomasmeeks (talk)

I find the [show] buttons to be unhelpful in most situations. Only footer navboxes in groups of 3 or more, really need them. I happily endorse unhiding all the hidden sections.

Moving content about so that it is not duplicated is also a good idea. Sidebar navboxes should be complementary, not competitive. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Done as to what was proposed on the above.

Thank you for your quick response, Quiddity,

I have reprodoued below what was remonved to eliminate the "[show]" link. Within a couple of days after the above post, the "[show]" link disappeared on its own. Presumably, however, it could reappear at any time. To prevent the latter, I removed the hidden text and code comprising the drop-down menu from the Econ. sidebar. I have reproduced it below. Anyone who wishes to can transfer all or part of it to anoth article, such as noted at (3) at above. Indeed, there is sidebar at Economic systems that already includes most of the items listed below.

– Anglo-Saxon · Feudalism
– International · Hunter-gatherer
– Newly industrialized country
– Palace · Plantation
– Post-capitalism · Post-industrial
– Social market · Socialist market
– Token · Traditional
– Information · Transition

I agree with Quiddity that there is an argument for also removing the drop-down menu elsewhere. in particular, at the 3rd line from the bottom ("Economic ideologies"). They do not deliver what is suggested by the "Economic ideologies" heading. For that reason. I am going to remove that drop-down mene as well in a week, unless someone objects. In the latter case, discussion can continue in a new section. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)(UTC) [Reproduced from 1st Edit of following subsection.]

[I added the subsection heading below to preserve transparency as to the different proposals discussed. They involve somewhat different considerations, which the headings should reflect for each respective proposal. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)]

[Break]

[edit] Proposal to remove drop-down menu in "Economic ideologies" box

I agree with Quiddity's [1st] Edit above that there is an argument for also removing the drop-down menu elsewhere. in particular, at the 3rd line from the bottom ("Economic ideologies"). They do not deliver what is suggested by the "Economic ideologies" heading. For that reason. I am going to remove that drop-down men[u] as well in a week, unless someone objects. In the latter case, discussion can continue in a new section [which subsection above does after the fact]. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC) (Bolding and bracketed note above added by Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC) .)

Per the preceding paragraph, the drop-down menu for "Economic idelogies, at the bottom of the sidebar was removed. It is reproduced below for anyone who would wish to use it in the Economic ideology article, despite the caveat that these links are about economic systems, not economic ideologies as such.

Anarchism · Capitalism
Communism · Corporatism
Fascism · Georgism
Islamic · Laissez-faire
Market socialism · Mercantilism
Protectionism · Socialism
Syndicalism · Third Way
--Thomasmeeks (talk) 12:33, 11 June 2009. (UTC)

I liked the economic ideologies and found it useful. :-( Morphh ^(talk) 13:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Morphh. Well, I'm at least glad that I did list the proposal for removing the drop-down menu for "Economnic ideologies" last week (mentioned in the Edit summaries for the article and Talk page then also). As noted above, many of the associated links at the bottom of my previous edit are about the respective economic systems (capitalism, socialism, etc.) and so duplicate the link earlier in the sidebar of Economic systems. Still, I think that the above makes a good case for exporting the above group of links (or subset thereof) to a sidebar in Economic ideology (or in its "See also" sectlon) and to any other article where it seems to fit. After all, if it is good enough for a drop-down menu, it should be good enough for a sidebar, which would make the drop-down menu more redundant. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC) (Minor edit for clarity. Bolding added per following Edit. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC))

I also liked the economic ideologies and found it useful. With it gone that information is not so easy to get at. Better to have those information connectors in the side bar, in the drop down. Easy and better presentation that way... and includes more general and good information that way. The sidebar is poorer without it. skip sievert (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The other template, Template:Economic systems sidebar, seems to list most (all?) of the removed content. I'd suggest that simply adding that 2nd template, wherever warranted, would be more helpful than having the same links in a hidden section in this template, where many readers simply aren't going to find them.

If even more detail is needed, we have overview articles/lists, such as Outline of economics (which needs more editors watchlisting and improving it :) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't like placing two sidebar templates on an article. It messes up the formatting of the article itself when the templates become too long, which it would if we had two. I thought part of the reason for creating a global common template was to do away with these other mini-templates and provide a common look and navigation to economic articles. Show / Hide is very common on templates, some are completely show/hide. I certainly think readers are more likely to find it there, then trying to navigate around overview pages looking for it. I'm going to restore the material until a greater consensus is reached. Morphh ^(talk) 12:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to restore that area to me. Wasn't there a few more things in the drop down before, now removed? Seems like there was... it also is probably a good area not to remove this area in the future, but a really good place to expand in the future. More information would be nice in there, as to more articles of connected interest... and maybe more obscure, but still pertinent ones. skip sievert (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I have added a subsection heading above to reflect the proposal being discussed in this subsection. (A new subsection was suggested last week if the present proposal was questioned, to maintain transparency & avoid such unnecessary complications.) May I request that anyone discussing the proposal in the preceding section do so there?

I have taken Morphh's points above very seriously and tried to address them constructively. I have also followed up on Quiddity'a point above on the Template:Economic systems sidebar. Not a single link from the the group above is missing from that sidebar. (Similarly for the preceding section, every link except International political economy was on that same template.) The most obvious explanation for the overlap is that both drew from that template. With such overlap, there is a strong case for including the "Ideological systems" portion of the Template:Economic systems sidebar in the "Economic ideology" article, which I have done here, relabelling it as "Economic ideologies." I believe that that Edit is a principled compromise as to M's concern about the uses of a drop-down. The reader sees what s/he's expecting in linking to "Economic ideologies": a template/box with the same content as the drop-donn menu + the rest of the "Economic ideology” lead as context.

I'm sympathetic to the difficulties of 2 long sidebars in an article. Still, 5 out of the other 14 links (bssides "Economic ideoloogy" at the top of this section have more have more than one sidebar. Moreover, the current Economic ideologies template at "Economic ideoloogy" is only a third the length of the Economic systems template, and so less obtrusive, going to M's point.

To rephrase a point from the previous section, the Econ sidebar without the [SHOW/HIDE] for "Economic ideologies" is simpler and less distracting in what is already a large sidebar. Many people who would use the drop-down menu might not otherwise know that there is also a link to Economic ideology, which has not only the drop-down menu links but rest of the article Lead, which provideds context. WYSIWYG is predominant for the Econ sidebar, so mixing modes as to drop-down menus might be esp. confusing.

One other point. At least on my monitor, a lot of the time, [SHOW/HIDE] is not visible (the cure for which has eluded me -- WP:PURGE has not worked). Maybe it's true for lots of others as well. That is a subsidiary reason for working around [SHOW/HIDE], Thanks. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't all the previous things in the drop down box be returned to that area, and maybe more things included also? skip sievert (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The above question may refer to the subject of the preceding section. If it refers to the subject of this section, IMO the answers are "no" and "no" for the reasons stated above. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 10:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

How is removing information that leads to more information as to the subject good or called for? Please return the old information that was there also. skip sievert (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If the Economic ideology article (and the use of both templates) is the suggested formatting, I would not support it. I don't think it has a pleasing appearance and contrasts with the other sidebar. The sidebar is not a "See also" section - it is not intended to duplicate the links in the article. IMO, we should avoid mini-sidebars like that. The sidebar should cover the key areas of the particular higher level category (Economics in this case). It should do so in a way that is not overly long, appealing, and provides as much information to the relevant fields as possible. It can then be placed on many of the economic articles providing an common look and reasonable navigation in the field. We haven't reduce the size of the template with these changes and I don't think we're giving them undue weight in the field of economics. I don't see that removing the show/hide sublinks ads anything, and removes links to relevant topics. This type formatting is widely used throughout Wikipedia and is supported by all major browsers (at least 99% of the market). Morphh ^(talk) 20:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

That being the case above by Morph... and it appears to be accurate and with a good overview of thought, then a return of the show hide sublinks including the old information and addition perhaps of new information, when or if that is in order, seems in order. skip sievert (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If ss wishes to make a case on something in the preceding section, that's the place to do it.

This is not a biggie no matter what, but maybe some good will come from the discussion and outcome. Let me use numbering for ease of reference.

1T. I agree with M that The sidebar is not a "See also" section - it is not intended to duplicate the links in the article. The Economic ideologies sidebar at Economic ideology does not duplicate the links in the article nor the "See also" section there. Rather in providing examples in the Lead, per WP:LEAD it may "creat[e] interest in reading more of the article." Forgive my repeating, but anyone who who linked there the Ecnn sidebar via "Ecnomomic ideologies" would get what s/he linked to, not elsewhere in the Lead. The presumption should be that if the article can reasonably include something, show/find is an unnecessary distraction,

2T. As to [the] appearance of the EI template, it's very similar to the corresponding section of the Economic systems sidebar. I'm almost embarrassed to ask, but it's not clear to me what's displeasing about it. Yes, it's different from the Econ sidebar. That's one way of distinguishing rhwm, which can be a good thing.

Economic ideologies

Anarchist · Capitalist Communist · Corporatist Fascist · Georgist Islamic · Laissez-faire Market socialist · Participatory (Neo-) Mercantilist Protectionist · Socialist Syndicalist · Third Way

Business and economics portal

v • d • e

3Ta. The EI template serves at a "parent" to the respective links on its sidebar just as Econ. is parent article for its sidebar.

3Tb. Arguably, EI can be both a legitmate parent and legitmate child as noted above for almost half of the EI template links.

4T. Removing the show/hide sublinks IMO adds elegant simplicity to the Econ. sidebar w no content loss at the EI article vis-á-vis show/hide, given the template there. It is "one-stop" linking.

5T. First, let me say, I use a very mainstream browser. How common is the show/tell not functioning? For me it coincides w those periods when all the symbol groups appear in the Edit mode at once. Conversely, when I can toggle among to symbol gruups in Edit mode, show/hide works. I suspect ttat that many users have non-toggle functionality, maybe for prolonged periods, making show/hide useless. And when it is working, users may be unnessarily be diverted from the EI link.

6T. What would the hypothetical rational reader prefer? Possibly, the most information in the smallest number of steps consistent w the title of the link and least distracion. On that, arguably the EI template delivers, making the show/hide unnecessary. Arguably most readers would not be put off by a short template plus a longer one, if both have a point. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It is virtually impossible to understand what you are talking about here :3Tb. Arguably, EI can be both a legitmate parent and legitmate child as noted above for almost half of the EI template links.... at least I do not follow what you are talking about. The show/hide does a good job, of what it is supposed to do... provide more information for interested parties.

The drop down works fine in my browser. Shouldn't these things be added back in also ??? – Anglo-Saxon · Feudalism

– International · Hunter-gatherer – Newly industrialized country – Palace · Plantation – Post-capitalism · Post-industrial – Social market · Socialist market – Token · Traditional – Information · Transition

The basic bar is used on a lot of articles... and how is it a good idea to remove information, that is pertinent and some of it notable or at least fairly well known? skip sievert (talk) 03:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe that most potential readers of this section would see the above remarks by ss as at best:

— a pattern of disruptions as to the subject of this section (indicated by the heading)

— interjections of material properly belonging to the preceding section, which is correctly titled,§ despite repeated contrary requests.

The template above was tailored to the circumstances of the EI article, as discussed in my preceding Edit, which I believe stands up well.

§ That is, Proposal to remove drop-down menu in 'The economy' box at bottom. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I only see it as two different discussions as you split it into two different discussions. It's the same topic point, just a difference on the content included. I don't think we're really discussing the weight, notability or importance of the articles included in a sidebar. It's a discussion on removing content within a show/hide context and replacing it with a new sidebar template. It would seem odd to me to debate the same thing in two different sections, so I don't see Skip's comments as disruptive. We should just rename it all to "Proposal to remove drop-down menus" since both are in dispute, which should reduce any reader confusion. Morphh ^(talk) 15:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This and the preceding section have different headings, reflecting different proposals and details pertaining to each. Details, not only similarities, matter. The differences remain, whether or not they are denied. What is striking is the repeated failure of anyone to show up at the top section pertaining to the other proposal, where the details can be conveniently viewed in context. Instead a WP-version of guerilla war for that proposal is waged in this section, interrupting discussion of the proposal in this section.

1T-6T above raise still unanswered points in favor of the proposal under consideration here, despite all the above disruptions. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 14:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to remove drop-down menus

I think the proposal is not a good idea, and all the former information could be returned also. The economics sidebar is a general thing that is on many disparate articles... and contains lots of article information. The ideology section was better before when it had more information rather than less. It was an easy way to get to some of the more obscure articles that are articles never the less and contain good information. Since the main economics side bar is used so much, having it contain more related information seems like a good idea, especially when more information does not take up more overt space which it does not. Interested parties can click on the feature, others can ignore it. skip sievert (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the above Edit, including the title:

1. It misleads in representing the 2 proposals and corresponding sections above as one proposal.
2. It breaks the thread of both those sections, making it convenient to avoid confronting the arguments in each section and thereby detracting from any semblance of orderly discussion.
3. It is written in an obscurantist (ambiguous) literary style, making determinate meaning beside the point as to engaging in productive discussion.
4. Insofar as there is any determinate meaning there, it has been addressed earlier, though doubtless more could be said for anyone showing up in one or both sections above to discuss the respective proposals. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 14:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] New colors of World map showing per capita GDP

I'm not sure I like the new colors of the world map showing per capita GDP that has been uploaded by User:Sbw01f (the original creator). Does anyone else prefer the old colors? Want to change it back by making a smaller map with the old colors and redirecting to that smaller map? LK (talk) 10:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I do like the old colors for the smaller image, as the differences are more easily seen. I think the detail of the new image is better at a larger view where the changes can be seen. Perhaps we could ask Sbw01f if he would take his new image and use the more distinct colors. Morphh ^(talk) 15:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm changing the map to another one (also made by User:Sbw01f) based on PPP adjusted GDP, rather than nominal GDP, as i) it more accurately reflects economic well-being, and ii) the colors show up more clearly on the thumbnail. LK (talk) 10:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)