Why isn't this array on the "History of Economic Thought" page??Fconaway 00:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Burke, Locke, and Schumpeter appear to be out of place.Fconaway 01:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Leontyev and econometrics are mssing. Where would they fit in?Fconaway 01:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

These are all good points. Schumpeter is hard to place. He is a great innovator, like Keynes, and has his own school, but in some ways (even though he is from Austria) he appears, like Weber, to be the culmination of the German Historical School (he is even mentioned in that article). Burke, I know, is so much earlier than the English Historical School, but he so clearly fits in the Romantic reaction to the Enlightenment, and he was such an important influence on the German Historical School, that I felt like the best placement was with the English Historical School. Locke is the first glimmerings of the Enlightenment, and one could place him together with Hume and Smith--should we do that?

As for the 20th century, almost nothing is put in place. Paul Samuelson is the person who, in the period after Marshall, had the greatest influence in shaping economics--he belongs there, as well as a whole host of other folks, including the econmetricians. Fconaway, you are clearly a knowledgable person, feel free to do what you want on the template. Anthon.Eff 01:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Anthon.Eff! You are doing something very fine here, presenting a valid structure people can relate to. I just read Rothbard's essay on why he was writing An Austrian Perspective, and was struck by the unexpectedly inclusive spirit he expresses. I find that very appealing, and agree with your view on the constructive potential which animates Wikipedia.

I'm up to my ears in projects in other realms of Wikipedia, and expect my contributions here may be light. I try not to abandon projects once they're started. I don't know where all of this is leading, but so far, so good. In a way, it's like the long-term building of a cathedral. The synthesis of knowledge is every bit as important as the monographs.

I've put up only a few tentative pages on some worthy economists, and one or two additionally in work. The template itself is very good, and my only comment would be to extend it backward to the Scholastics, as Schumpeter would, and perhaps to some other early modern figures. And, perhaps add a section on the current frontiers, which would be quite ambitious.

Congratulations on a great idea!Fconaway 06:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Another item: Johann Heinrich von Thünen (location theory) Significance re (1) international trade theory / balance of payments /protection (practical issue: Zollverein) (2) marginal theory of rent (3) urban planning (4) territorial expansion / Balkanization / colonies / empire.Fconaway 21:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

How about: Antoine Augustin Cournot I rank him very high, and would put him with the Lausanne School. Maybe that's where the mathematical economists and econometricians belong. And, of course, von Neumann and Morgen stern (game theory). If you don't have Kenneth Arrow, or Neil Chamberlain, they might be included, as well (but they're on a different tangent).Fconaway 22:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I put in Cournot--a good suggestion. The others are also good, but it feels like I'm heading toward a slippery slope. If the template gets too large, editors will object when it appears in their articles. There is so much one could do with the 20th century. I'll think about how to handle this. Anthon.Eff 14:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Does this template add much to the usefulness of Wikipedia? It certainly makes the 'What links here' pages much less useful. In particular, when I look at the Thomas Tooke article, there are over hundred incoming links. But it appears most of them are as a result of this template. In order to see which pages link directly to Thomas Tooke, I need to search each one by hand. It seems that templates such as this serve to make Wikipedia less useful not more. I don't see the need to display this on one hundred different pages. I propose converting this template to an article - Crosbiesmith 15:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I had not considered the effect on the What links here function. I had thought that the principal problem would be that such a large template would be unwelcome in many articles. Let's wait a bit, to see if any more problems surface, before trying to implement a solution. Here's a few possibilities that come immediately to mind:

1. Your proposal, to put the template only in the History of economic thought article. That makes good sense, since we can make the template as large as it needs to be, including more people.
2. Break the template into smaller segments (as is done with the Economics template), so that Thomas Tooke, for example, has a template only with the names of other persons in British Classsical Political Economy. This would be in addition to number 1, above.
3. Do nothing, and let editors of articles handle it as they wish, deleting the template or--as you did--doing a redirect.

Thanks for bringing this up.

Anthon.Eff 19:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I think best solution would be to create sub-templates for each school. This template is already big and it has a lot of potential to get much bigger. -- Vision Thing -- 22:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the considered suggestions. I would certainly like to see a change, as 'What links here' is one of my Wikipedia favourite features. I'm sure other people find it useful also. What to do about it depends on the purpose of the template. The obvious solution is option 1, to limit the use of the template. I would happy with that, as it would solve the 'What links here' problem. I don't like option three as it doesn't solve the problem. Removing the template from a single article doesn't fix the problem of the links from other articles. The 'redirect' technique I used does seems to work, and I have used the same elsewhere. If it really is acceptable, I would with a light heart apply it every time I met this problem. However, it could potentially double the number of database entries which I fear could have some ugly technical consequences. I could be wrong though. If so - great!

Though written in ill-temper, my original question, 'Does this template add much to the usefulness of Wikipedia?' is worth repeating. Presumably this is included as aid to navigation. I don't personally find navigational templates terribly useful, but presumably other people do. In which case, I suggest Template:British legislation lists, Acts as an exemplar. The beauty of its structure is that it only links to other navigation aids. In this way, it does not impact the 'What links here' pages of articles themselves. If this example were adopted, my solution would look like this:

1. Move the current content to an multi-section article or split in into multiple articles
2. convert the current template to a navigation box. Each entry in the navigation box would point to an section or an article. For example, the template might have a link entitled 'Austrians'. This would link to an article or article section with entries on Menger,Böhm-Bawerk, Mises etc.

I don't think it matters if it is implemented as a multi-section article, or as multiple articles. I would suggest keeping it as a single list for the time being, and splitting it out if it becomes more crowded.

This approach would keep some of the navigational benefits on page, without hurting the 'What links here' lists. As an advantage over option 1, it would also avoid the need to remove the template tag from over one hundred articles!

Again, thanks for the considered response. This is an issue which comes up again and again, but I haven't had the will to take it to higher level discussions. If these proposals make sense, perhaps I will propose them on other template pages I encounter. Regards, - Crosbiesmith 00:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me repeat what you said above, so that I'm sure I understand you. Make a template with only the schools or fields (such as those in the first column of the present template). Then have each field link to a list of economists in a article, where the article would be called (for example) List of econometricians or Econometrics#List of econometricians or Economists#List of econometricians. The advantage of all the lists being contained in a single article is that the template will only add one link to the "what links here" list. I think that's very clever--the current template with a little editing is made an article, and the template is modified so that the tags don't need to be removed. I like the idea, and unless there are objections I will begin on it.

To clarify a bit what I was trying to do, it was a bit more than just create a navigation aid; I was trying to give some structure to a collection of articles so that the reader would learn something about how a constellation of people were related. My students in my own history of economic thought course have begun to rely heavily on Wikipedia, and I was trying to make it more useful for people like them. I now think that I would like to try something a little different, modeled on the pages for the important philosophers. Look at Georges Bataille, for example: there is a template for French Literature, which I think would look something like the modifed template you propose for History of economics; and there is an infobox. I really like the infobox, since it serves to summarize the article as well as to show how the thinker relates to other thinkers. I modified Template: Infobox Philosopher and made one called Template: Infobox Economist. I used that infobox template to make an infobox for Thorstein Veblen. What do you all think? Does this look like an improvement? Please let me know what you think. Thanks. --Anthon.Eff 18:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

From my point of view, this is great! I hope this will suit other users too. As an aid to navigation, it will obviously now take two click instead of one to perform certain navigations. Unfortunately I think 'one-click' navigation is incompatible with useful 'what links here' lists. This looks like the most useful possible compromise. I must say, I'm really relieved that the problem with the backlinks has been fixed. I would be really pleased if this proves popular, as it provides an excellent example of a useful but non-intrusive template. Thank-you for your comments and thank-you for your hard work in creating this. Warmest regards, Crosbiesmith 11:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this definitely looks like a good solution. Cheers! -- Vision Thing -- 12:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I've made a comment on this problem at Wikipedia_talk:Navigational_templates and mentioned this as a solution. - Crosbiesmith 12:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Several authors use the term "Libertarian anarchism" to refer to refer to free-market anarchism: (1) Morris, Christopher. 1992. An Essay on the Modern State. Cambridge University Press. p. 61 (using "libertarian anarchism" synonymously with "individualist anarchism" when referring to individualist anarchism that supports a market society) and (2) Burton, Daniel C. Libertarian anarchism (PDF). Libertarian Alliance. Thus, I am going to undo this edit by User:Eduen. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I am uncertain if Progressive Utilization Theory (PROUT) should be included here. Jim Derby (talk) 13:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

It was here before, and I removed it. It's not particularly notable, and it's certainly not a 'school of economic thought' in the vein of the other things in the list. WeakTrain (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Twenty-six days ago, 201.69.76.78 made this edit, moving the Austrian School into a subcategory as a form of neoliberalism.  My understanding is that neoliberals tend to support support such institutions as the I. M. F., the World Bank, the U. N., N. A. T. O., the W. T. O., and the Federal Reserve Bank.  Austrian Schoolers, by contrast, do not; they're much more classical in their liberalism.  I am inclined to say that the Austrian School should be un-subcategorised.  Thoughts?  Agree?  allixpeeke (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I am glad to see that Sicaspi agreed with my recommendation and undid 201.69.76.78's subcategorisation.  Unfortunately, that left both Austrian and Chicago out of alphabetical order; so, today, I realphabetised them.

Still, I see an issue with its position.  You see, currently, Austrian is being listed under "20th and 21st century."  Yet, the Austrian School began developing in the late 1800s, in other words, the nineteenth century.  Perhaps it should be moved to "Modern"?  What are everyone's thoughts?  allixpeeke (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Since there has been no objection, I am proceeding with moving Austrian to the "Modern" section.  allixpeeke (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the distinction between "Modern" and "20th and 21st Century" is a little odd to begin with--is there any reasonable source that generates that distinction? WeakTrain (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)