Template:Outline of knowledge coverage Template:Werdnabot

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:06, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

A couple of editors interested in physics have unilaterally moved Inflation, first to Price inflation and then to Inflation (financial). I think this is unsatisfactory, both in terms of outcome and process. Discussion at the talk page.JQ (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A more neutral way of saying that would be: "There is discussion on-going at talk: Inflation regarding a renaming of the article. The issues involve the existence of other types of inflation (especially Cosmic inflation) as well as other types of inflation in economics, such as monetary inflation." NJGW (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would have been a more neutral way of saying things, if it were correct. As I mentioned, the name change was made unilaterally, before the discussion, which reached the conclusion that no such change was needed. At the time I posted, the change was not going on at talk: Inflation, since that had been converted to a disambiguation page. JQ (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After much ado this has finally been resolved. Inflation occupies the main namespace, with hatnote disambiguation links to Inflation (cosmology) and Inflation (disambiguation). Inflation theory and Inflationary theory are phrases more commonly used in physics, and so redirect to Inflation (cosmology), however, Inflation (cosmology) must also keep hatnote disambiguation links back to Inflation (an increase in prices) and Inflation (disambiguation). LK (talk) 06:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Over on the Administrator's Noticeboard [1], I asked for somebody to say something to SlamDiego about his continued vandalism ([2], [3], [4], [5]) of the Talk:Marginalism page. 209.217.195.139 (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have repeatedly asked Robert to stop spamming econ talk pages with links to his 'blog. In the case of these 'blog entries, the relevant content could have been copied-and-pasted or paraphrased. He is simply trying to drive traffic to his 'blog.

The material in question at Talk:Marginalism is 'blog spam, discussion of 'blog spam, and a personal attack by a third party.

(The 'blog entry to which he links contains a short list of references in support of the notion that marginalism should be seen as a response to Marxism (which notion was long previously discussed by the article).)

I think that Robert's 'blog needs to be added to the list of sites to which links need to be banned, to put an end to his search engine optimization. —SlamDiego_←T 00:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the result of Robert's complaint and of my reply is that he has been administratively warned against future spamming. —SlamDiego_←T 20:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Fascism needs some help with articles about fascist economic theory and practise. The main article on the topic is Economics of Fascism. Please could someone from this project improve that article, or offer some advice on it? Some other articles on the topic: Class collaboration, Corporatism, Heroic capitalism, State capitalism, State socialism, Supercapitalism (concept in Italian Fascism), and Third Position. Thank you for any help you can provide. Ecto (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I declined the speedy deletion on this one, added your project tag, and cleaned it up a bit. Anyone who's interested in articles that enter or leave one of the deletion processes should keep an eye on your project's WP:Article alerts page. - Dank (push to talk) 15:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone have any idea about how to sign up for our project's WP:Article alerts page? LK (talk) 08:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're already signed up; see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Economics#Article alerts for your bot-updated list. - Dank (push to talk) 14:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed in the Behavioral economics article, sections Behavioral_economics#Key_figures_in_behavioral_economics and Behavioral_economics#Key_scholars_in_behavioral_finance. I'm not sure about how appropriate such sections are. I do think they're quite an attraction for problems, since it's tricky to have clear guidelines for what makes someone a "key figure".

My feeling is that anyone who's a key figure should get mention (or at least their work should get a mention) in the article itself, which would be better because it will have context besides just a link. And then those sections could be removed. Other thoughts? CRETOG8(t/c) 23:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that it would be better to have mention of ostensible key figures integrated into the text, in a way that makes clear the nature of their significance. My question is of whether it is better to keep maintain lists as, in effect, stub mentions. —SlamDiego_←T 00:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who decides who is a key figure? This list has led to all sorts of spamming. I think it is better left off. If a person has done major work in behavioral economics, it will be mentioned in the article.Sposer (talk) 14:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The standards of “notability” would of course have to apply (and pehaps more, for the figure to be held to be key). But There could be consensus amongst editors on the talk page that a figure was notable before such time as a discussion had been integrated into the text. It may be that, in practice, having a list in the article will not work well, and that there should just be a to-do list on the talk page. But I don't think that having a list in the article can be ruled-out a priori. —SlamDiego_←T 17:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the notability guidelines are for having an article on that particular person or subject. A person doesn't necessarily need to meet such a standard to be used for example as an attribution for an opinion, so long as the opinion itself is due weight. It seems to me that the body of the text would present areas for opinion that could be attributed to key individuals. I don't think the list should be there and would suggest moving the list to the talk page, giving editors time to take those names and integrate them into the article. Morphh ^(talk) 19:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the figures in question aren't simply being presented as notable, but as key (as if developments would have been significantly different had no one made the contributions that they made), which argues that they should indeed be sufficiently “notable” for their own articles, and perhaps then-some. —SlamDiego_←T 12:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think key figure sections are perfectly reasonable for articles starting along the editing arc. We would prefer that they be integrated into the text or contextualized against different views of the discipline, but if I had to choose between a "key figures" section and no "key figures" section, I would prefer the content stayed in. I think that editorial discretion and demand for sources that say "XYZ person is a key figure" will help keep these lists short. I can't imagine more than 2 dozen entries on a list like that. Protonk (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is being restructured and debated as to formatting the content and content direction. Right now the article is pretty good and getting better and any interested parties might want to come and participate or get involved with suggestions History of economic thought - skip sievert (talk) 15:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone here interested in expanding and creating articles on Australian economists? Richard Charles Mills and J. G. Phillips (which I've been tidying after noticing it in a poor state). Carcharoth (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads-up, our friendly neighborhood sock puppeteer User:Karmaisking has recently developed a new tactic, where he inserts edits with one account, then claims to revert it with another account to try and camouflage the insertion. See for example this edit and this edit by two new KiK socks, where he claims to revert his other socks' edit, but actually doesn't. KiK apparently has a lot of time on his hands, as he even goes so far as to actually revert a host of sock insertions, to hide a non-revert labeled as a revert somewhere in there. Since KiK usually creates puppets in droves, it's probably best to revert to the last good version when you see suspicious behavior typical of KiK. LK (talk) 13:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. This was a borderline WP:CSD#A1 because I can't tell what the article is about ... simple deposit? single deposit? I've also got a vague memory that there was a spammer who used this phrase. Anywho, I've added your project tag, prodded, and I'm just passing this along. Btw, while I'm here, note that you can get notice of proposed deletions through WP:Article alerts, which show up on your project page under (wait for it) Proposed deletion. - Dank (push to talk) 17:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully this is the right place to post this, but I wanted to inform someone that Wikipedia's Net Capital Outflow page is egregiously incorrect. And when I say "incorrect" I don't mean "controversial," I don't mean, "debatable," I mean that it is a confusing, and often 100% false article. Even the images (the graphs) are ludicrously wrong, I'm curious where they were even taken from. I'm not sure what the policy is for this type of thing, but at the very least there should be a warning on the page to say that this information may be incorrect, or isn't probably cited or whatever. I don't think a single word in this article is salvageable (except perhaps the very last paragraph/sentence, although even that should be rewritten because it is absurdly confusing and overcomplicated), it should ideally be entirely rewritten. I would do it myself, but I recognize that I don't have the expertise to rewrite this.

But as it stands right now, in terms of educating the public, the existence of this article does more harm than good. Until someone is up to the task of rewriting it, I think it would be best for this article to be deleted entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.252.203.21 (talk) 21:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks basically correct to me. A bit technical, and a minor error on the intro (fixed), but basically correct. LK (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor User:Smallman12q has inserted large numbers of citations for standard terms to a textbook (w/o page numbers) as follows

• Sullivan, arthur (2003). Economics: Principles in action. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458: Pearson Prentice Hall. p. 79. ISBN 0-13-063085-3. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: location (link)

Obviously, this is a good faith attempt to improve the article, but I don't find the result very helpful. My feeling is that we would be better off either including page numbers or doing without a reference. I'm also concerned about citing a single, fairly obscure text so much, but I don't have a good alternative. Any thoughts?JQ (talk) 11:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also have found the repeated insertions of the same reference text without page numbers a bit problematic. I think it's good faith, and we just need to talk with him, and ask for him to slow down and add page numbers. (And perhaps send him a copy of Mankiw's Principles of Economics.) LK (talk) 11:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those articles that I added that reference do have page numbers. It was when I first seriously participated in wikipedia so I wasn't fully aware of all the policies, guidelines, and whatnot, but I did take these actions in good faith.Smallman12q (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could go back and add page numbers to the references and remove those where there is no good cite in the book. Otherwise I think we will have to remove those that lack page numbers. JQ (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked over the Adam Smith article. Does anybody else think it's ready to try and go for a GA class article. Deavenger (talk) 17:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same thing, but I am wary from our last attempt. I'm willing to give it another go conditional on a few editors making the same commitment. -FrankTobia (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Deflation article has been tagged for cleanup since 2006. Can someone take a look at it and make some comments on the talk page about what it needs? Thank you. RJFJR (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Economic surplus. Apparently, there are lots of university lecture notes that conflate the notions of producer's surplus and economic profit and consequently state that perfect competition drives producer's surplus to zero. I'm following David D. Friedman (Price Theory, Hidden Order), which clearly argues that producer's surplus should be imputed as a cost to the perfectly-competitive firm, but it would be good to find some more sources on this issue. --Classicalecon (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page needs to engage with critiques of the ontological and epistemological presuppositions of experimental economics. For example, experimental economics takes as given--as 'natural'--a particular understanding of individual behavior that should instead be regarded as constructed, or at least, historically contingent. Why should one believe in (take as given) the behavioral assumptions attributed to human individuals by experimental economics instead of regarding them as constructed and/or amplified or reinforced by the particular historically contingent contexts and institutions within which the individual is located? Using experimentation to verify presupposition doesn't prove that the essence of individual economic agents coheres to the presuppositions held by the experimenter. There is an element of circularity here. The institutional context within which individual economic agents exist shapes individual behavior. This behavior cannot be assumed to represent the essence of individuals (homo economicus) without rigorous comparison across varying (historical and cultural) institutional contexts across space and time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.186.245.142 (talk) 07:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is simply not a place for the active reform of economics. There are, meanwhile, various fora for the sort of discourse that you propose. —SlamDiego_←T 07:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the proper function (distinct from that of the Talk: page) of the /Comments page of which Template:WikiProject Economics invites creation for each tagged page? —SlamDiego_←T 12:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the template was changed to invited such separate comments with an edit of 01:23, 28 April 2009, by Funandtrvl. Beyond an edit summary of “add parameters that project uses”, there seems to have been no discussion. —SlamDiego_←T 12:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]