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)