Talk:JEL classification codes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I asked AEA for permission to use the JEL Classification system, and got a favorable, but conditional reply.

Dear Dr. Quiggin:

Permission is herewith granted for you to use the JEL Classification system as a basis for organizing articles on economics in Wikipedia, with the proviso that you attribute as, for example, "JEL: A10" instead of simply "A10." Please let me know if you agree with this.

Best wishes,

Edda Leithner

I've added JEL to the codes and now plan to include the subcategories on a similar basis JQ 23:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Industry codes in Wikipedia

It is laudable use the encyclopedia as an educational tool to explain particular industry practice, in this case the Association's classification codes. However, it is a bit much to try to organize the encyclopedia, or a portion of it, using these codes. Wikipedia is in the process of evolving and exploring various techniques for bringing good organization to the vast number of articles that it collects. However it must be remembered that any system proposed for organization, to be useful, must be a general sytem applicable to all areas of the encyclopedia, and this is where the JEL fails as proprietary and unsuited to the task. It will increase confusion rather than reduce it as people come across the arcane (to them) categories that you are beginning to spread across Wikipedia. The key here is that Wikepedia is a general use encyclopedia. The system you seek to implement would be an excellent idea for an Economics wiki, which you may wish to pursue. Pleas reconsider your endeavor and use the existing methods rather than bringing further complexities to Wikipedia. Best Wishes. --Blainster 03:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss this before proceeding further. I raised the issue a couple of weeks ago, and got limited but positive response, so I thought I would start implementing my ideas and see what reaction I got. My reason for going the way I have is that the existing categories in Economics were generally agreed to be unsatisfactory. There were far too many categories at the top level, and yet the coverage was still poor. To make the scheme work with top-level categories for concepts like rent, price, inflation and so on, you would need at least 100 such categories (not to mention obviously inappropriate categories like "subsidies"). My view is that, in the process of exploring and evolving techniques for organisation, we shouldn't rule out the option of using pre-existing schemes, especially where our current model is obviously not working well. I'll leave it that, and wait for your response. Best wishes JQ 09:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

As an interim step which I hope will allay some of your concerns, I've removed article links to unwieldy categories like Category:Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting JEL:M. Instead, I have added links from Category:Marketing and Category:Accounting. So general users reading the articles don't need to deal with the JEL categories. JQ 23:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: when you tried to put the name of the category in your text, the normal formatting caused it to appear at the bottom of the page (see below), leaving a blank spot in your sentence. When you need to show a Wiki-code example without having it implemented, embed the code inside a pair of <nowiki> </nowiki> tags, so it shows up like this: [[:Category:Marketing]]. --Blainster 07:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

While I am a fairly experienced Wikipedia editor, I have not had to deal extensively with the nested category issues, so I asked for some Category editors to visit this page. I am not opposed to the possible benefits of your idea, but category titles longer than a text line don't seem likely to be well accepted. While new editors are always needed, choosing to start a new project before getting some experience with the "system" and building a consensus can cause headaches or possibly bruised egos. It is best to make suggestions on a talk page and gather some support, or your work is likely to be reverted. You might benefit from asking those at Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories and Wikipedia:Categorization, and perhaps involve other economics editors (if you haven't already done so) as well. --Blainster 07:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for these useful suggestions. I asked around among economics editors, and got generally favorable reactions, but nothing really vigorous either way, so I thought I would Be bold and see what happened. If it all gets reverted, I can live with that. I didn't know about Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories but now that I do, I'll go there and ask around. Thanks also for the <nowiki> </nowiki> hint JQ 08:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Very recent revision of JEL codes

Or so it appears, at JEL classification codes#Schools of economic thought and methodology JEL: B Subcategories. That section was just edited using a Copy of the relevant JEL B1 category at http://www.aeaweb.org/journal/jel_class_system.html to compare against the corresponding Wiki category section in Edit mode and revise accordingly. The revisions are not surprising given the pace of change. But if it happened here it might have happened elsewhere. So, it might pay to see if there have been other changes for other categories as well, particularly to pick up new subcategories or changes. -- Thomasmeeks 20:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC) (edit to insert JEL URL above].

Update of JEL classification codes#Mathematical and quantitative methods JEL: C Subcategories using JEL link shows differences of previous Edit, with a several adds and drops. So, the last 2 lines of the previous Edit continue to apply, even to such a "settled" area as Mathematical and Quantitative Methods. --Thomasmeeks 13:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for paying attention to this, Thomas.JQ 20:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)