Template talk:Economics sidebar/Archive 1

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. C RETOG 8(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. C RETOG 8(t/c) 04:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Purpose of sidebar
Should this sidebar be specific for the Economics article or designed to be used in economics articles in general? C RETOG 8(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)

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. C RETOG 8(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. C RETOG 8(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. C RETOG 8(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)

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. C RETOG 8(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. C RETOG 8(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. C RETOG 8(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.) C RETOG 8(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. C RETOG 8(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. C RETOG 8(t/c) 14:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. C RETOG 8(t/c) 14:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

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. C RETOG 8(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?) C RETOG 8(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 &mdash; 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. C RETOG 8(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. C RETOG 8(t/c) 22:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

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. C RETOG 8(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)

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)

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. C RETOG 8(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. C RETOG 8(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. C RETOG 8(t/c) 14:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

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 C RETOG 8(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)

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)

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)

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


 * 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)

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)

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, 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)

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)

Proposed edit of "Fields and subfields" section
At the right is the Econ Template abbreviated to concentrate on the "Fields and subfields" section. A proposed reworking of that section (A) is listed first, followed by the current version (B). The bolded line numbers are only for convenience here, not for the edited Template. I have stared embarrassingly long and hard at the Template for more than a month  but avoided proposing piecemeal changes that might be better dealt with together at one time. The 19 primary JEL classification codes are below for comparison purposes.


 * JEL: A - General economics and Teaching
 * JEL: B - Schools of economic thought and Methodology
 * JEL: C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods
 * JEL: D - Microeconomics
 * JEL: E - Macroeconomics and Monetary economics
 * JEL: F - International Economics
 * JEL: G - Financial Economics
 * JEL: H - Public Economics
 * JEL: I - Health, Education, and Welfare
 * JEL: J - Labor and Demographic Economics
 * JEL: K - Law and Economics
 * JEL: L - Industrial organization
 * JEL: M - Business administration and Business economics; Marketing; Accounting
 * JEL: N - Economic history
 * JEL: O - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth
 * JEL: P - Economic systems
 * JEL: Q - Agricultural and Natural resource economics; Environmental and Ecological economics
 * JEL: R - Urban, Rural, and Regional economics
 * JEL: Z - Other Special Topics

Elements that guided formulation of (A) include these:
 * 1) Keep the same number of lines (9) and line width, rather than increasing either.
 * 2) Reduce disadvantages of (B) while maintaining its broader advantages.
 * 3) If part of the order of subjects in the JEL classification codes solves a problem in (B), adopt that order.
 * 4) If " and " between subjects evens out the line lengths and suggests a valid relationship the might be less obvious otherwise, include it.
 * 5) If a more brief, more general, or more widely-used term for a field is a available, use that term.
 * 6) If one sequence of fields or successive lines  is more suggestive to the general reader or in its relation to respective subjects, use it.

Someone else might use the same list to come up with a different arrangement -- and make a better case. Things are not always simple, and one tries to sort out what is more or less persuasive based on considerations presented. No matter what the arrangement, there are likely to be trade-offs of oourse.

Changes in (A) from (B) and reasons for them include the following.
 * (1A): Growth moved to before Development economics. Growth economics (the study of longer-term changes, if any, in levels of income per capita) has filtered down even to introductory textbooks, complementing an earlier almost-sole emphasis on business  fluctuations.   So, it's reasonable to have that first on the  line as a continuation of Macroeconomics above it.  Development economics can be construed as a policy-oriented application of growth economics.
 * (2A): International trade -> "International" (econ). (International economics link) The latter link/field  is a more general term that includes "International trade" and International finance. They are both important. So, both are included in one link per (5) above.
 * Economic systems moved up to follow International. It is a more suggestive fit to "International" and preceding line (1A) than on (6B) with "Ecological"·
 * (3A): Monetary theory becomes Monetary (economics) per (5) above, moved up to follow 1st 2 lines. Like the 1st item on each of those lines, it is a continuation of Macroeconomics above them. No one would doubt that it has a connection to Financial that follows. Per (4) as daily headines suggest,  the and that separates them is a reminder of their public-policy connection. It also evens out the text length of that line.
 * (4A): Public sector (econ) shortened to Public (econ) (per (5) above and more frequent usage, e.g. from Google Scholar searches) & moved to the left on that line to below Monetary economics on previous line, which also has important public-policy applications.
 * Much of public economics is concerned with trying to formulate a best or better policy, which is applied welfare economics, hence the and separating it from Welfare economics.  (This follows the same pairing of the 2 fields as found in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (2001) here.)
 * (5A):Health moved up to below Public economics on preceding line, consistent with many public-policy aspects of the subject.
 * Labour follows, consistent with many health econ matters related to labor.
 * Managerial follows Labour as a key economic input to which managerial econ is appplied. This is the only new field proposed in (A) and completes the only one of the 19 primary JEL classifications not otherwise represented (that is, JEL: M) in the Template.
 * (6A):Industrial organization follows Managerial, appropriately, since the production unit managed falls into some type of industrial organization.
 * Law that follows is a kind of bookend to public econ and industrial organization.
 * (7A) & (8A): Agricultural,  Natural resource, Environmental& Ecological follow the same sequence as JEL: Q.  The first (agricultural econ) nicely contrasts with its predecessor  (industrial organization).  Ecological is a subfield of Environmental econ.
 * (9A): Urban and Regional go together. Cultural is a major classication in JEL: Z, the last of the primary JEL codes.

The above is a lot to take in at once. I propoae to edit "Fields and subfields" along the lines of (A) as early as 3 full days from now to allow time for comment. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 02:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been losing track of these things. If you haven't already followed through, I think it's reasonable to take the silence here as indifference, and do what you feel is best. C RETOG 8(t/c) 18:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed edit stemming from "Methodologies" section
At the right is a proposed reworking of Econ-sidebar sections, each followed by the corresponding current section. They are respectively labelled A and B (followed by an abbreviation for the section title, such as AGC for the reworking (A) of the General-Classifications section). The line numbers, followed by section abbreviation, are of course only for reference, not for the edited Template. Most of the proposed changes stem from the Methodologies section. A total of one subject was dropped and 3 were added. I do respect the great care and thought that went into (B). As in the preceding section above, only more so, that is one reason I have stared embarrassingly long and hard at the Methodologies section of the Template but avoided proposing piecemeal changes that might be better dealt with together at one time. The 19 primary JEL classification codes, which the sidebar took as a point of departure, are below for comparison purposes.


 * JEL: A - General economics and Teaching
 * JEL: B - Schools of economic thought and Methodology
 * JEL: C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods
 * JEL: D - Microeconomics
 * JEL: E - Macroeconomics and Monetary economics
 * JEL: F - International Economics
 * JEL: G - Financial Economics
 * JEL: H - Public Economics
 * JEL: I - Health, Education, and Welfare
 * JEL: J - Labor and Demographic Economics
 * JEL: K - Law and Economics
 * JEL: L - Industrial organization
 * JEL: M - Business administration and Business economics; Marketing; Accounting
 * JEL: N - Economic history
 * JEL: O - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth
 * JEL: P - Economic systems
 * JEL: Q - Agricultural and Natural resource economics; Environmental and Ecological economics
 * JEL: R - Urban, Rural, and Regional economics
 * JEL: Z - Other Special Topics

Elements that guided formulation of (A) include these:
 * 1) Keep the same line width, rather than increasing it.
 * 2) Reduce disadvantages of (B) while maintaining its broader advantages.
 * 3) If part of the order of subjects in the JEL classification codes solves a problem in (B), adopt that order.
 * 4) If one sequence of fields or successive lines  is more suggestive to the general reader or in its relation to respective subjects, use it.
 * 5) Sacrifice completeness of subclassification for simplicity in the interest of motivating the general reader, particularly where the more general term is included.

To repeat from the preceding section, someone else might use the same list to come up with a different arrangement -- and make a better case. Things are not always simple, and one tries to sort out what is more or less persuasive based on considerations presented. No matter what the arrangement, there are likely to be trade-offs.

Changes in (A) from (B) and reasons for them are discussed as follows.
 * General classifications AGC:
 * This section adds one line: Methodology· Heterodox methods 3AGC
 * by moving Economic methodology (the Methodologies link) up from the header at (BM) of the  following section and next to Heterodox economics, also moved up a section from (4BM).
 * Just as Micro and Macro complement each other in AGC, so do these two links. They are a convenient "General-classifications" distinction (though not mutually-exclusive as to subject matter).  They are also paired there with History of economic thought, just as at JEL: B -- and in the same order.  Placing them last is a reasonable transition to the following section on another way of classifying "methods."  That advantage would be lost if Micro/Macro came last.  Micro/Macro is one common general way of describing economics as a contemporary subject, found in Econ textbooks for example.  So, Micro/Macro coming first in the section should be acceptable for that reason as well.


 * Quantitative methods AQM
 * (1) The section heading is changed from Methodologies to match more suggestively the section contents that follow. Similarly, its link is changed from Economic methodology to JEL classification codes, which gives related detail beyond the sidebar section contents that follow.  A purist might argue (corrrectly) that "mathematical methods" need not be "quantitative."  Perhaps a better heading name to take account of that is the JEL: C title: "Mathematical and Quantitative Methods." But it would have the disadvantage of widening the sidebar.
 * (2) The section contents add National accounting, drop Computational, and move Behavioral, Evolutionary, and Game theory to convenient matches in Fields and subfields.
 * There is value added to the section from "National accounting," a quantitative macro method that balances Experimental economics, a micro-oriented subject, including data. The national accounts are important enough that for example the sidebar displays per capita incme differences among countries, which are based on national-account estimates.
 * AQM is simpler in moving game theory down and dropping computational econ. Mathematical methods and econometrics, which are referred to in AQM, include computational methods as a subfield. It is an important subfield but possibly not one that might make much impression on the general reader beyond what is already there.  It might even mislead in leaving the inference that it is not a subfield.
 * Fields and subfields FS
 * Information economics· Game theory 6AFS adds the first subject to FS and moves down the second subject from the Methodologies section.
 * Information economics follows Managerial economics, an important aspect of which is risk and uncertainty analysis of information. These feed into into managerial decision theory.
 * Here are some references to econ subjects that suggest the importance of information economics at the practical and public-policy level:


 * Mas-Colell, Andreu; Michael D. Whinston, and Jerry R. Green (1995), Microeconomic Theory. Oxford University Press. Chapters 13 and 14 discuss applications of adverse selection and moral hazard models to contract theory.
 * The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (2008). 2nd Edition, selected entries:
 * "bubbles" by Markus K. BrunnermeierAbstract.
 * "epistemic game theory: incomplete information" by Aviad Heifetz. Abstract.
 * "information aggregation and prices" by James Jordan. Abstract.
 * "information cascades," by, Sushil Bikhchandani, David Hirshleifer and Ivo Welch. Abstract.
 * "information sharing among firms" by Xavier Vives.Abstract.
 * "information technology and the world economy" by Dale W. Jorgenson and Khuong Vu. Abstract.
 * "insider trading." by Andrew Metrick. Abstract.
 * "learning and information aggregation in networks" by Douglas Gale and Shachar Kariv. Abstract.
 * "monetary business cycles (imperfect information)" by Christian Hellwig. Abstract.
 * "social networks in labour markets" by Antoni Calvó-Armengol and Yannis M. Ioannides. Abstract.
 * "prediction markets" by Justin Wolfers and Eric Zitzewitz.Abstract.
 * Information economics precedes game theory, an important branch of which includes games with incomplete information, modeling behavioral interactions that involve risk and uncertainty. Game theory precedes Industrial organization and has been frequently used as a framework for analyzing strategic behavior of firms or industries with different market structures. Placement of game theory there has the advantage of giving the subject context as to major fields in economics.  Like the rest of a wp:lead, placement of links in a sidebar may provide needed context, rather than requiring that the general reader figure it all out.


 * Urban· Rural· Regional 10AFS adds Rural economics, completing the JEL: R triad.


 * Behavioral· Cultural· Evolutionary 11AFS moves the first and third fields down from the Methodologies section to the last line of FS.
 * This is appropriate if economic behavior ia constrained by culture and if such behavior, bounded though it is by psychology, culture, economic variables, etc. can give rise to evolutionary change. Coming near the end of the sidebar, Evolutionary economics may also rightly suggest that neither economics nor the fields of economics are static.
 * If anyone is still reading this, I propoae to edit the Econ sidebar along the lines of (A) above as early as 3 full days from now to allow time for comment. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I like the present bar... and suggest we do not do the proposed edit by Thomasmeeks. Right now the bar does what it is designed to do... navigate people around. It is simple. Simple is better in my opinion... Anyone with any interest at all in the subject will find a wealth of information in the present incarnation of the Economics bar. Complicating it may not improve it. Right now it is base line... and that may be enough for all practical purposes. skip sievert (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I mostly prefer the current setup. Primarily, that's because I like the segregation of methods from other fields. I do feel that there is an important (if often fuzzy) distinction between tools for studying things, and the things to be studied. Now, based on that, I might move behavioral economics out of "methodologies" to "fields"--it's definitely one of the fuzzy areas. And I don't know if I would put "heterodox" in "methodologies"--it's a huge catch-all, so it's tough. But I think it's important to keep Computational, Econometrics, Evolutionary, and Game theory in methodologies. C RETOG 8(t/c) 18:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I hope that another look might be possible. I do agree that keeping things simple is important. But simplicity can take different forms. The current "Methodologies" section of the sidebar (BM above) uses alphabetical classification but mixes up non-quantitative and quantitative subjects (3 & 5 of each respectively), which makes them, I believe, easier to ignore & less likely to be used, since there is no obvious connection -- like mixing up the chapters of a book. In this it is inconsistent with the other sections in not using a subject-related grouping. Of course, the JEL codes don't mix together quant-math methods and methodology. Rather, methodology/heterodox there is paired with another general classification of econ: economic thought, as in AGC at the top sidebar. I believe that most readers would find the Quantitative methods section of (A) here simpler than the Methodologies section of (B) here and the differences in the other sections of (A) and (B) unproblematic -- so net advantage (A).

On the 2nd comment, as I tried to note at General classifications AGC above, if putting:
 * Methodology· Heterodox methods

together with History of economic thought was good enough for JEL classification codes, that might also be acceptable under General classifications as well, not b/c they are the same (any more than Micro & Macro are the same), but b/c they complement each other. There may be agreement on Behavioral economics. It is the JEL: D01 - Microeconomic Behavior link and of course a subfield of microeconomics. So, if we have Micro under General classifications, no one should be offended at Behavioral going under Fields and subfields. Rather than it getting overlooked in a stormy sea of Methodologies, it has the "last word" (or anyhow, line) at (A). The last comment also applies even more to Evolutionary economics: it has the last words at (A). In addition, on that last line "Evolutionary economics" has appreciably more Google Scholar hits with "cultural" (9700) or with "behavioral" (11,900) than with any of the qnantitative subjects in Methodologies BM. I believe that most readers will make that same connection more readily as well. Again I believe that readers are more likely to use the links if they can see that they are connected, like consecutive chapters of a book. Similarly, for Information· Game theory · (6AFS above) · Industrial organization. If readers think there may be a connection other than alphabetic ordering, I believe that their interest is more likely to be stirred.

I think that Computational economics is a very interesting field for an economist to be in, but in the sidebar it may tend to drive away the general reader as a special-interest field, esp. given the listing there of Math econ and Econometrics. What the sidebar should do is pique interest. A parsimonious sidebar section such as at (AQM) above may do that. There, the heading link Quantitative methods takes one instantly, to Computational. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd like to modify the proposal above to move:
 * Behavioral· Cultural· Evolutionary 11AFS
 * from the last line of Fields and subfields to the first line there (now labelled 0AFS). Possible synergies are these:
 * It would broadly carry the Micro/Macro parallelism of the first section over to the first items of the 1st 2 lines.
 * There would be a parallelism of Evolutionary economics on the 1st line with Development· History on the 2nd line.
 * By coincidence, Cultural on the 1st line and Development on the 2nd are also a nice match. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 15:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I like the present bar, as it is without the proposed edit... and suggest we do not do the proposed edit by Thomasmeeks. Right now the bar does what it is designed to do... navigate people around. It is simple. Simple is better in my opinion... I also prefer the areas to click on now as they are presented. Anyone with any interest at all in the subject will find a wealth of information in the present incarnation of the Economics bar, as is. Complicating it may not improve it. Right now it is base line... and that may be enough for all practical purposes. It could be assumed that wikipedia readers can do their own information looking as to interest, and do not need to be led from place to place with an overly refined directory. People can easily find information as it is from connectors within the present economics bar. (my opinion) skip sievert (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Negative Ghost Rider... I don't like this proposal at all.  Morphh   (talk) 18:33, 07 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have already responded to the substance of the 1st comment above at my preceding Edit (18:39, 29 October 2008). Invoking a "baseline" as "good enough" is beside the point when the issue is simplifying and providing content & context, which (A) attempts.  The top provides a comparison of the respective sections of (A) and (B).  A comparison of the whole sidebars  is here for the proposed (A) and here for (B) (the status quo).  --Thomasmeeks (talk) 00:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have an objection to either the A or B below. I just don't like the one above with all the classifications.  Morphh   (talk) 2:37, 09 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Better yet, a side-by-side comparison of (A) and (B) [added later for clarity:Thomasmeeks (talk) 00:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)]:

* Replaces "Quantitative methods" per discussion below.

Placement in sidebar (A) of:
 * Behavioral· Cultural· Evolutionary

at the top of the Fields and subfields section has an added advantage (besides those mentioned above) of continuity with:
 * Methodology· Heterodox methods

in the General classifications above it, rather than their dilution among Math/quant methods. Such ccntinuity is likely to result in greater use of the sidebar links to the articles, instead of being ignored as merely decorative. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 21:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry I've been unresponsive here. For some reason, my mind has trouble grasping all the reloevant variables in this kind of optimization. Mostly I prefer (B). Here's my post-hoc attempt to rationalize my preferences:
 * (A) positive: Behavioral is more of a field than a method.
 * (B) positive: Methodologies is a better category than Quantitative methods. As I described above, I really think that dividing topics into what is studied vs. how it is studied makes sense. "Quantitative" is less important than that, besides creating a messy distinction between what is quantitative and what is not (quantitativness isn't the most important facet of experimental, lots of mathematical economics really isn't even quantitative).
 * indifferent: Methodologies kinda makes sense in the "General classifications" box, but it's not particularly necessary since there's a link just below. As a short-term pragmatic concern, the Economic methodology article it links to needs a lot more fleshing out before I feel good about it. Heterodox doesn't fit well anywhere, and so can go anywhere. The order of topics within the sections irrelevant to me--some orderings may seem to make more sense, and that might be good, but I think in practice someone is going to have to scan it all.
 * As a side-note, I think the side-by-side comparison was a good idea--it's a lot easier for me to think about than a single box with tags. C RETOG 8(t/c) 16:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I do appreciate the preceding response, which, like every earlier response, I take seriously in engaging it. The comments below are addressed to everyone. The delay in responding was to allow other things to happen first. I hope that, in the fullness of time, reading or re-reading the above and supplemental considerations below would allay concerns expressed to the point of actively supporting or at least not reverting (A) as amended.

The Economic methodology article was expanded recently to include significantly more topics and in-line citations with links per Talk:Economic methodology, which addresses the "pragmatic, short-term" considerations expressed above as to moving up the placement of "Methodology" in (A).

Most readers might agree that the long-standing Econ sidebar (labeled (B) (immediately above) could be improved with the simplifications & additions of (A) as amended (also above). Simplifications include a 2-line "Quantitative methods" section replacing the 4-line  Methodologies section (vs. 9 lines, total, for the "Fields & subfields" section) — details & rationale above. In light of the preceding comment,  I withdraw the "Quantitative methods" heading of (A) in favor of Techniques, which has a close-fitting dictionary definitionof that term and corresponding usage in The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics.§ That revised heading is shorter and more precise, like that section. It leaves little  doubt that its contents are distinct, if not dichotomous, from what precedes or follows it.   (B) classifies by mixing together techniques & methodologies rather than moving the latter to the "General classifications" and the "Fields" sections, where they all fit seamlessly in (A).  In such mixing, the (B) classification follows neither The New Palgrave Subject Index nor the JEL classification codes  (in particular, the Economic thought/methodology vs. Math & quantitative methods sections).  These carefully constructed classification systems suggest an analytical advantage in the simpler, less ambiguous  (A) classifications.  They have the added advantage of reflecting WP:VER. The techniques in principle are applied  to Micro, Macro, or any of the Fields and subfields that follow,  whereas the methodology associated with a field (say Evolutionary economics) is specific to that field.

§ Digression: The New Palgrave classifies game theory not under "Techniques" but with Industrial organization, just as (A) does & where principles textbooks often do to provide an accessible context, as also appropriate for a sidebar that appears in the Lead of an article (discussed at WP:Lead). --Thomasmeeks (talk) 14:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to group "Techniques" under "Methodology" section
This subsection heading was added to precede the following exchange of comments to distinguish from possible areas of agreement in the above. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 05:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I really dislike having "Methodology" & "Heterodox methods" in General classifications, followed by by a section called Techniques below. Aren't the Techniques listed Methods? Why have a link and then a section below about the same thing? Also, I've thought for a long time that the double headers at the begining are unnecessary and confusing. I much prefer a header called for example General Topics. I suggest changing the sidebar to (C) below: --LK (talk) 14:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * For ease of comparison, the recent Template sidebar Edit (A) is lined up next to proposed Edit (C). To summarize the differences explicitly, they are identical from the Fields and subfields section on but different before that in:

(1) (C) changing the Outline of topics blue box to General topics but with the same link to Topic outline of economics.
 * (2) (C) eliminating the General classifications header with its link to JEL classification codes.
 * (3) (C) changing the Techniques header (with a link of JEL classification codes) to Methodology (with a link to Economic methodology) and changing its contents to include Heterodox methods, both moved down a section from what was the General classifications section. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 05:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The following are arguably advantages of (A) over (C) (with numbering below for ease of reference).
 * (1T) The title Outline of topics in (A) is closer to the link title Topic outline of economics than to General topics, and therefore more accurate as to its contents. If General topics in (C) is supposed to refer to the 3 listed topics that follow (Micro, Macro, & HOET), it does not do a very good job. The reader has to wait until sections 2 & 6 to get to those topics.  Using a more precise title better allows the reader to determine whether to pursue the link, assuming that the reader can figure out that there is a link (see below).
 * (2T) A rationale for the General classifications header with its link to JEL classification codes was presented and discussed in detail above at section 15 (Template talk:Economics sidebar.  The respective links for the Outline of topics and General classifications  serve  distinct, complementary functions, as indicated by their titles, sources (an organized Wiki list vs. a widely-used standard classification system), and organization & content.  In its placement, Outline of topics in (A) effectively points up (captioning what precedes it in the sidebar), while  General classifications points down to classifications that in much greater conceptual detail track what follows, like a Main article section link).  Their successive presence suggests that each has a link. In resembling an article heading, a single such box might suggest that there was no link.  Positioned successively, the two suggest that each has a link. Each performs a different and useful function.
 * (3T) Per my 14:36, 13 December 2008 Edit at the end of the last section immediately above:
 * The New Palgrave does not mix "Techniques" and "Methodology."  Rather they are distinct and separate  classifications.  (A) preserves that useful distinction.  (C) does not.  Similarly, the "Techniques" of (A) are classified under Math & quantitative methods. "Methodology" and "Heterodox approaches" are classified together underJEL classification codes.  Again, (A) preserves that useful analytical distinction of Methodology and Techniques.  (C) does not.  --Thomasmeeks (talk) 05:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)