Talk:JEL classification codes#rfctag

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

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Economics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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].[reply]

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)[reply]

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

According to the official source at http://www.aeaweb.org/journal/jel_class_system.php the JEL: B title has been updated

FROM: Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology

TO: History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches

Any suggestions on how to change the corresponding JEL code|B title at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Schools_of_economic_thought_and_methodology to the new one for JEL: B? --Thomasmeeks (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a procedure for renaming categories. Go to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion and propose it. Should be straightforward, although long category names sometimes raise difficulties.JQ (talk) 04:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you. The proposal is in at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 10#Category:Schools of economic thought and methodology. P.S. I was informed that the proposal did not meet "Speedy renaming" criteria. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The proposal above was accepted and implemented by Admin. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 17#Category:Journal of Economic Literature Categories. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above, the 19 primary code headings follow WP:MOSCAPS in minimizing the initial-capital-letter for nouns or adjectives after the first word (with certain exceptions). Yet, beginning on the first screen, many code names use initial-letter caps (for example, "Monetary Economics," not "Monetary economics") or small-letters only after the first word ("Qualitative choice models"). Consistency would suggest some rule for deciding which to use as to minimizing caps or not.

Here are 3 possibilities:

1. Same rule as for above WP:MOSCAPS per headings, even with colons (that is, minimize caps after first letter).
2. Same rule as for above link per headings, except where colons or commas or conjunctions separate different article links. In the latter case, each link starts with a capital (for example: Macroeconomics and Monetary economics.
3. All caps for nouns and adjectives, just as http://www.aeaweb.org/journal/jel_class_system.php does.

I like (2), b/c with a link, it more clearly indicates a distinct subject-article, but I'd like to be guided by the consensus, b/c consistency might be more important than which "rule of the road" is enacted. (1) & (3) have merit too. How about closing discussion in 2 weeks if there is a consensus or no dissent. Comments welcome. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Smith famously & importantly remarked on the specialization or division of labour as contributing to universal opulence. Something like that, on a smaller scale of course, has been at work in improvements in the JEL categories from the efforts 1st of JQ (of top-section fame, among other things ; ), & more recently of Eastlaw on that JEL page.* Proper econ categories will promote orderly growth of econ content by filling in gaps of WP article content, & productively focusing discussions.§
* I did some things here too along the way too, but mostly by picking low-hanging fruit.
§ For example, finding enough articles to create the Category:Economics of religion [1]. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 08:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This seems fine.

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

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

• Reference : Oktaviani, Rina & Setyoko, Nur Rakhman & Vanzetti, David, 2010. "Indonesian agricultural trade policy at the crossroads," 2010 Conference (54th), February 10-12, 2010, Adelaide, Australia 59109, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 16:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see [2]. "All changes since 2015-06-01 are noted below. ‡ = New Classification. † = Updated Classification."

• B17 International Trade and Finance‡
• B27 International Trade and Finance‡
• D64 Altruism • Philanthropy • Intergenerational Transfers†
• P18 Energy • Environment‡
• Y92 Novels, Self-Help Books, etc.‡
• Z3 Tourism Economics‡
• Z30 General‡
• Z31 Industry Studies‡
• Z32 Tourism and Development ‡
• Z33 Marketing and Finance ‡
• Z38 Policy ‡
• Z39 Other‡

jonkerz ♠talk 11:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 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]

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]

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]

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 [3]
• B. The medium version [4]
• C. The short version [5]

? 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.

• 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]

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]

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