Talk:Cost-effectiveness analysis

Fair use rationale for Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg
Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Removing "cost effective" measures section
Am going to remove the section on CEA in environmental economics - this is a reference to cost-effective measures which is quite different to cost-effectiveNESS analysis. This belongs in another article - probably in the article on the Rio declaration. I've copied it here in case anyone disagrees and wishes to put it back, or put it elsewhere.

"CEA in environmental economics

In environmental terms, "cost-effective measures" allude to various (mostly industrial) attempts to prevent environmental degradation as written in principle 15 of the Rio declaration of the Earth Summit conference 1992." OceanKiwi (talk) 12:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Issues in cost-effectiveness analysis

 * CEA results (cost-effectiveness data) are confronted with ethical analysis at a management level. MaynardClark (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 21 October 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Consensus to not move. (non-admin closure) —  Young Forever (talk)   16:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Cost-effectiveness analysis → Cost–effectiveness analysis – The regular dash in the name should be substituted with an en dash since it is used "to connect symmetric items", see Dash. Also see the related article Cost–utility analysis where the article title already is correctly using the en dash. Lymoz (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Cost-effectiveness" is a compound modifier, not a pair of symmetric items. A hyphen is appropriate. kennethaw88 • talk 02:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. To put the argument another way, this is the analysis of "cost effectiveness", whereas the other is the analysis of "cost vs utiliity". Rosbif73 (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per kennethaw88's point. – DarkGlow (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Economic and management science
Factors of production 41.116.129.16 (talk) 13:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)