Category talk:Economics

Jump to navigation Jump to search


This category is too large. It needs to be broken up into subtopics. -- Beland 04:05, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Completely agreed... I've created a subcategory for socioeconomics and moved a bunch of stuff over to the taxation, market failure and other subcategories. But this only made a small dent in the category's size. I'm thinking of calling for help at Talk:Economics... --Joy [shallot]

(Removed tag since this has been done.) -- Beland 19:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

There is tremendous overlap between the Business, Economics, and Finance categories. All three need a lot of work... and chance we could form a working group to try to tackle everything at once? Feco 07:50, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The new portal[edit]

There is now a business and economics portal. It is being tested at category:business. We should decide whether to use it at the top of this page also. Please vote or comment:

  • Yes - The collaboration of business and economics people has worked well in the past. mydogategodshat 18:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

JEL classifications[edit]

I think there's a good case for adopting the JEL classification system [1] to define categories in economics. I'm not sure, though, how to implement this, or even how to go about getting some sort of consensus. Any ideas? JQ 09:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I've started work on this now, with permission from AEA to use the JEL system

"Agricultural and natural resource economics; environmental and ecological economics", "Business administration and business economics; marketing; accounting", "Economic development, technological change, and growth" are compound categories that should be split into their component parts. -- Beland 13:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right. I tried to stick to the JEL scheme, but these compound categories could usefully be broken up. I'll get on to this.

Cleaned up[edit]

I've now implemented the JEL scheme, broken up (or listed for breakup) the compound categories, and also diffused the majority of the articles to subcategories. I think we could remove the cleanup tag now. JQ 04:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Yay, this category is looking much tidier now. -- Beland 19:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Social economy[edit]

I have just created this category and added a variety of pages and sub-cats. Lacking an obvious alternative I put it in the 'Economics' category. I now see that I may be contributing to further clutter here. Any advice gratefully received. Ben MacDui 16:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I've put it under Category:Economic systems and Category:Cultural economics which should cover most of the subcategories. It's certainly useful to have, so thanks for helping JQ 12:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for tidying it up. Ben MacDui 13:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

micro and macro[edit]

Is there any reason microeconomics and macro are in this category and have a sub-cat in this category? And surely some of the other sub-categories can be moved into either the micro or macro cat? Martin 20:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No good reason, and I've moved them out now. On the second point, there's no easy way of doing this. The subject categories are distinct (see the JEL classification codes for more), and the non-subject categories (laws, theorems, lists and so on) cut across subject classifications. Some of the latter could perhaps go under Economics terminology.JQ 22:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I was thinking Category:Economics terminology looked like a logical home for a few of them. Martin 22:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I've now moved curves, effects, laws, theorems and paradoxes into Category:Economics terminology. This is a much more logical place than Category:Economics lists, I agree.JQ 22:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)