Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Nobel Laureates in Economics


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 16:20, 4 November 2008.

List of Nobel Laureates in Economics
My second entry for the FLC contest. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 19:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Have you gone through and made sure that all of the nationalities match the Nobel website? Random users tend to change them, so if you haven't, you probably should. -- Scorpion0422 19:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Double checked with the official site. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 17:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments from SatyrTN
 * Should "laureates" be capitalized? Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences seems to do so (usually), especially when following "Nobel" - as in "Nobel Laureate", though by itself it seems to (usually) not be, as in "three laureates from Germany".
 * No capitalization necessary. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 17:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm. Scorpion0422 seems to disagree. A Google search on kva.se for "nobel laureate" on the Royal Swedish Academy's site turns up about 50/50. A Google search on nobelprize.org returns almost all of them with the capital "L". Personally, I think it's a title and should be capitalized.
 * Was changed if you didn't notice. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 08:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, the prize is in "Economic Sciences", so the list should probably be renamed accordingly.
 * No. The official site refers to them as laureates in Economics, not Economic Sciences. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 17:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. Withdrawn.


 * In the second paragraph of the lede, the phrase "by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences" is redundant.
 * Don't see where this is. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 17:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems to have disappeared :)


 * After reading Dabomb87's comment above, I'm going to recommend:
 * As of 2008, 40 Nobel Memorial Prizes in Economic Sciences have been given to 62 individuals.
 * Note that there's a space between the period and ref #7 that should be removed.


 * The table should be sortable. There's a bit of re-structuring that needs to happen to make that happen.  For instance, all the names should be entered using sortname.  Also, the images will need to have their own column header. See List of Vice Presidents of the United States for an example of how to accomplish this.  Also, over-link the "Country" column, since re-sorting may make the "first" not be linked - see the fourth entry here. For the record, neither "Rationale" nor the new "Image" column should be sortable - add   to that header.
 * No, I don't think it should be sortable. The only point to having a sortable table are that the items are worth being sorted, and here, the only worthwhile thing it would do is make it possible to classify by country. On the flip side, I would have to have multiple rows with identical items in the "Year" and "Rationale" columns. While I do make the table sortable in other lists (i.e. the laureates by universities lists), it is because there are more items that make sorting useful (namely the column showing what prize they won). Here, it leads to a ton of redundancy in the table, and I'd prefer not to do that. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 17:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It's probably Wikipedia bias, but if possible, I'd prefer seeing the barnstar medal instead of the image of the 2008 announcement. :)
 * There isn't a free image available with this as far as I can tell. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 17:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Pity :( But not a show-stopper :)


 * Add a "See also" to List of Nobel laureates in Physics. Could you move these two "See also" items to the "Nobel Prizes" footer?
 * I'm still going through the various lists tied to the Nobel Prizes and trying to make sense of them, so until I can decide where to put all this stuff (as there are extraneous lists everywhere), I'll leave this for now. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 17:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As it stands, I Oppose this FLC, but will revisit. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose: List should be renamed with capital L, per comments above. I still think the list should be sortable.  I recognize the redundancy issue, but with fewer than half of the years needing a repeat of the rationale (17 out of 40), I think the benefit of being able to sort by name, country, and year outweighs that. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * (Images generally aren't encouraged in reviews. It's a novelty, better not to use it) I still disagree. 18/40 of the years have multiple laureates, and making the list sortable means 22 redundant year and rationale entries for the sake of making the reader able to sort by country (sorting by name is a novelty, and the years aren't really "sortable" because it's how the list is ordered, and the only real use would be to flip the table). Furthermore, if this change is made, then the structures for the rest of the laureates lists would have to be changed, and given that the original prizes go back to 1901, that's a ton of redundancy in large tables. It's a cost-benefit issue, and I don't believe the redundancy is worth having the ability to sort by country. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 08:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment sources look good. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  13:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Good luck. I will support once the comments are resolved. Mitch 32(UP) 22:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments -
 * 1) Why is Nobel Foundation linked in EVERY single reference? Please remove the links except for the first time it is used.
 * Haven't seen that as a requirement anywhere. Given how many FAs don't do this, I'm disinclined to follow this. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 23:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Can more pictures be added?
 * No. Commons has a woeful lack of pictures with good sources/permissions. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 23:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) For 2005's Robert Aumann - can it be explained why he has 2 countries rather than 1?
 * He's affiliated with two countries. It's not anything special. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 23:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Do any of those references have an author?
 * No. — sephiroth bcr  <sup style="font-family:Verdana;">( converse ) 23:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What are SEK's in US Dollars?
 * Recall that we're not US-centric, so this is unnecessary. — sephiroth bcr  <sup style="font-family:Verdana;">( converse ) 23:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll support - although I feel that those reference links should be removed. They are an eyesore for me. But what you want is final, I guess. Mitch 32(UP) 23:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Meh, removed the links. I normally like them linked, but when they're from the same source, I'm more inclined to agree. — sephiroth bcr  <sup style="font-family:Verdana;">( converse ) 23:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Grrr seven of those before 1980 and without images have images on their article. Many more after '80 probably do also. Nergaal (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And they all have bad sources/permissions. I'm not using these images for a reason. — sephiroth bcr  <sup style="font-family:Verdana;">( converse ) 02:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.