Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics/Archive 10

Does econometrics – not the article itself, but all topics within the scope of econometrics – fall under the purview of this WikiProject? I'm asking because I'm currently adding WikiProject ratings for articles and redirects on econometric topics (e.g., statistical/econometric tests, econometric modeling-related concepts, and econometric models like Wald test, structural break, and GARCH, respectively). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:29, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm still intermittently categorizing pages, so I'm just going to continue operating under the assumption that econometric concepts fall within the scope of this project unless there's an objection to this sometime in the near future; I really don't feel like going back through dozens of pages to remove the {{WikiProject Economics}} template. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the ones you named and other econometrics articles do belong in WikiProject Economics, and in WikiProject Statistics too. Thank you for doing it! -- econterms (talk) 17:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

There was a discussion at Template_talk:Inflation#Nominal_vs._real_GDP which prompted a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_January_25#Inflation-related_templates_that_were_initially_created_by_mistake. Is anyone with an economics background available to weigh in at the TfD?--Father Goose (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

A draft has been initiated for the topic of "Free enterprise", which is currently a redirect with no article of its own. Please help improve this draft so that it can be moved to mainspace. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

See discussion here: Template_talk:WikiProject_Economics#Banner_content_aligned_to_fill_only_left_half_of_box

Jonpatterns (talk) 15:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Will someone review this draft, please? Is it technically sound, and should it be accepted? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

It's fine and notable. I am generally not in favor of having proofs in math or economics pages except when the proof itself is particularly important. I'll try to take a look at the page tomorrow for copyvio and exposition, but if I forget, and if copyvio checks are passed, feel free to accept it. Smmurphy^(Talk) 06:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Following up for anyone else who looks at this, it looks like it was accepted (by Robert McClenon). Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Is there a category for these hiding anywhere? I am working on a piece about the one -possibly- being built by cryptocurrency moguls in the Caribbean, with enough references to elaborate and prove notability... Yet, I am having a hard time categorizing it. Most of the CC categories are limited to the individual currencies, applications of cryptography or people involved with them. El Alternativo (talk) 10:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@El Alternativo: You can search for categories here: Special:Categories. More information about categoies and creating them here: Wikipedia:Categorization. Jonpatterns (talk) 20:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

We have a new WP:SPA roaming the monetary-policy related articles, apparently to promote current initiatives of the fringe group Positive Money in Europe.

Please see . Also AfD discussions at Positive Money and A Program for Monetary Reform. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, the Central Bank of Ireland has (finally) admitted Irish GDP (and GNP) are too distorted by multinational fund flows (like Apple), to be useful as economic statistics. They have now published GNI* (or Modified GNI) as their recommended metric. I wrote a wiki on Modified gross national income. I think Ireland's GDP per capita (and GNP per capita) figures should be replaced with GNI* per capita on the relevant pages, and on the datafeeds used for the Economy of Ireland / Republic of Ireland (and related) pages. Is this a fair conclusion. thanks Britishfinance (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

This editor is inserting the link to an unknown website of dubious reliability into a large number of trade-related pages. I've reverted two such instances, but I'm prohibited from doing the same revert on more pages. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Over on WP:WPM we been working on identifying draft which come under our project and reviewing them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/List of math draft pages. Part of this process involved finding draft which had mathematical of chemical equations in them. Quite a few of them come under your project and we have listed them at Wikipedia:List of draft pages on science and engineering. You may wish to examine these and see if any should be promoted to main space. --Salix alba (talk): 07:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I could do with someone who understands economics and suchlike (as I do not) to help out at Talk:Equity premium puzzle. There is a bit of a dispute between editors about the article. There have been discussions about COI and "ownership" of the article by one editor. ExpertIdeasBot left a message from an expert saying the article is lacking "many important contributions to this literature". I am unable to mediate this as I don't know thing one about the subject matter. Thanks. Fish+Karate 09:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The article should have been under the WP:ECON umbrella from the start. Sadly it's been orphaned at WP:POLITICS for way too long, and is in dire need of review and clean up. I find the whole article to be sub-par. I beg someone with more knowledge than me on the subject, give the whole article an overhaul.(Rettetasten (talk) 22:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC))

• 
  Group structure and statistics of “Gourmet Master Co. Ltd.”, as of 31 December 2017 - 「開曼美食達人股份有限公司」的集團架構及統計，截至2017年12月31日

Please open the the original SVG file on a desktop browser other than Internet Explorer to interact with and explore the statistical analysis within the image) in which I have included data, mainly extracted from this PDF (mostly starting from page 159).

To improve the usability and quality of this interactive image, I would like to get some feedback or critique from an economist, journalist or researcher specialized in tax avoidance or international structures of companies. In particular, I would like to hear what other data categories I should include into the image for particular interest.

Kind regards, Vincent Mia Edie Verheyen (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

My primary comment is not as a specialist, but as an ordinary user: wow, that's really cool! I had no ideas SVG's could do that!

If you are planning on using this to illustrate tax structuring, the next logical step in my mind would be having some representation of tax payments in there. That could be another shaded category according to tax paid, or perhaps some arrows. I don't know the exact structure of these particular companies, and the underlying reality may be too complicated to represent uniformly. But at the moment it's not immediately obvious what conclusion I am to draw from the image other than just that "capital, income, and assets are not necessarily correlated with one another" when it comes to holding companies. But maybe that's enough.

Again, super cool! MarginalCost (talk) 03:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Would love to get another pair of eyes on the changes being seen in the space launch service provider industry in recent years, as more economic incentives appear and have effect in the launch services industry. Unlike any other mode of transport (automobile, marine, train, aircraft), this industry, for the first five+ decades that humans possessed spaceflight technology, had been principally a government and nation state thing, where even commercial orbital payloads (after c. 1980) flew on launch vehicles that had been developed, and were often operated by, government agencies. The industry has begun to undergo (somewhat) rapid change in the past decade.

To that end, would like to invite any interested editor to take a serious look at Space launch market competition, and join me in improving the article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education is hiring an experienced Wikipedian for a part-time (20 hours/week) position. The focus of this position is to help new editors (students and other academics) learn to edit Wikipedia. The main focus of the position is monitoring and tracking contributions by Wiki Education program participants, answering questions, and providing feedback. We're looking for a friendly, helpful editor who like to focus on article content, but also with a deep knowledge of policies and guidelines and the ability to explain them in simple, concise ways to new editors. They will be the third member of a team of expert Wikipedians, joining Ian (Wiki Ed) and Shalor (Wiki Ed). This is a part-time, U.S. based, remote or San Francisco based position.

We are especially interested in people with a background editing economics-related articles. See our Careers page for more information. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The imports happen when the foreign currencies are going out of the country and the exports happen when the foreign currencies are coming in to the country, because of the involvement of the Service Industries which include Tourism, Education and Financial Services, and the digital economy such as software and licensing, patent fees collections etc. in addition to physical goods being shipped between the countries.

220.233.185.148 (talk) 01:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC) MH

A discussion about Category:Social economists has been relisted. Please join the discussion if you wish. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Just a heads up, things are happening at Fractional-reserve banking. I'm afraid that I don't have time to deal with it right now. LK (talk) 09:44, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

You may be interested in contributing to this discussion regarding the global decline of extreme poverty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions#poverty

Benjamin (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello,

My name is Handslv and I am currently working on the page of Polanyi's paradox. Could you please add the page into the Wikiproject of economics? And could you please give me some suggestions on how to expand it with more details? Thank you very much!!!! --Handslv (talk) 06:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to split Economic inequality. According to this link the article is 202 kB and WP:SIZESPLIT suggests an article be split after 40 kB. Also, on the top of the page is a banner that is two years old suggesting the article should be split.

Since I am new, I would like to build a consensus first, rather than WP:BRD. To that end, I put a post on Talk:Economic_inequality and am contacting everyone who has edited the page in the past month and, in addition, I am contacting all the concerned Wikiprojects.

Thanks for your time and please come down to discuss! Seahawk01 (talk) 01:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Many of the "Economy of" pages contain a long list of statistics, along the lines of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_India#Data

I'm not sure precisely how these statistics help the typical Wikipedia user.

It's difficult to see trends in the data in a long table like this - graphs would be much easier to read and understand.

There's no discussion of the data - it's just plonked there - so the typical reader doesn't know what to make of it.

Someone who wanted to download the data would be better off with a link to the original source, e.g. the IMF, because that would contain for example a clear definitions of terms, and have more download options.

Anyone who just wants the latest numbers can generally find them in the box at the top right in the Wikipedia page.

To my mind, these long lists of economic data violate the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information"

In particular this guideline: Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. (e.g., statistics from the main article United States presidential election, 2012 have been moved to a related article Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012). Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists offers more guidance on what kind of lists are acceptable, and Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria offers guidance on what entries should be included.

Thoughts? Replace the statistics with a link to the IMF? Create a hundred or so "economic data on ..." pages? This would make the individual "economy of" pages more readable, at the cost of making Wikipedia harder to navigate. And then someone would start expanding the "data on the economy of" page, and adding statistics back into the other page...

I personally would favour cutting all but the most recent statistics, and replacing them with links or graphs. But it's a lot of work. Thoughts?Fwoolley (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

A friend of mine used Wikipedia's econometrics articles to get through her graduate econometrics courses, and for writing her PhD thesis. At one level it's great that the articles are so accurate and authoritative that researchers use them.

But I'm thinking the typical person looking up logit, tobit, OLS etc on Wikipedia most likely to be an undergrad, or less sophisticated user.

Thoughts on dumbing down the econometrics articles, or at least putting a non-technical section before all of the technical stuff? Huge amounts of work for minimal benefit? Would it make the articles excessively long and clunky? A great idea that would serve the Wikipedia user community?Fwoolley (talk) 19:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Article leads are supposed to be an accessible summary of the body, so that would be the best place to restate graduate-level content from the body using non-technical language. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Simplifying the leads would help. But the leads aren't the place to put substantive content, e.g. a basic introductory-level explanation of what OLS is, how and when it works, what its advantages and disadvantages are. There's still a need for the kind of non-technical explanation of OLS that can be found in, e.g. Peter Kennedy's Guide to Econometrics, or Angrist's Mastering Metrics.Fwoolley (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh. Generally, the reading level of a section of an article should be as high/technical as necessary to sufficiently cover the subtopic. That said, I agree that what you've proposed covering would be useful for these articles. Systematically implementing that in articles on statistical models would probably require the creation of a {{WikiProject style advice}} page with input from WP:WikiProject Statistics and other editors from this WikiProject though. It certainly wouldn't hurt to standardize the layout and scope of coverage in these articles. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I like the idea of creating a style advice guide along those lines. Probably not something I'll get to any time soon, but that points to a way to build consensus.Fwoolley (talk) 01:26, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

We do have the WP:TECHNICAL guideline, which discusses best practices for writing technical articles. It's not exactly a style guide, but has plenty of good advice. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 03:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

For a number of years we have been experiencing a steady decline in the number of administrators as a result of attrition and a declining number of editors willing to consider adminship. Things have reached a point where we are starting to experience chronic backlogs in important areas of the project including noticeboards, requests for closure, SPI, CSD & etc. If you are an experienced editor with around two years (or more) of tenure, 10k edits give or take and no record of seriously disruptive behavior, please consider if you might be willing to help out the community by becoming an administrator. The community can only function as well as we all are willing to participate. If you are interested start by reading WP:MOP and WP:RFAADVICE. Then go to WP:ORCP and open a discussion. Over the next few days experienced editors will take a look at your record and let you know what they think your chances are of passing RfA (the three most terrifying letters on Wikipedia) as well as provide you with feedback on areas that might be of concern and how to prepare yourself. You can find a list of experienced editors who may be willing to nominate you here. Finally, I may not have this page on my watchlist, so if you want to reply to me directly please ping me. Thank you and happy editing... -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand why I'm not considered on the joint effort . if there is three then what's the percentage for the non-worker Lchun333 (talk) 04:09, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I hate the drop this here and run. But someone has inserted an anti trade rant in the article on David Ricardo. I would fix it myself but I'm currently traveling and am editing on my mobile phone. Thanks to anyone who looks at this. LK (talk) 02:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

All, there's a discussion underway at Talk:Louisiana Purchase about converting the purchase price into today's dollars. This could use input from those more knowledgeable than I am. It seems this has been discussed before, but I can't figure out what may or may not have ever been decided. If anything is decided this time, it might be a very good idea to leave a <!--comment--> in the article to advise people like me that stumble upon it in the future. Thanks, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The WikiJournal of Humanities is a free, peer reviewed academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's humanities, arts and social sciences content. We started it as a way of bridging the Wikipedia-academia gap. It is also part of a WikiJournal User Group along with Wiki.J.Med and Wiki.J.Sci. The journal is still starting out and not yet well known, so we are advertising ourselves to WikiProjects that might be interested.

Editors

• Invite submissions from non-wikipedians
• Coordinate the organisation of external academic peer review
• Format accepted articles
• Promote the journal

Authors

• New Wikipedia articles on topics that don't yet have a Wikipedia page, or only a stub/start
• Existing Wikipedia articles to be externally peer reviewed (analogous to GA / FA review - see submission page)
• Image articles, based around an important images, photographs or summary diagrams

If you want to know more, please see this recent interview with some WikiJournal editors, the journal's About page, or check out a comparison of similar initiatives. If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.

As an illustrative example, Wiki.J.Hum published its first article this month!

• Miles, Dudley; et al. (2018). "Æthelflæd, Lady of the Mercians". WikiJournal of Humanities. 1 (1): 1. doi:10.15347/wjh/2018.001. ISSN 2639-5347.

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 09:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Can anyone help?

• Talk:List of countries by GDP (PPP)#Charts showing change
• Talk:List of countries by GDP (nominal)#Charts showing change

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion is invited about a proposal to merge 'Foreign worker' into 'Migrant worker'. Thanks - Meticulo (talk) 12:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Rent regulation, which is about an article that is within the scope of this WikiProject. Qzekrom (talk) 07:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I would appreciate your input on the POV issues we have been discussing on this talk page, especially whether there is a consensus among economists (or social scientists generally) on the effects of rent controls and how to represent differing viewpoints. The most recent discussions are under § Significant viewpoints missing. Qzekrom (talk) 07:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Attention WikiProjects. We are designing a bot to do auto-assessment (among other tasks) and would appreciate your feedback. Qzekrom (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 06:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I noticed that The Transhumanist created Portal:Economics, and while a lot of the portals they have created are being considered for deletion, I believe this portal is worth saving. While Portal:Business and economics is better maintained than the new econ portal, I think business and econ should have separate portals because they are different subjects with some overlap. Right now, the "cover article" is Business economics, which only covers the intersection of business and economics; this portal's scope is the union of business and economics. How should we deal with the two portals? Qzekrom 💬 ^they_them 03:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the economics portal should be retained and that it is unhelpful to lump business and economics together. I would favour reducing the economics content in the business economics portal and making economics a ‘related portal’ there rather than a subcategory. Colin.champion (talk) 08:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Colin. - CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I created a new task force for Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics focusing on American currency. The task force, Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics/American currency task force, is still starting up and does not have many members. If anyone is interested in helping, feel free to do so. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

There is an article Supply creates its own demand which is seemingly wholly encompassed in scope (though written differently) from what appears in section 5.1 of Say's law. I'm not sure why there should be a dedicated page for this, and moreso the title is very likely to cause confusion with the article on Say's law itself. In fact, that's how I found it, I was searching for Say's law.. At the very least it should be renamed to "Keyne's rebuttal of Say's law" or something similar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleybovich (talk • contribs) 00:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Looking for some assistance making improvements to the Ethereum article. I've posted an edit request here, but so far editors have not updated the article. Are there any editors here that would be willing to take a look at my request on the Ethereum talk page?

For disclosure purposes - I work with a campaign consulting firm called Kivvit, and am reaching out on behalf of our client, Parity Technologies - so I'm keeping all my activity on talk pages rather than directly editing the article. I've also disclosed my COI on my user page and on the Ethereum talk page per Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure. Thanks! AlexLewis13 (talk) 15:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

AlexLewis13 can this be removed? Based on the Ethereum talk page it seems this was resolved. Bleybovich (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

The request at the Ethereum talk page has been resolved. Thanks! AlexLewis13 (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Could someone create an article on the real bills doctrine? We had an article on this topic from 2005 until a few minutes ago, when I deleted it because someone had identified it as copyright infringement — extensive amounts of infringing content were added in 2005, and extensive amounts remained in 2019. I deleted the article, rather than wiping everything infringing, because the scale of the infringement made me suspect that the whole article would be worthless if I just cut the bad content, and I doubted that we'd want the stub that was present in the first few revisions. If you'd like any assistance with the deleted page, please notify me at my talk page, and I'll do my best to help. Nyttend (talk) 22:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I am a Wikipedia user and I have some experience working on the Italian platform of Wikipedia. I am a Master’s student at Pisa University and, under the supervision of my professor of Economics, I would like to contribute to entries in economic issues in the English edition. I have already made some changes in the entry Economies of scale, that will appear on my Sandbox in the next few days. How may I proceed? Do you suggest that I modify these directly or do you think I should verify the accuracy on my Sandbox in advance? May someone advise me on this matter? Thanks in advance for your help. Best wishes, Mc cogg (talk) 10:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Be bold. Go ahead and make the changes yourself. If you wait for permission, you may be waiting a long time. Just be ready for others to edit your work in a similarly bold fashion without asking for permission. MarginalCost (talk) 12:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to add a bit about how regulations that make it harder to fire make firms more reluctant to hire. What are the relevant articles, and how should I go about this? I'd appreciate any advice or direction. Benjamin (talk) 05:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I asked an economics question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics#Math question at WP:CANCER. Would anyone like to jump in and destroy the many bad assumptions I almost certainly made? It will be fun! --Guy Macon (talk) 00:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Recently, I noted that some of the content about Medicaid estate recovery that was added to the following articles introduced neutrality and original research issues into these articles:

• Medicaid estate recovery (edit talk links history): Special:Diff/682619084/912949236
• Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (edit talk links history): Special:Diff/909824345/912954601
• Massachusetts health care reform (edit talk links history): Special:Diff/901904756/912699623
• Health insurance coverage in the United States (edit talk links history): Special:Diff/905346028/912738497
• Health insurance in the United States (edit talk links history): Special:Diff/910497164/912742742
• Medicaid (edit talk links history): Special:Diff/909480199/909790623

I brought this to the neutral point of view noticeboard at WP:NPOVN § Medicaid estate recovery and User:NormSpier, and the editor who added the content (NormSpier) agreed to have it examined for policy compliance.

If you are interested in the topic of Medicaid estate recovery, or in United States healthcare laws in general, please help us review the newly added content at the noticeboard discussion or on the talk pages of these articles. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 13:50, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

There is a request for comment on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act article. If you are interested, please participate at Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act § RfC: Recent additions. — Newslinger talk 06:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Looks like we may have some bad sourcing based on this: http://exple.tive.org/blarg/2019/10/23/80x25/ ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I've been reading the Wikipedia article on Gross World Product, which includes a table showing Bradford DeLong's work on estimating its historical values. However, DeLong, as Maddison has done before (and as he references in his work) uses purchasing power parity (PPP) to exchange the nominal currencies to 1990 Gheary-Khamis US dollars, the currency in which he gives his final ciphers. This could be expanded by including estimates calculated at market exchange rates, going as far back as 1880 (when the gold standard began to be used), and that's what I'm trying to do. The problem is that nobody seems to have done those calculations? Do you know of any source for that? Or a way to calculate them myself? Miguerum (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Talk:Supply chain finance#Merge "Reverse Factoring" and "Global supply chain finance" which was opened on 2 November 2019 and which has so far attracted no participants other than the nominator (not me), and to which members of this WikiProject may be able to contribute. Narky Blert (talk) 10:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm quite involved with the WikiProject Organized Labour. I've recently been involved with two articles covering workforce issues of India and Nepal. The articles are somewhat poorly named as Labour in Nepal and Labour in India. It's a little confusing because these could imply a political party, childbirth, and work. At the same time the issue itself is very significant - that is, the labour force and labour market within national economies - that the issue deserves stand alone articles for every country. It is generally seen as a subset of economic issues, but overlaps with demographics, law, history and politics. I've done some precursory searches through the archives, but not had any luck finding conversations on this issue before. If editors thought this was a good idea would seem the following:
1. An Ngram search comparing:

labour force,labour market,workforce

labor force,labor market,workforce

shows workforce as the overwhelmingly common usage (although interestingly a recent change). Although labour force and workforce are synonymous, labour market is not. I would generally argue that workforce in XX would be better as a general title since workforce is universal, whereas one could be part of the workforce but not be in the labour market (eg a person not looking for work), so labour markets could be covered within these articles. Also Labor force in the United States exists, but with Workforce could avoid US/UK english spelling issues.
2. An infobox could be created for each article using {{infobox economy}} as a base and including key labour market statistics defined by OECD and ILO.
3. Relevant to a number of other projects (Countries, Organized Labour, Statistics) - I've left a note on those projects of the comment here.
Thoughts?--Goldsztajn (talk) 14:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi - I wonder whether someone would be able to take a quick look at this series of edits and see whether the content and sourcing is sound. I have no strong grounds to assume anything other than good faith, but it's a new user who is referencing their own book - could be perfectly valid, but thought it would be worth checking and I don't know enough about the subject to be sure. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 13:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Regarding , what do other editors think the appropriate number of threads to leave displayed on this talk page should be? My understanding is that it is not uncommon for wikiprojects to have dozens of simultaneous projects. EllenCT (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

In my experience, 20 minimum threads seems to be rather high when configured to an age of 90 days. WikiProject Finance & WikiProject Globalization use 6 & 5 minimum threads respectively. However, they are configured to expire threads after only 30 days. I think WikiProject Economics would benefit from a minimum thread count of 5 to 10, and an expiry of 30 to 45 days. My general view is that minimum threads and thread expiry should generally have an inverse relationship: less-active projects warrant threads sticking around longer because it takes longer for them to get attention, while more-active projects may not need threads to stick around as long since they may resolve more quickly, and may instead have a desire to see more minimum threads since there will likely be more things to discuss. Ultimately it boils down to what a project is willing to handle. On talk pages with an aggressive auto-archiving configuration, editors can always include a <!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 12:00, 01 January 2020 (UTC) --> exception at the beginning of a talk page thread to exempt it from archiving (and remove it when the participants deem the thread ready for normal archiving). John Shandy` • talk 03:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Should the List of common misconceptions be included in this WikiProject?

It has a section on economics.

Benjamin (talk) 07:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes. The project can give it an importance ranking. Qzekrom (talk) 06:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Qzekrom: How can we go about that? I'm not familiar with how WikiProjects work. Benjamin (talk) 05:02, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Benjaminikuta: I just added a {{WPECON}} template to the talk page. All you would have to do is add an importance rating. Most WikiProjects rate it low or mid importance. Qzekrom (she/they • talk) 19:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Benjaminikuta: I have to reply to this for practice on reviewing an article and posting on a talk pageDshan19 (talk) 06:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dshan19: Eh? Do you have any input? Benjamin (talk) 07:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello!

I was redirected to the Women Economists (a list of women who are economists) page via the Women In Economics (research on the presence of women in the field of economics) page, which claimed there were "hundreds more" women listed on the WE page. However, when I visited, there were 7 entries, a couple of which were not individual women.

A quick google search of "women economists" returns a Worth.com article detailing 16 "powerhouse" female economists. This tells me that we can do at least 9 women significantly more justice by including them on the WE page. I would love to see them, and many more women included on that page, if someone would be willing to do the work.

Thank you for your time, and I wish you a great day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.5.110.6 (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I created Poverty Industrial Complex because I deemed it an important topic and something that people need to be aware of. However I'm sure that both linguistically and economically it need improvement. I'd be thankful of some of you could help with it. The article deals with funds meant to go towards vulnerable members of the society being misappropriated both through bureaucracies and privat for- profit contractors.--Sparrow (麻雀) 🐧 12:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello I was working on the article about Ricardo-Viner's specific factors model (adding links from other articles to it since it's flagged as orphan). I'm writing here because the title of the article is wrong: it should be Ricardo (without an H), while the Wiki-article is called "Richardo-Viner model" (with the H). In the Talk section of the article I see that the spelling mistake has been notified already in 2018 by another user. Yet, the issue is unresolved. Hence, I'm writing here.

--La Nuova Idea (mia) (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello all, the Shortages related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic needs help. Lot of news is popping out this weeks and we are not enough contributors to process them. We need volunteers to read the news and write down additional content base on them. There is also meta-analysis to document : what impact this shortages and solutions will have in term of public policies, health care workers' health, etc. Where can we call for help ? Please have fun joining the push. Yug (talk) 13:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Philosophy of business is pretty much a stub, but it would seem to be a very important article, considering the amount books written on the topic; and even the subcategory of Sun Tzu's Art of War in business books are very numerous. We don't have coverage, and it could do with some help. Could editors familiar with the topic expand the article? -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 10:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

While hunting for CS1 errors I encountered this orphan article tagged as of interest to this WikiProject. I cleaned some cite template errors, removed references/citations linked to Google Docs, email attachments, Google Drive, and one blacklisted site. I am not a subject matter expert nor do I understand Russian. Perhaps someone here is and does.

• Economic development of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation

—¿philoserf? (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I have declined this draft as being written as a statement of the author's opinion, that the doctrine is discredited. I have requested that the submitter work with other editors to rewrite it. If economists consider the doctrine to be discredited, an article should state that economists consider it to be discredited. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

This article's author does not intend to discredit the real bills doctrine, but instead to define it, to show its history of varied interpretations by multiple economists, and to show that its effect, good or bad, is dependent on the circumstances of the institutional environment in which it is used.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I am again requesting a review of this draft. I think that this concept has had enough of an impact on economic thought that it should be described in its own article. The question is whether this draft presents it in a neutral fashion as seen by other reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I have collected a handful of economics-related articles with links to DAB pages where expert attention would be welcome. (I had collected 40 or 50, but when I reviewed my bookmarks only these few remained.) Search for "disam" in read mode and for "{{d" in edit mode. If you solve any any these puzzles, remove the {{dn}} tag and post  Done here.

• 2018–2020 UK higher education strikes
• Global Finance (magazine)
• Monetary policy
• S&P/ASX 300
• Stock-Flow consistent model
• World Integrated Trade Solution

Thanks in advance, Narky Blert (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

There's a RfC on the Arthur Laffer page about whether to mention in the lead there is a consensus among economists that the US is not on the wrong side of the Laffer curve (i.e. consensus against the notion that tax cuts will pay for themselves). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Looks like the page on Modern Monetary Theory is being actively worked on by advocates to become a soapbox for MMT. Would appreciate it if the people here add it to their watchlist and keep an eye on it. Thanks, LK (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I am teaching a course at the University of Queensland. Last year, I had my students create a Wikiversity course as an assignment.

This year I plan to have the students contribute to WikiProject Economics. Each student will pick an article from a list to edit to bring the page up to good/featured article level. For the list, I wanted to use the "Economics articles by quality and importance" table and assign pages with low quality and high importance. However, quality assessments seem to be dated. Does anyone have a suggestion?

Also, please let me know if you have any other advice or comments. De economist (talk) 03:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

The quality assessments are not very accurate, but it's the best we have AFAIK. If you are having undergraduates work on the articles, you have to drill into them these rules:

1. Try to state things as neutrally and objectively as possible.
2. Stick to summarizing reliable sources, do not inject opinion.
3. Every paragraph needs at least one reference, every factual statement needs a reference, every single quote needs a reference and must state who said the quote.

Goodluck! LK (talk) 13:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Please could someone explain to me the provenance of Template:Industries. I am very concerned that it appears to project an authoritative view of Industry classification but, in reality, represents just one point of view. The reason I ask is that there is a discussion under way at Talk:Industry and at Talk:Industry classification, about the relationship between those two articles. My main concern is that the Industry classification article should not be damaged through any merger with the Industry article. The latter seems to project - in its lede - a particular view of Industry classification, while the former describes many different Industry classification schemes. The particular view I mention seems to be reinforced by the Industries Template. This Template is used at the foot of the Industry article and was added also to the Industry classification article yesterday. As its presence there seemed to spit in the face of the thousands of people worldwide who work on and/or make use of the various Industry classification schemes, I have reversed that edit. I hope that this won't result in a to-and-fro tussle. Returning to my opening sentence, what is the provenance of Template:Industries? How does it relate to the many existing Industry classification schemes? Does it reflect one such scheme? If so, which one? Thanks! Misha Wolf (talk) 13:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, so I've actually had that template on my radar recently though I haven't worked on it yet. To answer your questions...

• I think it was created several years ago by a user that then moved on.
• Since then, it's had entries dumped into it and occasionally cleaned out.
• It looks like it simply evolved like most things on Wikipedia; I'm pretty sure it's not following any one standard.

That said, I'm more concerned that several entries are wrong according to basics I imagine most standards agree on:

• E.g. software & education are only tertiary but alcohol, bicycles, fur, and sex-workers are quaternary? wat.
• I don't know if it should be cut from pages though, if only so it's more likely editors with the time notice it & fix it.

I did see someone recently skimmed it, made improvements, and fixed up the primary & secondary sectors.

• I totally support them if they want to make more edits.
• OTOH if nobody else plans to work on it in the next few months, I was going to tweak it using v4 of the ISIC as a guideline.

--Zar2gar1 (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that information. If the template is changed to reflect one of the many Industry classification schemes, eg ISIC, then please can its heading ("Major industries") be changed to reflect that fact rather than continue to present the template's content as forming some kind of Wikipedia-endorsed authoritative scheme. Thanks. Misha Wolf (talk) 09:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Greetings. Robert McClenon, who does valiant work over at AfC, moved this draft into mainspace. It definitely is notable, but the article has a very distinct POV issue. Could someone please take a look at it? Thanks.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes. I first asked to have a look taken at it toward the end of May 2020. Then I accepted it but said that it had tone issues. So I think that User:Onel5969 and I are saying the same thing. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

The stock market has greatly recovered since the crash earlier this year. The S&P 500 is currently at its all-time high. This article is outdated, and it should be updated to include accurate information about the market. Momo824 (talk) 06:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Momo824 - Yes. It isn't at an all-time high any more as of 3 September, but that is more interesting history that needs to be included. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello from WikiProject Climate change,

We can see that Economics of global warming and Economics of climate change mitigation are in great need of improvement, but I for one do not have enough time or knowledge of economics and am intimidated by the size and technicality of the articles.

An example of a lack is that the following is all I could find in Economics of climate change mitigation about the 1.5C target:

"The Paris Agreement is, unlike Kyoto, calling upon all countries (developed and developing) to equally aid in their goal of keeping the global temperature from rising by 2 degrees Celsius pre-industrial standard, while actively following efforts to keep that number to below 1.5 degrees Celsius. The UNFCCC aims to accomplish this with aid to all countries, through financial assistance, a new technological framework, among other measures of assistance, while remaining accountable with the implementation of their transparency framework."

But surely by now studies have been done on the cost-benefits of 1.5C and economists must have opinions on whether cost-benefit analysis is the right method to use for 1.5C. That is just one example.

Would anyone have the time to give them a thorough revision?

Regards

Chidgk1 (talk) 06:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

For example it would be great if someone who understands this papercould explain it in one of the articles

Hello, I'm an editor at the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. We published an article on climate change and central banks in our economics magazine, Econ Focus. I hope it's appropriate to note it here and on the Talk page of "Economics of global warming" in case it may be helpful. "Central Banks and Climate Risks," Econ Focus, Second/Third Quarter 2019. https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/econ_focus/2019/q2-3/feature1 RichmondFedEditor (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks - have added in "further reading" section. One of the things which makes it more difficult for us to integrate new info in the articles is that we don't really know what existing text is now out of date and what old stuff is still valid. If you or anyone else has time perhaps you could go through the above articles and delete anything which is no longer true. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Consensus seems to be that both Paul Milgrom and Robert B. Wilson need work, so thought I'd post here in case anyone had the time to do some work on them, perhaps in time for their Nobels to still be in the news. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I am creating an article Draft:United Kingdom internal market, but I am waiting for the Internal Market Bill has passed before publishing it and need a second opinion to ensure my article meets Wikipedia’s WP:NPOV & WP:SIGCOV.

I would also like someone external to help edit the page, as having input from a variety of editors other than me will help to improve and expand the article and fill in areas that I may have missed. ChefBear01 (talk)) ChefBear01 (talk) 22:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Your participation is invited at Category talk:Communism § Categorization of Communism, Totalitarianism, Authoritarianism. Thanks, Lev!vich 03:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The current article about former U.S. Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin currently contains no mention of his role in promoting the 1993 Deficit Reduction Act. On the talk page for his biographical article, I have posted some example sources, and even a sample of what a section about it could look like. Would any editors here be interested in having a look at that and weighing in there? Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello all, I'm new to wiki editing, so please bear with me if I'm not doing this quite right! I was just looking at the Job Guarantee page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_guarantee) and noticed it has some issues, mostly related to citations/npov. I'm a policy grad student, and this is my interest area, but I'm hesitant to jump in and make a bunch of changes solo. Would anyone be interested in working together to get it in order? It seems the talk page is essentially defunct. I'm actually working on a paper on the topic right now, so I'll add references as I can in the meantime. Baileyasdf (talk) 00:29, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Lars Osberg tells us that:

Lars Osberg (PhD. Yale) has been a member of the Economics Department at Dalhousie University (Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada) since 1977 [...]. He is well known internationally [...]

and there are long lists of his works, but next to nothing about him, in an article that cites no independent sources whatever. For a person well known internationally, this seems a pity. My understanding of economics is about as meagre as the sourcing of this article; improving the latter is a job for somebody far better qualified than I am. -- Hoary (talk) 01:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I started a discussion about the semantics of Category:Industry at WT:CATP#Semantics of Category:Industry where I’d be glad about input from the experts here. --S.K. (talk) 08:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Please join us on 13 December 2020, 12:00-14:00 EST, as we update and improve articles in Wikipedia related to housing in the United States of America. Sign up here. -- M2545 (talk) 11:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance: does Group of Twelve really exist? I am struggling to find any evidence of it, let alone demonstration of notability, and the entry contrains no references. But it’s tagged with this project so in case I’m simply uninformed I thought I’d ask before I send to AFD. Thanks for any help! Innisfree987 (talk) 05:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, tweaking my search terms I found it is used, but if anyone has a reference with basic definition, the entry could definitely use it—currently no references at all. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

This page needs a serious fixing. Bearian (talk) 23:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello friends. I recently gave the Fed its own section in the following article: U.S. federal government response to the COVID-19 pandemic#Federal_Reserve. However, it could use attention from somebody that knows macro-economics and the Fed better than me. Basically, the section talks about the Fed's actions during the COVID-19 pandemic and the stock market correction in March. But the section stops there, and doesn't cover any of the Fed's actions in the months after that. Sometimes I hear the talking point "the Fed has spent $5 trillion dollars bailing out big businesses". I wanted to investigate that more, so my goal is to get this section complete enough that I can answer a question like that. Any help appreciated. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Input is needed on someone's edits at Talk:Capitalism#Wikivoice and false balance. (article history) Crossroads ^-talk- 17:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

There are currently over 200 links from articles to the disambiguation page Liquidity. Could you take a look at the current list and make some of the links point to a relevant article to help readers reach the right place?— Rod ^talk 10:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, the article for the Capitalism: A Journal of History and Economics was recently proposed for deletion. Perhaps the members of this project would like to comment? It seems to be a KEEP in my opinion. Thriley (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_Turkey/archive1 a reviewer has commented:

"The economics focuses very heavily on monetary policy; what about demand-pull and demand-push policies (f.i. producement and other softer instruments)? Only one sentence mentioned under the Fossil fuel subsidies section (which isn't a subsidy) The economics section focuses a lot on GDP; what about employment."

I looked at Economy of Turkey to see if that might help but am struggling with my lack of economics knowledge - can anyone advise how to improve Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_Turkey#Economics? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The link Intensive growth points to a section Economic development § Intensive versus extensive growth that no longer exists, and the article Economic development no longer mentions intensive growth. By contrast, Extensive growth is its own article. We should recover the content about intensive growth that was originally at this location and move it to an appropriate page - for example, we could rename Extensive growth to "Extensive and intensive growth" and cover both concepts in that article. What's an appropriate place for content about intensive growth? Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 05:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Over the last few months the Human article has been transformed from this to its current state. This has involved a lot of citation hunting and reorganisation. This is in a push to get it to GA standard (see Talk:Human#Good article). It has been suggested that some input be sough from various wikiprojects as to further improvements. Please feel free to contribute or offer advice at this article. Regards Aircorn (talk) 00:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm in a situation that bugs me, a lot. Sources say that he made Romania debt-free. Then other sources say that Romania in 1989 had virtually (key word here) zero debt. This intrigued me, so I proceeded to look for hard numbers. Well, the 1990 CIA World Factbook lists Romania's debt as "none" as of mid-1989 (source 1). But then I find another source which breaks down all Soviet bloc external debts and...it ain't 0, not really. It's 0.4 billion as of 1989. What is zero in this source is the debt to the big bodies (IMF, World Bank) (source 2). Initially I thought that the Factbook overlooked this as too small, hence listing it as "none". But that can't be right, for the 1991 edition lists Romania's debt as of mid-1990 as...precisely 400 million, what the other source lists as the 1989 debt (source 3). I think of two possibilities: either the Factbook says "external debt" but actually means "public debt" (ie the state's debt, not including its individual citizens, but then again this was a totalitarian Communist state), or Romania somehow borrowed $400 million in the last days of 1989 after Ceaușescu was overthrown. Can anyone please help me make sense of all this? Is the debt 0 or 0.4 billion? Cause I want to write a comprehensive paragraph about the end result of his austerity policy, and I want to make sure I get it right. Transylvania1916 (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Fast-moving consumer goods 27,339 911 Stub--Coin945 (talk) 14:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello everyone, your input is welcome at Wikipedia:Peer review § September 2019 events in the U.S. repo market. JBchrch talk 14:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I personally think so but I'm not sure. I have a source here. It states that MFN is the rule rather than the exception, and - with exceptions - MFN was withheld from the Communist countries during the Cold War. Can thus withholding MFN count as sanctions/economic warfare? Source here. Transylvania1916 (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

This article has remained an unsourced stub since its creation in 2006, despite having been expanded a bit from the pgraph it orig started off as. Seeing that no one has cared to source it in all this time, until recently when a new section was created and 3 sources added there (1 of which is an unrel source per WP:KO/RS and should be removed), should the stub be left on WP or would it be okay to nominate it for deletion? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 03:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Theory of imperialism#Requested move 22 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

There is an RFC at Talk:Stakeholder theory concerning whether these two terms are synonymous, or whether there is a subset-superset relationship. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I have started a draft on the concept of fairness. There seems to be a substantial economic aspect to this, so it may be of interest to this project. Cheers! BD2412 T 01:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Would anyone here care to offer an opinion at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China#Economic projections? There's a question as to whether projections about Chinese recovery should be removed per WP:CRYSTAL. -- Beland (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

But we on WikiProject Climate change don't understand it. Could anyone help fix this very important article? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi fellow econ peeps

Just created this stub of an article on the credibility revolution. Any contributions much appreciated! ty -LK (talk) 10:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Should the article on Nanoeconomics be deleted? I proposed that on its talk page. Willondon (talk) 13:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

It currently almost entirely consists of a copyright violation, one which has existed since the first version of the article. I've tagged it under G12. 15 (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC) EDIT: Looks like someone restored a recent version of the article while I was writing this comment 13:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that copyright violation is really the heart of the problem. The fact that it's almost entirely unsourced, or ridiculously sourced, nonsense is the problem IMO. Willondon (talk) 14:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Deleting for copyvio is quicker than having it deleted at AfD, but that won't work given that there is substantive non-copyvio content now. 15 (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I have nominated Akhtar Hameed Khan for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

There is an invitation to collaborate on improving an article you might be interested in at Carbon bubble. The relevant discussion thread is at Work on the article. Thank you. I'm trying out this template I just made, if something's wrong please ping me! A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 17:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I have nominated September 2019 events in the U.S. repo market as a Featured article candidate. Your input and comments are welcome here. JBchrch talk 03:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Guy Standing (economist) § Extended confirm protection too much? ––FormalDude ^talk 03:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Subsidies in Iran has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Effective Altruism § Improving coverage of social discount rate (with WikiProject Econ). We'd like to try to improve the coverage of social discount rate and related topics, and would appreciate input and help from participants in this WikiProject. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 23:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Congestion pricing has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

This discussion on Induced demand may be of interest to members of this project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Finance regarding increasing activity in WikiProject Finance and possible collaboration with WikiProject Economics. The thread is Project Coordination?. Thank you.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:James A. Robinson (economist)#Requested move 25 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 20:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Let's name this article with the common term, labor share. The term "wage share" is rare, but that's the present name of the article. I've started the discussion at Talk:Wage share. Please support, or express any other view. I'll be adding content about the empirical measures of labor share. It can cite the algebraic model definition in the factor shares article. -- econterms (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Any economists mind taking a look at COVID-19 recession? I'm concerned with some OR on that article, not to mention duplicative scope with economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The article Panos Mourdoukoutas has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of meeting any notability requirements

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:48, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi guys! I've been working on this article The Return of Depression Economics and would really appreciate if someone could help me grade it. It's definitely more than a stub now :) and feedback is most welcome too. --Lattecoffee (talk) 12:45, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi All!

I just finished making edits on the stub for Charles Goodhart. Since starting on the stub I have added a substantial amount of content and various pieces of media (images and a table) so I think it is time for a reclassification. This is the first article I have edited on Wikipedia so I would appreciate any tips for improvement. Only posting here because the article's talk page has no traffic.

Thanks! Sam.Mack1 (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Recently an editor moved Jevons paradox to Jevons effect. It has been Jevons paradox since the creation of the article in 2004. Should the article be moved? Thriley (talk) 03:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Please see and comment at Talk:Economics#Inequality regarding a couple of paragraphs paraphrased from the Economic inequality article's introduction which I've proposed adding to the top-level Economics article, which at present has no discussion of inequality at all, and apparently never has. I find this astonishing for a topic which has been so prominent in the literature for decades now, and I hope it will be addressed.

Another very serious problem with the Economics article is that its "Inflation and monetary policy" section contains no discussion of inflation whatsoever. I proposed a correction to this a couple weeks ago, which was inserted and quickly reverted today. Please see and comment at Talk:Economics#The "Inflation and monetary policy" section doesn't have anything about inflation in it, if you can help correct this issue.

Finally, a couple weeks ago I also proposed inserting a sentence about the Economic Policy Institute's recent analysis of the effects on income inequality on growth and recovery rates in the United States in Economic inequality and Economic growth, which I added today to those articles where, along with Economy of the United States, it was also reverted. I hope if the statement can achieve consensus that it might also be reasonable for the proposed Inequality section in Economics. Please see and comment at Talk:Economy of the United States#interesting references but did not say what was claimed, Talk:Economic growth#Effects of income inequality in the US, Talk:Economic inequality#Effects on growth in the US, or ideally all three if you can help. Dan Ratan (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Per this Ref desk post, we should remove the deprecated Ease of doing business index from all the "Economy of country X" pages. Keep a look out I guess, or hunt around, or use a script. (Cross-posted at Project Countries and Project Business -- I hope I didn't overdo it but a lot of the projects aren't very lively.) Thanks. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Pound sterling § RfC planning. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:ECONOMIST and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 19#Wikipedia:ECONOMIST until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 20:21, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm leading a movement to reactive WikiProject Cooperatives. To get this started, I've opened an RFC to clarify the scope of the Cooperative article. If you have any interest in cooperative economics, please join us either at the RFC or the Wikiproject homepage. IohannesChicaginiensis (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I have been bold and rewritten the article Double deficit (economics) to provide a generic introduction to the concept. I considered its previous status – a redirect to Twin deficits hypothesis, an article about theoretical economics – to be a failure to wp:think of the reader, well at least the general reader.

Others may disagree and come up with a better solution, which is the purpose of this post. John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:27, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi all, I'm cleaning up links to metric (mathematics) as I'm working on merging that article into metric space. It's linked from ancient economic thought, and I don't understand that article well enough to figure out what sort of metric is meant there. Thought I'd drop a note here to see if anyone can unravel it. --platypeanArchcow (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@PlatypeanArchcow This one seems to be an inappropriate crosslink, as far as I can tell the article is just talking about how the prices are fixed in relation to each other. I'll just remove the crosslink.

Basedeunie042 (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

As a student in my Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities class, I plan to revise some of the articles that need additions according to this page. More information can be found on my user page. Riyeng (talk) 17:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Contingency fund, emergency fund, and rainy day fund may need a closer look. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Terra (currency)#Requested move 8 November 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Multinational corporation#Requested move 25 November 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

There is a new discussion at talk:Tariff#De-industrialization, salary deflation and debt crisis that could use some input, please? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Another editor agreed that the addition was an NPOV vio and reverted. "No further action at this time" unless of course anyone thinks it should be reinstated. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

In the last two weeks, a large number of accounts have cropped up that systematically add basic information about Armenia's economy into articles on general topics in economics, such as Monetary policy, Foreign direct investment and Trade agreement. A typical addition can be observed here in the Unemployment article where an editor added a paragraph noting a change in Armenia's unemployment rate from March to June 2022. These additions of content are with very few exceptions not helpful contributions. The additions might belong in Economy of Armenia or related articles. Thenightaway (talk) 20:24, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

{{Inflation}} is capable of giving adjusted figures for currencies across time, but for whatever reason does not account for euros. I've created Template:Inflation/EU (using Template:Inflation/EU/dataset), from https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CP0000EZ19M086NEST. Anyone who wants to ensure that I've done it right is encouraged to go take a look. jp×g 00:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I have nominated Tulip mania for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Could you help to disambiguate the links to Economic trend? There are currently over 80 articles which link to the dab page (shown in this list and it is often not clear from the context which specific article they should link to. Any help appreciated.— Rod ^talk 21:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

We need more editors at 2021–2022 inflation surge to find stong sourcing and write NPOV text. SPECIFICO talk 02:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Fixed up the introduction a little bit. Jondvdsn1 (talk) 12:45, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Demand response—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Economic development in India has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Datos incorrectos. Sería mejor hacer de nuevo el artículo antes que reeditarlo. 2803:2D60:1104:279C:6987:F508:A69E:45A6 (talk) 06:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Buidhe has nominated Panic of 1907 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Already article 2022–2023 Pakistan economic crisis is not in good updated condition, moreover recently WP has been censored in Pakistan. The article seem to need article expansion help to keep adequately updated.

~~~~ Bookku (talk) 07:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Economy of Iran has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Femke (alt) (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Buidhe has nominated Edgar Speyer for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Economy of Ohio has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The article Robert Wiedemer has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Has failed WP:N for 10.23 years. After cleanup and reconstitution, I found little else to support an article, and what I did failed WP:RSP.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 14:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Please comment at Talk:Russia#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 April 2023 thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi. For some strange reasons the article about James Meade, an Economics Nobel Prize winner, was missing. I created a stub, but I can't improve it. MrKeefeJohn (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Black Monday (1987) is currently in FAC. § Lingzhi (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I believe that the two graphs for positive and negative production externalities are incorrect, but I'm not too familiar with economics. A second opinion, and a review of the two remaining graphs would be appreciated. I've removed it for now, and the relevant diff is here: Externality: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Thanks! ARandomName123 (talk) 15:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I've added an {{expert needed}} tag to this article due to major citation issues. Please see the talk page. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I recently created an article for Australian economist Bruce J. McFarlane. Any help with expansion would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 19:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I have improved several articles about Turkey but economics is far too difficult for me. As it is rated top importance for your project is there any chance one of you could improve the economy of Turkey article? That would likely help me with other Turkey articles which are related to the economy. Also Turkish economic crisis (2018–current) is marked high importance for you but is in pretty bad shape if any of you have time to work on it Chidgk1 (talk) 14:13, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Eagle Cash has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I recently created an article for Isabella Weber. Any help with improving the article would be appreciated. Best, Thriley (talk) 14:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Economic systems sidebar § Remove "Communism" from the list of Major types at the top. –Vipz (talk) 01:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I recently drafted an article on MIT Sloan's Tavneet Suri (Draft:Tavneet Suri). Any feedback or editing would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. RegMonkey (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Instead of my original idea, I have added two sections 'Evidence of the Degrowth Mindset Shift', with lots of relevant references. Than an explanation about 'The Carrying Capacity of Earth'. I would be grateful if someone could revisit my draft Wikipedia article about the 'UN Charter for Ecological Justice', so that I can link these two related topics. .

Bbwilliams (talk) 07:59, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

This doesn't look appropriate to me, it has serious WP:N and WP:NPOV issues. The article Degrowth could indeed use some work, but I don't think this is the right step at this point. - CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree and have written something similar on the talk page of Degrowth now. EMsmile (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY is central. - CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

please see alternative approach applied in situ Bbwilliams (talk) 16:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

That's an improvement, but still not suitable as written, kind of a WP:SYNTHesis. But I can definitely see this material being used to improve the article. Why don't you take this to the article's Talk page and see if you can hash something out? - CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for this advice. I intend to negotiate forward on the Degrowth talk page. Bbwilliams (talk) 08:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Moved from the project page to the talk page, content by User:Bbwilliams:

"I have added a paragraph covering I=PAT and Jevons paradox, into the article 'Eco-economic decoupling'. See relevant talk page for details.

I am also suggesting a more lenient approach to the Degrowth entry, to allow folks to more fully understand this paradigm shift in thinking and why it is urgently needed. Details are in this free Medium article, you will need to sign into medium to access it https://medium.com/@barbarawilliams1/wikipedia-degrowth-entry-43092da38044" EMsmile (talk) 07:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I started this discussion: Talk:Progressivity in United States income tax#Various polls by media organizations. George Ho (talk) 05:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I have nominated Harold Innis for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 01:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

The editing behaviour of this user is worrying. Large amount of text, which is undue or unrelated to the subjects, is being copied to many different pages. Much cleanup maybe needed. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 03:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

History of private equity and venture capital has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

This was in article space for a month and a half before being redirected to Temporary work for a year and a half and gig worker for 4 years. Since the gig economy is composed of corporate entities, gig workers and customers, we need to distinguish this article from gig workers. This will appear on the main page in a couple of weeks or months in the WP:DYK section. Please help beef it up.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

An article of possible interest to members of this Wikiproject is under discussion. Please consider joining the conversation at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4#Add Shopping 5. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 21:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Low-carbon economy—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Please kindly review the following page submitted for creation Draft:Ruth Aguilera. Thanks. Neuralia (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Great Wealth Transfer (United States)#Requested move 20 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

There is a proposed split discussion from Gross domestic product to "GDP per capita" that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. HudecEmil (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi!

I'm a recent user of Wikipedia, and for the last couple of months I've been working on the article about the soviet economist Lev Gatovsky. The reason I got interested in the first place was that the article (a stub at that moment) had only one sentence stating that he had been the first economist to create a theoretical framework for the Soviet Union's economy. But when I searched for him almost nothing appeared. The fact that someone that seemed to have been this important had no imprint on the web got my curiosity.

Since then I have discovered that although he was not the first one, he was one of the firsts to analyze the soviet system from a economic /political-economy perspective. And more: he was the director of the Institute of Economics of the USSR Academy of Sciences for 6 years; him and others got fired from a political magazine by direct order of Stalin for including perspectives that contradicted the party's view; he collaborated on the elaboration of the first and second five-year plans; he also was the main editor of the first "Political Economy" manual of the Soviet Union; volunteered in the 2nd world war, etc. etc.

The difficulty with this author is finding material written directly by him, as some of them only exist in physical form (books, journals, etc.) and most of what can be found online are other authors talking about him. Still, there are plenty of books mentioning him as well as articles in russian from the time (that can be translated online), which kind of indicates the relevance it had. I also have a list of materials I know / suspect that have to do with him but I havent had the time to look at yet.

I've been working on this alone for the moment, and with some superficial research I managed to get plenty of interesting material (economic, political, and historic). I am sure that with more people doing research, translating, and summarizing, we could make this article truly great.

I hope I managed to get your interest and so you decide to help. Thanks in advance! FranGallego33 (talk) 15:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:United States has an RfC. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. The previous one was closed due to it being too combative and not inducive to discussion. Thank you. Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I've created a draft at Draft:Economic imperialism as this seems to be a big omission in wikipedia's coverage, and was wondering whether anyone would be interested in collaborating to write and structure it, including defining scope and gathering sources. Economic imperialism currently links to Theory of imperialism. Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:BRICS#Requested move 23 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

FYI, the name and primary topic of Rallying is under discussion at a move request. See talk:Rallying -- 64.229.90.32 (talk) 05:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi all, I have been making some changes to the page Economics of biodiversity since it had not been updated for a while and was lacking in references. I was wondering if someone with an economics background would be interested in helping to improve the article to reflect the debate on economic valuation of biodiversity. Manxshearwater (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

came across Stephen Salant article, appears written by a StephenSalant in 2010, appears he is most likely not notable by the guidelines going by the "Average Professor Test", but I have no background in economics, maybe someone can take a look if anything he is connected to makes the article worth keeping BenErroneous (talk) 05:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

He's professor emeritus at UMich (above average) with an h-index (33) that's fine but not remarkable for an economist.

IMO you could reasonably argue to either keep or delete his page. But probably it shouldn't be kept in its current form (correctly flagged autobiographical)—should be rewritten so it doesn't look quite so much like his CV. Themrbeaumont (talk) 10:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

John Maynard Keynes has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

There are about 10 societies of economists in Category:Business and finance professional associations. That's not quite where they belong, e.g. for societies that are made up mainly of academics not addressing business or finance. We could create a new category for "Economics-related professional associations". It would go into Category:Professional associations by profession, parallel to the business/finance one, and to a natural set of peers in the fields of psychology, architecture, and geography. I would like a more concise name like "Economist societies" or "Societies of economists" but it seemed to make sense to follow the naming system established by parallel groups. Any thoughts? The next step, I think, is to check with category specialists at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion, and if there are no objections there, to just create it. -- econterms (talk) 17:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Flag of convenience has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I am trying to contribute on Wikidata around social sciences themes. I started to list relevant properties here : Wikidata:WikiProject Wikidata for research/Data models/Social science results Feel free to suggest others, for example properties that may help generate infoboxes.

Jeanne Noiraud (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I've added some initial discussion of the contributions of Prof. Hélène Rey here: . There's a lot more that can be added, if anyone's familiar with her work and contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) 18:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The article on gross private domestic investment says it "is an important component of GDP because it provides an indicator of the future productive capacity of the economy." To what extent does GPDI actually determine the rate of growth?

Please answer at Talk:Economic growth#To what extent doe s gross private domestic investment determine the rate of growth? thanks. EllenCT (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Davos question. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Place Clichy (talk • contribs) 16:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey folks! I just created this article and it was moved to the draft-space before I added the references :-/ Could anyone review it and help out with moving it to the article-space? Thanks Fede.Campana (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

That's the link for easy access: Draft:Richard Duncan (economist) Fede.Campana (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Energy_quality_(2nd_nomination) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chidgk1 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Economic policy of the Joe Biden administration#Requested move 10 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 00:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I just created a stub for Premiumization. A strategy observed in pretty much all consumer products over the past 15 years or so. Thriley (talk) 18:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

American automobile industry in the 1950s has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Eurasian Economic Union has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 23:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of economics films is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of economics films until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

On a related note, there is a notification about the write-up of economics film as seen here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Euro area crisis has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article JEL classification code is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JEL classification code until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Logoshimpo (talk) 03:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The page Robert Ayres (scientist) needs some updates, as do almost all the people in the Template:Ecological economics. Just a comment, this is too far from any of my areas of competence for me to do more than point it out here. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I personally am well aware (and I assume most editors here do too) that probably the majority of Wikipedia articles on economics fail either WP:DUE or WP:FRINGE; the main issue is manpower, unfortunately. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Did you (or any other economists) look at WP:Articles for deletion/Reiner Kümmel? I understand about manpower, I see that too often in materials science articles on WP. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

There is a relatively new biography of Reiner Kümmel by @Gunnar.Kaestle, created directly in main. It was tagged for notability by Moriwen, and has a few other issues that are somewhat corrected. The key issue is whether he passes any of WP:NPROF. He certainly does not for his work in solid-state physics -- it is good work but does not reach that bar, the citations are too low for #C1 and he has no major awards. His economics work is not well cited, but I do not know the field well enough; the originator states that he is convinced of notability, but of course that does not matter. Please add comments here (or at Talk:Reiner Kümmel) on whether he would pass some aspect of WP:NPROF as an economist.

Depending upon this I will either leave the page, draftify or AfD for further discussion. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The citations are low because he "specializes" in econophysics, a fringe/crank movement that's not included in any mainstream/respectable economics department.*

*Exception: from time to time, a physicist who doesn't know any better will publish solid work on mathematical economics under the label of "econophysics". Having skimmed the citations for the article, however, it looks like he doesn't fall in this category. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

When it comes to the theory of economic growth, I know two research groups which a) integrated energy as production factor and b) proved it by observation experiments with statistical data. This was the group of Robert Ayres (scientist) and of Reiner Kümmel, sometimes the published together . As far as I understood, Kümmel was puzzled about the economic effects of the energy crises and found a mathematical way to integrate energy as production function (LINEX = a linear exponential function). By doing so, the so called Solow residual almost disappeared which allows the interpretation that actually the use of energy as a third production factor is the so called "technical progress". Then Ayres, improved this approach by using not primary energy as input, but took into account the losses (anergy) in the energy transformation chain and did only count the exergy part of the energy which was taking effect in the production either as process heat or a mechanical drive. This even increased the elasticity of ~0,5 for energy to ~0,7 for exergy.

PS. Please do not only skim the articles, but read a few of them in order to say if the mathematics is solid or not. Gunnar (talk) 10:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

FYI: both notability tag and PROD were contested, so the page is now being discussed at WP:Articles for deletion/Reiner Kümmel. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I was asked to contribute some information which may be helpful regarding the notability of Reiner Kümmel in view of his contributions on the issue “energy as factor of production”. Since I have no experience in providing such info, I hope that this is the adequate place and format? If this should not be the case, please forgive me! I know Kümmel quite well, and would like to contribute as follows:

Reiner Kümmel was head of the Working Group Energy of the German Physical Society 1996-1998

https://www.dpg-physik.de/vereinigungen/fachuebergreifend/ak/ake/kontakt

Reiner Kümmel is Member of the Editorial Board of Biophysical Economics and Sustainability.

https://link.springer.com/journal/41247/editorial-board

As far as I now, Kümmel entered economics in the 1970s, stimulated by Binswanger and Ledergerber´s statement that “the decisive mistake of traditional economics is the disregard of energy as a factor of production”. As a physicist, Kümmel wondered that energy does not matter in modern economic theory.

With help from economists like Wolfgang Eichhorn (Karlsruhe Univ.) and Dale Jorgenson (Harvard Univ.), Kümmel startet to look into production functions, the economists’ standard concept to model the generation of economic output (value added) depending on the inputs, traditionally being the production factors capital and labor only. Kümmel was one of the first scientists who then argued that energy needs to be taken into account as third factor of production, if economics is to be consistent with thermodynamics. Kümmel pointed to the laws of thermodynamics which state that any process in the material universe is driven through energy conversion and associated with entropy production. The latter manifests itself in the emission of heat and particle emissions into the environment of the process. Those two main arguments, supported by thermodynamics, namely that: i) energy is an essential factor of production, and ii) entropy generation is an indicator of environmental impacts, Kümmel ultimately summarized in his book “The Second Law of Economics. Energy, Entropy, and the Origins of Wealth”. Springer 2011.

https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-4419-9365-6

How does Kümmel’s work on energy as factor of production stand out, compared to the work of others in the field? The novelty of Kümmel’s production and growth theory in taking into account energy as factor of production is its new conceptual foundation, rooted in physics: Kümmel introduced the interpretation of the production process in terms of work performance and information processing. He showed that economic output can in principle be measured and aggregated in terms of the work performed and information processed in the generation of value added. Accordingly, Kümmel showed that instrumental capital can in principle be measured and aggregated by its work performance and information processing per unit time when operating at full capacity. This principle physical measurement and aggregation of output and capital contributes to the (still not entirely resolved) Cambridge controversy, triggered by the British economist Joan Robinson in the 1950s-1970s, who criticised that capital could not be measured independently of output, and not in physical factor-specific units. A summary of Kümmel’s perspective was recently published here: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41247-020-00068-1

Besides a new conceptual foundation for interpreting production in physical terms, Kümmel introduced the LinEx production function. The Linex function depends Linearly on energy and Exponentially on the ratios of capital, labor, and energy. In its derivation, technological boundary conditions are taken into account to explicitly model capacity utilization (energy plus labor utilize capital) and automation (energy and capital substitute for labor). Kümmel derived the LinEx in 1982, triggering an expanding stream of research on energy as production factor.

The initial publication is here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0360544282900445?via%3Dihub

Kümmel also showed the pivotal role of energy in production and growth quantitatively. In neoclassical equilibrium economics, due to its geometrical assumptions, the output elasticities of the production factors are assumed to be equal to their respective shares in total factor cost (cost share theorem). Production functions calibrated by the cost share theorem lead to the notoriously large Solow Residuals and introduce the not understood "technical progress" as the principal factor in economic growth. Kümmel showed that production functions that take into account energy besides capital and labor as production factor and forego the cost share theorem, reproduce economic growth of industrial countries with residuals much smaller than Solow's and reveal energy as the principal factor of production. In addition, the validity of the cost-share theorem has been disproved for energy prices known so far (see, e.g., chapter 4.4 of Kümmel’s above mentioned book, or https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/16/12/125008).

The field and relevance of macroeconomic production functions, including Kümmel’s contribution and the relevance of the cost share theorem was recently reviewed here: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/10/2/203.

Kümmel’s LinEx production function is well received in the literature, since it attempts to be consistent with thermodynamics. This consistency is due to taking into account energy as prime mover, plus observing technological constraints that limit the technically feasible region in (k,l,e) factor space. Furthermore, the Linex function’s technology parameters have a well-defined physical interpretation, including the energy demand of the capital stock when operating at full capacity. Formally the Linex can be classified as a variable elasticities of substitution (VES) function, but the literature mostly treats it as an own category. The explicit acknowledgment of technological constraints and the non-linearity of the Linex function increase the computational effort required to estimate its parameters, this requires non-standard methods (constrained non-linear optimization). This may explain why it is less frequently used compared to relatively simpler production functions like Cobb-Douglas or CES, despite the conceptual merits of Linex, see, e.g., https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/10/2/202.

Kümmel’s models and ideas have been influential in impacting the work of other scientists. E.g., Ayres and collaborators built models around Kümmel’s LinEx function, for example https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0954349X03000778?via%3Dihub. Based on Kümmel’s methodology, Lindenberger suggested productions functions modelling technological evolution in service industries. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00712-003-0015-0.Summing up, I would consider Kümmel’s contributions notable, due to his impact on the field exploring the role of energy in the economic process, more generally regarding “The need to reintegrate the natural sciences with economics”. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0663:TNTRTN]2.0.CO;2 2003:CA:3F19:1600:CCA8:13D6:E8C1:49D3 (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Ayres, Robert U.; Warr, Benjamin (2009). "Chapter 6 The production function approach". The Economic Growth Engine – How Energy and Work Drive Material Prosperity. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. p. 190. ISBN 978-1-84844-182-8. Retrieved 2025-01-16. The Cobb-Douglas function discussed above is the simplest solution of the growth and integrability conditions. However, the C-D function has serious weaknesses. The major weakness from our perspective is the built-in assumption that marginal productivities and elasticities of all factors are constant over the whole century. That assumption would be inconsistent with technological change. Another approach (first demonstrated by Kümmel) is to choose the next-simplest non-trivial solution of the growth equation and integrability equations (Kümmel 1980; Kümmel et al. 1985). [..] Hence, such a model is not ideal for forecasting. What is interesting, however, is the resulting calculated time-dependent productivities, which show a significant increase in exergy productivity and a decline in labor productivity, over time.⁸ [..] Note 8: Kümmel and colleagues have obtained extremely close fits for three countries using the LINEX function with energy (exergy) as the third variable, and fitting the functions a(t) and b(t) by a logistic function or a Taylor expansion, resulting in a five-parameter model. Fits have been obtained for the US and the Federal Republic of Germany (total economy, 1960-98) and for Japan (industrial output) over the period 1965-95. In all three cases, the R² value is 0.999 and the Durbin-Watson coefficient is quite good.

Here is my chain of notability:

• The Solow Growth Model is notable.
• It is also notable, that it does only explain a fraction of the growth which can be observed in real world statistical measurements (Figure 6.4), see Solow residual.
• Therefore, the work to explain the Solow residual not as something like Manna from heaven or technological progress (an expression basically saying "we don't know") but as energy as a third production factor next to capital and labor is notable as well. This combines with a fresh formula and the understanding that the elasticities are not equal to the cost shares for each factor.
• "first demonstrated by Kümmel" means that Kümmel is a significant contributor to this area of work and notable as well. No we don't need to engineer complicated epicycles, as Ayres' improvement to Kümmels approach (= to include the efficiency of the energy conversion chain from energy input to useful exergy output (work but also process heat) for the economic process, called 'useful work' U) showed that the elasticity of energy (precisely exergy) is by far the most relevant one (see Figure 12).

--Gunnar (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Here is my chain of notability—please see WP:INHERIT. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think this here is an issue of inheritance. This could be the case if one argued: Kümmel is notable because he was a student of the famous John Bardeen. But no, Kümmel is not famous for his work on superconductivity that began in the late 60s under Bardeen's supervision , he is notable because he found a solution to a notable problem in economics. Obviously many are not aware about the problem, so I indicated that the widely used growth model and its large share of unexplained growth called 'residual' is seen as notable. Therefore, a person who solves the problem is notable as well. Gunnar (talk) 07:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Janosabel (talk) and you have been an editor for long enough to know about WP:NOTORUM, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:RGW and WP:ADVOCACY

I protest against this knee-jerk judgement. Janosabel (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

The contribution that I deleted was this

Economics should be a public social science.

—Why I say this: As a self-taught economist I learned by the age of 87 that economics, as conventionally understood, exists to exploit civil society.

One evidence in support of this claim is the fact that abundance in everything essential for a good life has been possible for at least a hundred years (since the end of the first world war). Why is the twenty first century not an age of abundance? It is not, as Louis Kelso, of Capitalist Manifesto fame, pointed out 50 years ago. (refs. providable)

~~~~ Janosabel (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

If a convincing argument can be made that this contribution passes WP:NOTFORUM, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:RGW and WP:ADVOCACY, even on a WikiProject talk page, I'll eat my hat with extra fries. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

This deletion debate may be of interest to the community here. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:27, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

This stub has been unsourced for 15 years. Can somebody please find and add reliable sources to it? Bearian (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I just created Ed Yardeni. It may be of interest to members of this project. Thriley (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback would be appreciated at Talk:Trade route#Should section Maritime Jade Road be blanked?. Mathglot (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps someone from this WikiProject could take a look at The Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment and assess it (particularly with respect to WP:NORG and WP:NOBLE). The article was created directly in the main space by a student participating in a WP:WEP affiliated university course; so, it never really underwent any type of formal assessment (e.g. WP:AFC) and it doesn't seem to have yet been reviewed by WP:NPP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I think either WP:WikiProject Law or WP:WikiProject Environmentalism should be more helpful here; the topic seems only tangentially related to economics. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Trade route has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Could some knowledgeable editors have a look at this? Is this Top Five a "thing" or just the subject of a research article? Comments welcome! Thanks, --Randykitty (talk) 14:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

It's a "thing" (see here). – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Is there a list of these?

• Mario Draghi (Governor of the Bank of Italy -> Prime Minister of Italy)
• Mark Carney (Governor of the Bank of Canada, England, World Financial Stability Board -> Prime Minister of Canada)
• others?

-- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think there should be such a list, as it is arbitrary to combine a few characteristics into a SQL search query. E.g. billionaires who became millionaires, or finance ministers that served for corruption. --Gunnar (talk) 11:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2025 United States trade war with Canada and Mexico#Requested move 4 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 13:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:State Socialism (Germany)#Requested move 11 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 11:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Mathematical economics has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Production–possibility frontier has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Forward exchange rate has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

This unsourced stub appears to be more important than ever. Please add reliable sources . Bearian (talk) 10:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Honestly this is so arbitrary that it's better off removed. It's all based on the import function which is basically magic pixie dust. 199.255.150.243 (talk) 13:16, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

And by that I mean the import func follows fiscal policy and not the other way around. Plus no sources. 199.255.150.243 (talk) 13:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Here's another economics-stub tagged as unsourced for 15 and 1/2 years. This is a chance to win points at Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles/Backlog drives/June 2025. Bearian (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

This timely topic's article has not been sourced in-5 years. Let's find and add reliable sources to this. It's possible that many of our core users will come here looking for secondary sources. Bearian (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like it needs a merge with inertial inflation.– Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 22:21, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I've proposed that. Bearian (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

(First timer, I think this is how I should engage but let me know if not.)

The current article needs an overhaul. It does not accurately reflect the position of the school of thought. I believe it would be useful if this project were to help contribute towards improving it. MwikiNpedia (talk) 06:27, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Manuel Belgrano has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:11, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Feminist economics has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:28, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

International Development Association has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:08, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Liberation Day tariffs#Requested move 5 May 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 09:11, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Please add reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:War on Crypto#Requested move 24 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:43, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:War on Crypto#Requested move 24 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 11:09, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Chinese hyperinflation#Requested move 25 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 06:11, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

It would be great if you could comment at Talk:Social cost of carbon#AI generated image Chidgk1 (talk) 13:55, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Journal of Economic Literature classification codes#Requested move 22 August 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 02:17, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Could someone here please provide input at Draft:Thomas Gale Moore? (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 03:40, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Reviewing such articles with intitle:"" modifier, I didn't observe one article that provided any information or knowledge that isn't already in Financial services article, other than this country/region provides these services. Requesting comments regarding the encyclopedic suitability of such articles. Greatder (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

It's a mess. In 2021, a 6 edit account added references that I am certain economists and interested folks would go "Oh yeah..."Hooper 2008"! I know who/what that is!" Well, I am just kind of Wikignoming my way around Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors and "Ad valorem tax" is sitting right at the top of the A's so...
So, if some of you Economics folks could and would figure out what Hooper 2008 + Rothbard 2004 + Say 1880 are referring to and fix Sfn cites that have no complete reference to target, that would be frigging AWESOME. I did find one paper/source/whatever - listed below - that refers to "Hooper 2008" but am not sure how good of a reference it is. And it still isn't the HOOPER 2008.

• Value Added Tax: Mastering Value Added Tax, a Comprehensive Guide to Financial Literacy by Fouad Sabry

Thanks O WikiProject Economics Participants...you are my only hope. - Shearonink (talk) 21:48, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Seems like these sources and possible the content cited (need to check a bit more) are taken from Ad valorem tax - New World Encyclopedia. The proper, exact source citations can be found there in the reference section. Will start cleaning up the mess once I can make some time. Pragmatic Puffin (talk) 12:41, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Pragmatic Puffin Yay! Thanks for anything you can do. I've fixed as much of the issues as I can and at this point?...I've given up. I was able to take care of all the Harv warnings and most of the Harv errors but here are 3 Harv errors left - a malformed Harvtxt - "harvtxt|George|1897", Ref #13 - Hooper 2008, & Ref #14 - Rothbard 2004. Plus this poor article is littered with multiple maintenance templates - 3 "full citation needed"s, 1 citation needed, 1 Unreferenced section (from April 2011!), 1 "Refimprove section", & 1 "Expand section (from 2008!!!) A (helpful...) administrator went through the article in August 2025 & tagged the Analysis section with refimprove and also tagged the Rothbard & Hooper cites with fcn & pn templates. - Shearonink (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Peter Howitt (economist), Joel Mokyr and Philippe Aghion just won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. Articles need heavy editing and sourcing if they want to make it into the WP:ITN. ReyHahn (talk) 10:28, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Also please consider leaving your feedback at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences.--ReyHahn (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of sovereign states by employment rate#Requested move 25 October 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 15:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Employment-to-population ratio#Requested move 25 October 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 15:23, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

International Finance Corporation has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:35, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I've created a new article on Alberto Forchielli, a biography of a living person (BLP), translated from the current, accepted Italian Wikipedia page (it:Alberto Forchielli). This new version is based on current notability and sourcing, which resolves the concerns from the 2017 deletion. Feedback is welcome. Thanks! Digressivo (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

A new article titled Project Business Management has been drafted and seeks review from editors familiar with economic activity, GDP accounting, and project-based industries.

The topic addresses projects delivered under commercial contracts between legally independent organisations. Because these projects involve market transactions, they contribute directly to GDP, in contrast to purely internal organisational projects. The article summarises peer-reviewed research on commercial project delivery, inter-organisational coordination, governance structures, and contracting forms in economically significant sectors such as construction, engineering, energy, infrastructure, and defence.

Any feedback on structure, terminology, accuracy or economic framing would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you. Gonrubma (talk) 07:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Eurasian Land Bridge has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:35, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Francis Amasa Walker has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:56, 23 November 2025 (UTC)