Talk:JEL classification codes

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 January 2025. The result of the discussion was keep.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Dr. Pouliot's comment on this article

Dr. Pouliot has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

The article seems accurate and provides sufficient information.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Pouliot has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

Reference 1: Mark C. Senia & Helen H. Jensen & Oleksandr Zhylyevskyy, 2014. "Time in Eating and Food Preparation among Single Adults," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 14-wp549, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.

Reference 2: Pouliot, Sebastien & Larue, Bruno, 2011. "Institutionalized Metzler Effects: Tariff-Rate Quota Liberalization in a Supply-Managed Industry," Working Papers 102651, Structure and Performance of Agriculture and Agri-products Industry (SPAA).

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Veronesi's comment on this article

Dr. Veronesi has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

JEL: M – Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting
JEL: M – Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics
JEL: R – Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
JEL: R – Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Veronesi has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

Reference : Veronesi, Marcella & Schlondorn, Tim & Zabel, Astrid & Engel, Stefanie, 2012. "Designing REDD+ Schemes to Address Permanence Concerns: Empirical Evidence from Kenya," Congress Papers 124131, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA).

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 19:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on JEL classification codes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100405035000/http://www.aeaweb.org/journal/jel_class_system.php to http://www.aeaweb.org/journal/jel_class_system.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:51, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a notable topic?

Why is this article (with few references outside of those that use it such as EconLit) on Wikipedia? Its copied verbatim from the journal's website. Isn't this a copyright violation? Logoshimpo (talk) 10:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely meets notability—lots of references to it in scientific literature, and the standard in economics. EconLit is a database containing abstracts for essentially every paper in economics, so saying "it's used on EconLit" basically means "these codes are universally-used throughout economics" (definitely enough to meet notability).

Any copyvio should clearly be fixed, though. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We would be left with a stub after removing the copyvio which is the majority of the article. Logoshimpo (talk) 04:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consider renaming the topic. Logoshimpo (talk) 04:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As noted right at the beginning, use is with permission. Recent edits removed lots of useful info. Your analysis implied an argument for deletion, which was rejected. I've reverted. JQ (talk) 21:19, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT states that we are not an indiscriminate collection of information. The a.f.d. has been closed but reinstating the cruft smells of edit warring. Logoshimpo (talk) 04:55, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes occurred right around the time you were blocked for edit warring. You had no support on this page or on your Afd proposal. Your blanking edit effectively implemented the Afd proposal on which you failed. Please stop JQ (talk) 05:41, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note further that the article has been reviewed and approved numerous times. Please seek some consensus on this before touching the article again. JQ (talk) 05:42, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's an issue with including some of this material (the top-level codes are probably useful), but I also have no objections to e.g. spoilering the full list of JEL codes, which I'm not sure is actually necessary. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

3O Response: remove the section JEL 'categories', keep the section 'structure': I agree with CLC that the full list of codes is simply not necessary - and that the top level codes may be useful. That said I very much do not like that it is linking to our own categories, that seems like an obviously innapropriate use of category links. There is also scope to expand this article using the sources given in the AfD, that should make for some reasonable prose rather than just a big ol' list which does touch on the WP:INDISCRIMINATE. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 20:13, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@user:John Quiggin: In addition to what's been said above I'll restate my edit summary here: "this is a verbatim copy of the system and can be accessed through the primary source". Logoshimpo (talk) 02:25, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than repeatedly blanking, you should engage in some constructive discussion to see if we can work out a consensus format JQ (talk) 05:03, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Logoshimpo: I don't have particularly strong opinions here, but I will warn you that now that we have 3 editors disagreeing with you here, including 2 neutral third parties suggesting similar compromises, this is definitely starting to look like edit-warring behavior on your part and I wouldn't recommend it. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TAGTEAMING doesn't count as 3 editors especially when decision making on wikipedia is determined by WP:CONCENSUS and not WP:VOTING. At the risk of WP:BLUDGEONING this discussion, I will quote WP:CCC here too. Logoshimpo (talk) 07:17, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatedly blanking is not seeking consensus though - neither is a bad faith, unsubstantiated claim of tag-teaming. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 07:54, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't go so far as to call the accusation bad-faith, but you're right that it doesn't really have any evidence behind it. This page is on my watchlist because of the deletion discussion a few months ago, which is the only reason I saw this. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 22:54, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on Length of Article

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list:

Economy, trade, and companies

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Which of the following proposed versions of JEL classification codes should become the version of the article:

A. The long version [1]
B. The medium version [2]
C. The short version [3]

? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please state either A or Long, B or Medium, or C or Short, with a brief statement, in the Survey. Discussion may be in the Discussion section.

Survey

Medium Including some amount of information about the structure is appropriate but reproducing the entire cataloging system is against WP:NOT. Compare WP:Articles for deletion/Library of Congress Classifications * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:49, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Medium The top level codes are helpful to illustrate the scope of the system, but a directory of every one is overkill. Similarly, there is a list of top level codes at Dewey Decimal § Classes which serves that article quite well. Taking out the whole thing would be hobbling the article for no good reason. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 16:51, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Medium It seems as if this is the approach now being applied to cataloging articles in general. JQ (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Short I have been quoted below and the rationale applies to this too. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Medium per most of the above. It provides sufficient information to get an idea what the code is about and how it works. Including of a specific drill-down example, as in the medium version's "JEL Subcategories" section, wwill be sufficient to help readers identify what an actual JEL code looks like. The short version is too uninformative (it's a bit like a WP:DICDEF, in giving a somewhat lengthy definition/description of what the codes are but too little in the way of specifics to make encyclopedic sense of the topic). Meanwhile, the long one is basically taking the place of the JEL specificiation itself, which (aside from potential WP:COPYVIO and WP:NOT#DATABASE issue) is something we can and should instead link to as a source and perhaps also the "official website" external link. This is also something already done by the medium version (and, probably redundantly by the long one, but only partially by the short version). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:29, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Medium, with the note that I think incorporating the JEL subcategories into the article itself—not as a list, but as part of individual sections—might be a good idea. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree JQ (talk) 09:03, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Through User:Pppery's comment above: I quote User:Cinderella157 on Talk:Library_of_Congress_Classification:Class_A_--_General_Works#Requested_move_8_June_2025: "These are reproducing information otherwise readily available and it is more than sufficiently adequate for the parent article to link to the Library of Congress for such fuller detail.". The case there is the same as the case with the long version. Logoshimpo (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unconvinced that Wikipedia's category system represents the best of all possible systems. Articles like those under dispute here relate constructed categorisation systems to that of Wikipedia JQ (talk) 10:10, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, what do you mean? Logoshimpo (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to write more about this when I get some time JQ (talk) 10:54, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't own this article. I consider this bad faith editing. There needs to be timelines set if you want to establish consensus. Logoshimpo (talk) 03:36, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Say what? I mentioned that I might write something in the future. Am I supposed to ask your permission before I edit Wikipedia?

As it happens, I was thinking more along the lines of an essay, with a brief link from this article. Lacking your encyclopedic (sic) knowledge of Wikipedia policy (impressive for a relatively new editor!) I hadn't got much further than that JQ (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be disingenuous. You've been given plenty of chances to explain yourself. Logoshimpo (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I have no idea what you are going on about. Isn't there a policy about this kind of personal attack JQ (talk) 07:56, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@John Quiggin there is, and LogoShimpo's behavior here is inappropriate and immature. I just want to be clear you're not just screaming into the void, however much it might feel that way. Your concerns are seen and heard, and lots of us—probably including several people who haven't commented—share your views.

Unfortunately, the internet and especially Wikipedia tend to load heavily on neuroticism, so we have to balance two competing concerns: we don't want to ban too many potentially-valuable contributors, but we also don't want to let people get away with rude and unpleasant behavior. It turns out dealing with difficult people is, uhh, difficult sometimes. :// – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! JQ (talk) 09:02, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RFCs are usually open for a while. I see no reason for you to rush a fellow editor to collect their thoughts. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 01:25, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to hold things up. My thoughts are on the broader issue of classification systems, not on the specific question regarding the appropriate version of this article. We can finish the RFC without waiting for me. JQ (talk) 02:08, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@John Quiggin: could you give an example of a source you were planning to use for that section? There's no rush but I am very interested to see where you're going with that. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 05:14, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an article I found, that I want to explore https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0165551520977438 JQ (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]