Template talk:Economics sidebar/Archive 4

Edit request on 3 January 2012
77.246.55.97 (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. -- Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 13:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 January 2012
Entertaining Economics

Economics has now become more mainstream by reflecting everyday events of pop culture, relationship uses and day to day decisions in the form of Economics. This has been done eloquently by using the tool of Game Theory. Particularly in books such as Undercover Economist, Freakonomics and websites such as www.entertainingeconomics.com.

Entertainingeconomics (talk) 15:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. — Bility (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Bad proposal
I cannot find Thomas's proposal or its discussion amid the mountains of text.

I oppose the proposal to remove game theory and optimization as mathematical methods of economics and to leave national accounting. (1) Economics curricula cover optimization as the core of their math-for-economists M.A. programs, at least in the US and Scandinavia. National accounting is ignored. (2) The JEL and MSC2010 have much more coverage of optimization/game-theory articles & books than of national accounting. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 15:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: The section that KW states he could not find had this Edit summary & link:
 * New subsection 2.3: Template talk:Economics sidebar.

with my user name & dated 13:10, 12 January 2012‎. Most people might conclude that KW had to work to avoid finding the proposal. (I had the same link at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics.) KW's remarks above misrepresent my proposal, prejudicing consideration of it, contrary to WP:Guidelines but consistent with my earlier, related complaint at Template talk:Economics sidebar on 19:16, 25 May 2011. I had the same link at Negligence is not an excuse. If KW wishes to repeat the above (something I would not favor, obviously) or otherwise comment there, he need only follow the above link or use the TOC at the top to locate sect. 2.3. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to restore "Heterodox approaches" by removing "Mainstream economics"
About a year ago, Mainstream economics was added to the Template:Economics sidebar in the "General categories" section with this Edit summary:
 * Complement heterodox with mainstream, per WP:DueWeight : Mainstream & heterodox.

In the that same Edit "Heterodox approaches" was shortened to "Heterodox" This corresponds to Template (G) at the far right, compared to earlier Template (A) at the near right. I propose to restore (A).

I believe that (G) is unnecessary and counterproductive on the following grounds, which I number for ease of reference:

1T. JEL classification codes has no such ME category:
 * JEL: B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches

Rather, it links only the above triad without balancing Heterodox economics (HE) off against Mainstream economics (ME). Adding ME arguably obscures the distinction between Economic methodology & HE. I believe that most general readers and most economists would prefer the authenticity of the unbroken JEL: B triad in the sidebar to a questionable application of a WP guideline that adds unnecessary complexity to that section of the sidebar.

2T. While it is clear that ME complements HE, it is not at all clear that its absence gives WP:Undue weight to HE in the sidebar. Surely, its absence in JEL: B does not thereby give "Heterodox Approaches" "undue weight" in the JEL codes. It's simply a distinction from the other subcategories.

3T. "Mainstream economics" is not significant enough to appear as a separate entry in the massive 8-volume New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (2008), unlike HE. Rather ME is used in passing there, most commonly in relation to HE subjects. just as is done in the Economics lead and Heterodox economics leads. Including such links there but not the sidebar is a simple substitute for uncrowding the sidebar. Just as the WP:Lead should be simple, so arguably should the lead section of a template.
 * 3.1T. The substance of ME as econ jargon is mainly derivative (as a concrete alternative counterpart to HE, including the neoclassical synthesis etc.) and comprising a large aspect of econ, including methodological aspects of micro and macro. So, inclusion of Mainstream econ in the template is a kind of double counting in the template (per micro, macro, and methodology). What sets HE apart is that its variants are less widely accepted or that its adherents don't accept ME.  You don’t need a separate ME listing to suggest that when the very definition of  "heterodox" suggests it.

4T. The substitution of "Heterodox" for "Heterodox approaches" is contrary to the JEL: B title (per 1T). For the general reader, the "Heterodox approaches" may be less misleading than the implied "Heterodox [economics]", because HE is not a monolithic subject but more like an umbrella term (covering for example the Austrian School and Marxist economics). Readers who click to HE find that out quickly enough, but surely it is better to avoid misleading before that. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with all stated above. Restoring template A will more effectively provide due weight. Solid State Survivor (talk) 05:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Give me a break, Thomas.
 * You are promoting weirdo economics again, as though it were significant, by mentioning heterodox without mentioning mainstream economics.
 * Take this to the WikiProject Economics, to get some more eyes. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 07:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I have added (3.1T) as a subsidiary point above.
 * 5T. Doubtless the strongly expressed opinion in the preceding edit comes after reading the heading. But also written after reading the Edits that followed the heading? The complete disconnect from the arguments that preceded it makes that harder to believe.
 * 6T. The accusation of my "promoting weirdo economics again" (which seems to mean promoting HE [heterodox econ]) is a mistake at multiple levels.   1st, the proposal does not promote HE, except in a question-begging sense or in the absurd sense of my not having spoken against HE above. By the same logic, the JEL classification codes are biased for not including the subject classification of "Mainstream econ" (ME), and The New Palgrave is biased for not having an article on ME.   2nd, my alleged HE stance (unstated above or elsewhere, whether for or against) has no relevance to the above proposal. 3rd, the depiction of  me as "promoting weirdo economics again" looks like an attempt at guilt by association.  And where does "again" come from, except as an added misrepresentation? The misrepresentation is a red herring as to consideration of the proposal above. WP:Civility recommends against such misrepresentation.
 * 7T. I'd hope that any remaining differences would be narrowed (with silence one such index).  In any case there is no hopeless deadlock at this point.  If anyone wants to make additional comments, now is the time to do it. IMO, discussion ought to be concentrated here, not at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics.  Still, I'd be happy to put a neutral notice there (at the top as a new subsection and with a link to here) inviting comment here. But that seems premature now, & I'd hope that it would be unnecessary.  --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Economies by region section
It has always struck me that heading this sidebar with a section on economies by region is rather peculiar - it seems like a specific application of macroeconomics, when a bar such as this should begin as broadly as possible, giving the most general view of economics before narrowing in on this sort of topic. Along these same lines, I think the image showing the relative per-capita GDP of different countries is not a very good summary of economics as a whole - and that a more general conceptual image (such as the supply and demand diagram that WikiProjects Economics uses as seen at the top of this page) would be a better summary of the topic. I would propose we move the economies by region section down lower and replace the header image with a more general one.

Solid State Survivor (talk) 05:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, a more (IMO appropriately) charitable interpretation is that econ is all about the world & the economies or economic systems in them, including economic agents & microeconomic systems. At least per capita PPP GDP does attempt to adjust for different costs of production across different countries (though it leaves out such important things as differences in life expectancy). It's certainly a vivid way of reminding us of one aspect of differences among countries.  --Thomasmeeks (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Welfare economics and Welfare
The sidebar currently has links to both Welfare economics and Welfare. Welfare economics is a broad and well understood topic within the subject of economics concerned wit aspects of welfare as "well-being" and it seems to be appropriately listed as a field or sub-field of the general topic of Economics. As far as I can tell, Welfare as social welfare (which is what the Welfare article is all about) is neither a field or a subfield of economics. Social welfare is a source of income for people just as wages and salaries are, but these are not listed as a field or a sub-field of economics. Some may see social welfare}} as driver of economic behaviour, but so too is [[taxation, but that is not listed as a field or subfield of economics either.

For the above reasons I would like to suggest that Welfare be dropped from the sidebar but that Welfare economics should remain in. Does anyone object to this being changed, and if so, on what grounds?84.250.230.158 (talk) 12:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, it can be a source of confusion alright, with the same word "welfare" in each. Still, as discussed at Template talk:Economics sidebar/Archive 2 (last paragraph) (and noted above), the respective subjects of Welfare economics and Welfare differ. They also have different codes in the JEL classification codes. They can also overlap of course (depending on the applied area studied), in which case there's a distinction but not a dichotomy. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * They are different but these codes are topic index codes for general economics literature. They are not major sub-fields of the subject, which is what that bit of the box is supposed to be. I don't think inclusion on this list ought to be the criterion for inclusion in the sidebar as a sub-field. The list is huge and it couldn't all fit in the sidebar. Wouldn't the broader article Social policy be the better link instead of Welfare? The LSE for example has an Department of Social Policy. (See the full list of academic departments at top of the page). Replacing Welfare with Social policy would get round the difficulty of the ambiguous meaning and has´the advantage of revealing a broader spectrum of public policy issues in a much clearer way.84.250.230.158 (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Both the links of Template talk:Economics sidebar/Archive 2 (last paragraph) & JEL classification codes of my previous Edit directly address the latest concern above as to Welfare. The JEL link has a footnote with a link that links explanations of different classifications, including Welfare, which also has a JEL parallel-WP-Category link at the bottom of the article.
 * Social policy even lacks a JEL classification code for it. Nobody thought to classify as an econ article (yet). By contrast, "Welfare" (and poverty reduction) has its own JEL code. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I am having great difficulty matching your response to the points that I raised. It seems like you have ignored my main points about the stated purpose of the box and how you justify including some topics and not others. If JEL did not see fit to index social policy that is their error of omission and I don't see why we have to repeat it. Economics and social policy are indeed very tightly bound. 84.250.230.158 (talk) 05:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Adding "Schools of Thought" Section
Hello! I am not a massively experienced Wikipedia editor, so please gently correct me on any process mistakes I'm making. But I have a proposed edit to the sidebar that I think I very important - namely, that I think a category called "Schools of Thought" or "Theoretical Approaches" or something like that should be added.

Justifications:
 * In academia, this is underlying framework for most arguments & debates. It is difficult to understand arguments over Coase's theorem or preferences or whatever without understanding that the people arguing are typically representing different schools of economic thought (typically neoclassical vs. New Keynesian, but obviously not always). Making this distinctions explicit will help lay readers understand many of the disagreements within economics. I think that this is actually one of the aspects of any discipline (and especially economics) that is the most difficult for lay readers to understand: economists spend a great deal of their time arguing from one theoretical standpoint against another, and thus the difference is very apparent to them, so they often don't clarify it - but to the lay reader, such distinctions are totally obscure, & make it difficult to understand what's at stake in what people are arguing about.
 * When a lay reader reads that someone is a "Keynesian" or a "neoclassical economist" in a given article, they will be able to scroll to the top of the page and easily see what other schools of thought that particular school of thought is constructed in opposition to. Again, words like "Keynesian" may make a lot of sense to you or I, but believe me, they totally confuse a lot of lay readers.
 * As the template stands right now, you have "heterodox economics" listed under the section "general categories." To me, this doesn't make sense: heterodox economics encapsulates micro, macro, and methodology, & thus doesn't make sense as a category alongside these. Oranges & apples. Same with "mainstream approaches" or whatever. These concepts don't fit in any of these sections.
 * The page Keynesian economics has been viewed 114K times in the last 30 days (making it the 3653rd-most-viewed page on en.wikipedia.org), Neoclassical economics has been viewed 26K times, Austrian school 30K times, etc. These are pretty high stats.

So: my proposal: add a section called "Schools of Thought"/"Theoretical Approaches" or something related. IMHO this section should contain (for each school I've included how many views it's gotten in the last 30 days):
 * Mainstream - 4K views in the last 30 days
 * Heterodox - 6K views
 * Neoclassical - 26K views
 * Keynesian - 114K views
 * Austrian - 30K views
 * Chicago school - 11K views
 * Ecological - 8K views
 * Feminist 4K views
 * Institutional - 6K views
 * Marxian - 11K views
 * New Keynesian - 8K views
 * Post-Keynesian - 4K views
 * Socialist - 10K views
 * Supply-side - 36K views

I included any economic school of thought I could think of that had more than 4K views in the last 30 days; this cutoff is arbitrary, but at least it gives us an objective standard for including something or not including it. Thus, I excluded things like participatory economics, thermoeconomics, etc. I would strongly prefer that if any schools are added or taken away, that it be by raising or lowering this bar, not by including or excluding schools based on whether we think they're "important"; IMHO, we should defer to what Wikipedia users as a whole think is "important," which seems to me to be the most NPOV way of doing it.

I'm not including Evolutionary economics or Behavioral economics because I agree that those are fields of economics, not schools of thought, & thus belong in that existing section. But I am proposing removing ecological economics from the "Fields and subfields" category, and including it here; in my opinion, while environmental economics is a subfield (since any of these schools of thought can be applied to it), ecological economics is a separate way of looking at economics that precludes these other schools of thought.

Note that first listed the two categories of schools (mainstream & heterodox) then listed neoclassical & Keynesian economics, & then the rest in alphabetical order; I listed neoclassical & Keynesian economics first since these are by far the largest schools of thought in contemporary economics (and I'm saying this as a heterodox economist).

Also, note that I'm only including contemporary schools of economic thought - i.e., schools that economists today would self-identify with (as opposed to mercantilists, physiocrats, etc.). A division into historical & contemporary schools of thought could be interesting - but I'm not going to go down that road.

I included examples of what these edits would make the new sidebar look like, as others have done above. Yes, it would make the sidebar a lot longer - but like I say, I think this is as important as or more important than any of the other categories.

Thoughts? -CircleAdrian (talk) 23:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it may be appropriate in a normally hidden dropdown box at the bottom of the template. Otherwise it would overemphasize divisions in economics, which are actually not as large as commonly perceived. LK (talk) 01:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * CircleAdrian, you're way experienced enough (per opening comment & commendably thorough discussion following). IMO there is much also to be said for discussion here first rather than using  the Econ sidebar as a first resort for huge paradigm shift prior to thorough discussion. It is conceivable that any comments here might be moot in light of the above exchange & inaction that followed. I number the following for ease of reference.
 * 1T. For convenience, I've labelled the comparative sidebars above (A) & (B) (the proposed sidebar).  If asked to choose between them, I'd lean toward LK's suggestion. Still, I'd like to make a case for (A), that is, the current sidebar edit, on grounds of simplicity, non-duplication, and the premise that what-you-see-is-what-get is better in guiding users to the right articles. There is certainly duplication of the new links of (B) already embedded in Economics (section 7, "History"),  Micro, Macro, History of economic thought (for example of Schools of economics in the 2nd sentence sentence and other schools throughout), and of course Heterodox economics (with the  1st paragraph having most of the added links of (B)). Supply-side & Mainstream econ are certainly convenient terms, but in an econ sidebar, they might smack of catering to journalistic shorthand. It's also somewhat misleading to suggest that neoclassical econ (or marginalism) is a current "school" of econ. (JEL classification codes doesn't even list neoclassical econ after 1925.) Relatedly, Heterodox econ for which "Heterodox approaches" (per the plural form) is the JEL classification codes term.
 * 2T. IMO there's a case for (B) even diminishing the impact of Heterodox econ by moving the latter down into a crowded new section and away from the the "heavy-weight" "General categories" of Micro etc.  Also, like a good part of the rest of the sidebar, (A) follows  JEL classification codes grouping:
 * JEL: B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox approaches.
 * An advantage in grouping the last 2 links together is in suggesting their classification proximity to & distinction ('heterodox' = 'other' or non-'orthodox') from economic methodology more broadly. The connection of  heterodox econ to its place in the HOET is also worth preserving in the sidebar.
 * 3T. (A) is more proportional in space allotted to JEL: B in the sidebar than the division of JEL: B + big new section in (B). (A) is also consistent with:
 * JEL: Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics and in particular JEL: Q5, Environmental econ, which includes Ecological econ as a subcategory. The connection is in (A).
 * 4T. The JEL codes have moved farther from "Schools of econ" terminology and made explicit the importance of heterodox econ in its corresponding primary classification in the 2010 update of JEL: B:
 * FROM: Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology
 * TO: History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches
 * (as noted at Talk:JEL classification codes). Arguably, the sidebar should reflect that too. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Recurrence of edit with multiple disputed format changes: wide, fragmented link lines etc.
A sidebar similar to (B) at the right 1st appeared in February 2012 with this opaque Edit summary:
 * convert to a proper .

It was reverted a month later to something like (A) with this comment (abridged):
 * ...restores narrower & less obtrusive width of Sidebar, groups like subjects on same or adjoining lines  [bolding added]

(B) reappeared 3 months ago (omitting undisputed changes since) with this Edit summary (abridged), and with no attempt to defend any of the multiple format changes reintroduced in it:
 * re-reimplement as a . If tiny, trivial matters of width and style are still disputed, please let me know why

The comment ignores the bolded portion above of the preceding edit summary and is unresponsive to the unbolded portion there. I dispute that the multiple changes between (A) and (B) are minor in the template. Otherwise, they would not be disputed.

I believe that each of the changes in sidebar (B) has disadvantages compared to (A). Let me elaborate on the above, numbering for ease of reference:

1T. The B4 lines in (B) are examples of lines that move up links from the previous line compared to their preceding (A) counterparts. This is has 2 effects, both bad. First, it makes the 3 subsequent B5 lines mostly white space, pointlessly unbalancing the text-line lengths. Second, it obscures the relation of the B5 subjects to the preceding moved-up subjects. In moving up a link to the preceding line, it misplaces relative to the corresponding JEL classification codes (all the B4 lines) and in this makes the relation of the line-separated subjects less clear, thus violating Categories, lists, and navigation templates (WP:NAVBOX) guidelines. 3 examples illustrate:
 * 1st ex.: B4 History of economic thought · Methodology
 * B5 Heterodox approaches

These 3 correspond to to the primary JEL triad of JEL: B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches. B5 disconnects the last two, obscuring their relation & distinction. The reasonable implicature that 'Heterodox approaches' refers to methods other than economic methodology is rendered more obscure by having them on different lines.

2nd ex.: A4 Growth· Development corresponds to:
 * JEL: O - Economic Development and Growth in the JEL classification codes. Yet at  B5, the 2 are separated by a line, obscuring their relationship.

3rd ex.: A4 Health· Education· Welfare corresponds to:
 * JEL: I - Health, Education, and Welfare

but the corresponding B4 line unnecessarily breaks up the first 2.

2T. A1 at the top of sidebar A has a font large enough to distinguish it clearly from the headings that follow. B1 is larger than that and thus arguably less minimalist, [unnecessarily distracting from subsequent sidebar links, which the sidebar should instead facilitate].

B is similarly less minimalist (thus functional) than A at the headings (slightly taller and with white side-borders) and at B6.

A uses a subdued [darker] blue background for all 1-link boxes (at the top and bottom boxes, giving it a color consistency that B lacks and using top and bottom colors to indicate qualitative differences from the middle [1-link] boxes. B6 is much taller than other 1-link boxes (other than the title), adding to inconsistency. 3T. Throughout (B), lines end with a [bullet], for example B3. That's unnecessary, since breaking to a new line makes them redundant.

4T. A7 is also clearer than its B7 counterpart (fewer readers could be expected to know what V • T • E refers to). --Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * One amendment IMO worth incorporated into an updated version of (A7) (at the bottom of sidebar A) is to aligment the text to the right, just as in B7. TM 16:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The sidebar has been standardised to be consistent with other Wikipedia sidebars. The suggestions given by editor Thomasmeeks and Thumperward on the talk page and edit summary were combined. Guest2625 (talk) 00:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Your comments above and sidebar edits moved the sidebar in the right direction IMO, may I say, G.
 * Let me make a few more points for the record. Some of the issues there may have already been resolved but not necessarily (per a revert). Others are to address the previous comment.
 * 5T. Standardization can be a good thing if what is standardized is an improvement over what preceded it. But consistency with other sidebars may simply standardize similar problems.  Let  cite this relevant WP:NAVBOX guideline, which is listed first among advantages of navboxes (of a which a sidebar is one type):
 * Provides a consistent look and navigation system for related articles (though not between different topics — there is no single format across all navigation templates). (Italics added.)
 * The italicized end of the quote supports reasonable variation among sidebars, particularly where persuasive reasons have been provided for deviations from the Template:Sidebar default.
 * 6T. Here's a more explicit explanation for what gave rise to sidebar B above. B used the top-down markup language from the Template:Sidebar to replace the bottom-up formatting of its predecessor, sidebar (A) above. The latter has the disadvantage requiring formatting statements at each new section, as the Edit mode of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Economics_sidebar&oldid=524274974 shows, whereas (B) uses parsimonious hierarchical formatting as at the edit mode of (B) at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Economics_sidebar&oldid=507254455. Unforunately (B) also dispensed with some simple or elegant fixes subsequently remedied by Frietjes (F.) on 11/28-29/12 per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Economics_sidebar&action=history.
 * 7T. F. generously provided more fixes at Template talk:Sidebar, from which I have drawn. Of course, no edits of anyone here are necessarily immune to criticism.  That's why there's critical rationalism but also the principle of charity, not to mention wp:guidelines, to facilitate discussion.  Thank you.  --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

8T. For the record, to the right is a comparison of sidebar (A) at the top above (with older bottom-up formatting referred to in (6T)) and (A.1) that uses Template:Sidebar formatting (facilitated by User:Frietjes per 6T) & without the problems of sidebar (B) at the top per earlier numbered points). By the way, the look of (A) and hence (A.1), is mostly due fine work of Cretog8 and extraordinary care of Morphh in earlier edits. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to move "The economy" box to top as heading for Economies-by-country map
The proposal here is to go from the current sidebar (A.1) to (A.2) below. In (A.1), The economy: concept and history at the bottom is a stand-alone box and has the only such econ-article-sidebar link, because it does not fit under any of the headings above it. An argument for moving it up to the top just below Economics is that it would serve there as a heading-link  between Economics above it and the Economies-by-country map below it. Having a heading for the map is also consistent with the heading/contents sequence of the sections that follow.

Also, at the bottom, The economy: concept and history might look like an afterthought to Economics. Arguably, the dimensions of an economy are anything but that. Economics as an academic field is concerned with study of phenomena in "the economy", whether at the local/micro or macro/world level and whether at a period in time or over time. Placement of the The economy box immediately after Economics represents by its juxtaposition a connection between the two. The shortened form of "The economy" in (A.2) is facilitated by its proximity to Economics above it and the Economies-by-country map that follows, which add context. The Economy article is conceptual and general while the Economies-by-country map is applied and particular in its elements (the respective economies by country) as is appropriate in a heading-contents relation.

'The economy' in (A.2) is arguably better than 'Economy' as a heading to distinguish the economy as an economic system from other uses, including the top of Economy (disambiguation) & the definitions at economy. Clarity arguably trumps an alleged WP:HEADINGS problem from use of 'The' in the heading.

The non-bold font of Economies by country in (A.2) (and unlike the bold of (A.1)) serves to distinguish it from the bold-like font in the heading above. In this respect the non-bold is consistent with the non-bold of links in contents boxes of sections that follow. As in the previous section above, the heavy lifting of technical assistance to facilitate the formatting changes reflected in (A.2) was generously provided by Frietjes. Documentation and related prior discussion leading up to (A.2) is at Template talk:Sidebar. Comments are welcome. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 13:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed re-simplification of 'Technical methods' section from 7 to 4 links below heading
or "JEL proportionate" vs. "fair synopsis" of 'Technical methods' section

The following concerns templates (A) (favored by me) and (F), the current Econ sidebar, both to the right & labelled as to differences under consideration in this subsection. Recent removal of the Economic statistics link from the 'Technical methods' section in the Econ sidebar is a convenient occasion for considering more broadly the number of lines & links in that template section. I number the following paragraphs for ease of reference (if that's necessary per discussion below).

1T. I'd like to make a case for returning from 7 links and 4 lines in (F) to 4 links and 2 lines in (A) for the technical-methods section with 2 links in (F) migrating to the "Fields & Subfields" section of (A) below & the addition of Personnel economics reflected in (A), for a total of one fewer lines in (A) compared to (F).

1T1. The object of (A) is an austere parsimony (economy!) and simplicity in the 'Technical methods' section, esp. appropriate for accessibility of the sidebar to the curious general reader. (Note: The 4-links-only of (A) in 'Technical methods' is not new. It is the same as for sidebar from November 2008 to October 2010, which followed a fairly lengthy discussion among 5 editors in 2008 at Template talk:Economics sidebar/Archive 1 when "Game theory" was also placed in the (A) position, which similarly helped to simplify that earlier section.

1T2. (A) and (F) represent different paradigms. The heading link for that section is JEL classification codes. (A) is "JEL proportionate" in the sense of having no more than 2 lines and 4 links. None of the subject links in the template exceeds those numbers as to the 19 primary JEL classification codes categories and subcategories. The added 2 lines and 3 links in (F) over (A) arguably bog down the general reader to whom presumably the template should be appealing in the 'Technical methods' section. Another discussant earlier argued for the added links as going toward a "fair synopsis" of 'Technical methods' section. The heading link to JEL section with detailed links arguably makes so much detail unnecessary.

1T3. The first paragraph of Mathematical economics rightly cites the advantages of clarity, generality, and simplicity noted in the footnotes there as to application of mathematics to economics. Similarly Paul Samuelson and William Nordhaus in their influential introductory economics textbook describes econometrics as allowing economists "to sift through mountains of data to extract simple relationships." (2004, 18th ed., p. 5). I believe that most general readers and most economists would, in the present context, see an advantage in representing the Technical methods of the sidebar section with similar simplicity.

1T4. Moving down Game theory and Computational economics to the "Fields & subfields" section further greatly simplifies the 'Technical methods' section and places those subjects in a narrative context relative to preceding and succeeding links that might not be obvious otherwise, thereby increasing information to the general reader as to their connections to nearby economics (sub)fields.
 * 1T4.1. One unnecessary & muddy nested hierarchy is thereby avoided, namely that in the 'Technical methods' in going from the Math econ to the subareas of Game theory etc. Instead, "Fields & subfields" serves the the same function for Game theory and Comput. econ but more simply (one less hierarchical device).

As to further particulars:

2T. Per JEL classification codes link for the 'Technical methods' section, there is no current disagreement expressed on this Talk page on inclusion of Math econ, Econometrics, & Experimental economics in that section.

3T. National accounting/national accounts is usually discussed at the beginning the macro section of Econ Principles textbooks, which argues for its appropriateness in the 'Technical methods' section per economic data referred to in the JEL classification codes, so it was argued at Template talk:Economics sidebar and Template talk:Economics sidebar below.
 * 3T1. In particular, depending on emphasis, National accounting may be properly classified in the JEL classification codes at JEL: C8, found via the 'Technical methods' link. True, not all economic data are discussed there, but economic data does have a prominent link in the Lead there and in the last paragraph of National accounting, where other prominent macro measures such as the CPI and the unemployment rate in relation to national accounts measures.

4T. Computational economics is surely something Econ grad students or researchers might be interested in, but a more specialized component of the approach has its own section in Mathematical economics, about the same length as the Game-theory section, making that part of computational economics (in particular its 2nd paragraph) redundant in the Tech. methods section of the Econ sidebar. In a similar vein:
 * Experimental economics section, makes its presence in Tech. methods redundant as to its (very strong) relation to Experimental econ.
 * Econometrics, last paragraph, though brief, has a link to computational economics & the same 6 linked references as in the latter as pertaining to econometrics. So, that aspect of comp. econ. is covered in econometrics, reducing the need for separate link in the Tech. methods section to show the connection.

5T. The Mathematical economics sub-section (including 3 sub-sub-sections) now incorporates most of the Mathematical optimization + more than 2X as much additional material as the sidebar link to Mathematical optimization#Economics. So, that arguably makes Mathematical optimization redundant in the template. Arguably, the Math econ article should be the go-to article as to Math. optim. in econ. That has added cogency given the (unique) Good-article ranking among general field/area-econ articles of Math econ. (I note as an aside the high quality of the Mathematical optimization, whose most frequent contributors are User:Rinconsoleao, an economist, and User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz, a major contributor to Mathematical economics.)

6T. What about the other part, "Fields & subfields"? (A) moves Computational econ to that section of the sidebar following Managerial economics. The latter mentions and links to computational econ at the end of the 1st paragraph, making the transition seamless. The 1st sentence of Computational economics is:
 * Computational economics is a research discipline at the interface between computer science and economic and management science (per fn. link there to Computational Economics)

That quotation also makes its connection to Managerial econ. clear enough, in effect providing an Econ. sidebar narrative as to the relation of the 2 subjects. Placement there in the sidebar arguably gives better context to the subject, rather than expecting the uninformed reader to make the connection.

7T. That leaves open appropriate placement of Game theory as between (A) & (F). By parallel argument, the higher-level discussion of GT in Math econ makes its placement of GT in that section less urgent, given the entré provided by the "Fields & subfields" section and a good place to put it. Now, if readers could be expected to read successively successive articles in the template, there would be no harm in its earlier placement. I just believe that ME gives the reader a chance to link GT there, and a pause (that refreshes?) later on under the "Fields & subfields" heading, which places GT in a relevant context of Information economics (whose last Lead paragraph a GT connection per games with perfect information, complete information, and incomplete information) and Industrial organization (per 2nd para. of IO with mention of the GT connection). It's not an accident that most econ principles texts that treat GT at all do so in connection with IO, since IO provides a vivid illustration as to uses of GT, for example, Paul Samuelson and William Nordhaus in their Economics textbook.

8T. The placement of Personnel economics after Labour economics is obvious, given the serious overlap now noted in each respective article. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 13:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC) + (1T4.1) above per another simplicity dimension of the proposal & (3T1) per discussion of national-accounts data & other econ. data as discussed in national accounts. --19:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

9T. I am restoring and reactivating this thread (currently referenced and linked to in the section that follows titled "Bad proposal") from archiving earlier today because of its possible relevance to future "Technical methods" section adds to which comments above might apply. Of course someone might make a proposal to add back something in the "Technical methods" section, but it may be reasonable to make more apparent what contrary arguments have been made above, the better to respond to them if a better contrary argument can be made. Thank you. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 11:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)