Talk:Microeconomics/Draft

I suggest replacing the opening paragraph with a more conventional definition including the familiar concepts of the alternative uses of limited resources and the consequences of economic efficiency for the welfare of the community. The paragraph could then include links to separate articles on competition and on economic efficiency. (My apologies for the existing competition link - that will have to be moved in any case)

The references to economic agents and models could be retained, but might better be preceded by a sentence or so explaining the concept of a model (I have found that the term is not always well understood by non-economists)

Should there also be something in the opening paragraph about positive and normative economics?

I will not attempt any drafting until I have your reaction to my suggestions.

Nick Gardner 04:26, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

This sounds fine, so go ahead. Nothing will be set in stone anyway, so don't worry about changing things on the wiki. The previous author left in a huff: for the moment you are on your own with this article. Good luck! --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 07:32, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

Near completion

There is little left to be said that should not be adequately covered in the linked articles. However I still retain some slight hope of attracting suggestions from fellow-economists. But perhaps I should give that up and await approval of what I have done before attempting anything further? Nick Gardner 16:53, 15 October 2007 (CDT)

Nick, thanks for all the good work you have been doing. I am not managing to do any more than just keep an eye on things, but I hope to spend more time here next month. I am also hoping that more economists will venture here -- especially new editors. We could send them some mail to encourage that:-) --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 17:00, 15 October 2007 (CDT)

APPROVED Version 1.0

Way to go Nick! Congratulations!

Discussion for Version 1.0 stopped here. Please continue further discussion under this break.

Fixing typos, etc.

In the section "The consumer" of the approved version there is a typo: there stands "substition" for "substitution". Is there any way to fix it immediately? Andres Luure 00:03, 13 February 2008 (CST)

Not immediately. This is one of the glitches yet to be ironed out...Martin Baldwin-Edwards 00:40, 13 February 2008 (CST)

I made an executive decision. I'll apologize later if necessary;) --D. Matt Innis 12:35, 13 February 2008 (CST)

Excellent! Clearly, typos should be corrected as soon as possible. Many thanks, Matt! Martin Baldwin-Edwards 14:48, 13 February 2008 (CST)

There is a simple way. Copy the current version, then substitute the approved version for it, fix the typos, approve the version without typos and create the last draft version again. Andres Luure 01:43, 14 February 2008 (CST)

My apology for causing all that trouble. And, I am sorry to say, I had made another mistake that needs I correcting. I left out a "references" paragraph heading and the necessary references code. Double apologies! I have corrected the draft. (Is there some way that I can tell that an article is about to be approved so that I can double-check it in good time?)--Nick Gardner 03:17, 14 February 2008 (CST)

WE cannot do that, Andres, because the idea of the draft version is to improve the text, not merely to correct typos. Nick: normally the Approval process will be done with notice, so you could do that. I think we can just wait until there are some significant textual changes: so, for the time being, correct the draft version.Martin Baldwin-Edwards 05:45, 14 February 2008 (CST)

Hi All, we had this problem on Northwest Passage. The result of the conversation between the Approvals Manager, editor and author was that as long as the approving editor and the author both agree to the changes, I could make them. I see that you are both here, so I can make those changes if you like, but if there is a problem let me know and I will revert. D. Matt Innis 07:42, 14 February 2008 (CST)

This is all very well, but I haven't looked at the changes in the draft, so I have not approved them. And the history of the now-Approved version does not show any changes, so how can I check them? Martin Baldwin-Edwards 09:07, 14 February 2008 (CST)

The article as amended by Matt looks OK to me. Thanks! --Nick Gardner 10:55, 14 February 2008 (CST)

Martin, all I did was add the references/ section to the bottom of the page. I did not make any other changes. Though I can revert if you aren't sure. You are supposed to be able to check all the changes by clicking on the yellow <> on the right hand side of the template, though I'm not sure it really works. Is that what you meant? D. Matt Innis 16:43, 14 February 2008 (CST)

I meant that I didn't know what has actually been approved, as I cannot check the comparison electronically. If that's all that was changed, it's fine by me! Martin Baldwin-Edwards 18:24, 14 February 2008 (CST)

Oh, okay. Just to make sure, here's the changes I made to the approved version [1]. D. Matt Innis 10:16, 15 February 2008 (CST)

Fine! Probably we should make a rule that typos in Approved articles can be corrected without editors' checking, but it is important that everything be transparent. Perhaps posting a link like the one above on the Talk page is enough, but I fear that it is a lot of work just to correct one or two typos...Martin Baldwin-Edwards 11:05, 15 February 2008 (CST)

Actually, I think that is a really good idea, Martin. I can and will do that. Then if an editor shows up later and does not like it, it can be reverted back if necessary. Sounds like a good "Proposal" for the EC :-) Otherwise this is the heartache that we end up going through.D. Matt Innis 15:45, 15 February 2008 (CST)

The discussion (in your link) about mechanism(s) almost reads like a comedy act! Ithink a simple proposal offering clear guidelines about what can be corrected, and how to do it without an editor, would be a good idea. I will add it to my list of things to do, so it at least won't get forgotten!Martin Baldwin-Edwards 17:14, 15 February 2008 (CST)

You think that is funny, that was September - I just had to change it again today. I hope you guys appreciate your constables ;-) D. Matt Innis 19:45, 15 February 2008 (CST)

We need more copyediting for Approvals :-(( Martin Baldwin-Edwards 20:39, 15 February 2008 (CST)

Markets n stuff

I am planning on doing graphs and short sections on monopoly and monopolistic competitions... should I just add these guys to the existing market section /new inefficiency section or should i create a page on market types?-Charlie Schaezlein 01:57, 23 March 2008 (CDT)

Up until now, we have put diagrams and equations on subpages labelled Tutorial, so that the main article page is easier to read. Perhaps you could do that? Please sign your name, with 4 tildes...Martin Baldwin-Edwards 19:43, 21 March 2008 (CDT)

Nice diagrams! But I suggest that they really belong on the tutorials page of the Supply and demand article (I had been planning to put something similar there, but hadn't got round to it.)

If you wouldn't mind making one more transfer, I should be happy to add the appropriate text.

There is already some drafting on monopoly and monopolistic competition in the article on competition. I should be interested in your comments on it - and most grateful if you were to add appropriate diagrams to its tutorials page.

Nick Gardner 05:35, 22 March 2008 (CDT)

im willing to diagram those pages... im on my way out right now but i figurered id stop here and check. should get to it soon. didnt realize S&D was a page. and feel free to toss the diagrams in wherever... no worries from me-Charlie Schaezlein 01:57, 23 March 2008 (CDT)