Template talk:Economics

Trying

I'm trying to make it so that if the template is placed on the page of someone in the economists category, it doesn't automatically include the economics category, but I don't know how to check if a given page is in a category. I considered combing #ifeq and #pos to check if the wikitext included "category:economists" but I don't know a magic word for a page's wikitext either. Any ideas? Thunderkatz^Ho! 21:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not possible. I'm not personally a fan of autoincluding categories, that's one of the reasons. Blue (is useful) 21:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I might just get rid of the category-inclusion then. Everything with the template is probably already in the cat anyway, so I guess it's unnecessary. Thunderkatz^Ho! 21:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Wait, tell me it's possible to not automatically include a category... Because just taking it out messes stuff up. Not sure I want to be the one to do this, but do we need to edit navsidebar so that a blank category results in no category? Thunderkatz^Ho! 21:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure. The navsidebar template was created by Armondikov, you probably want to ask em. Blue (is useful) 22:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to split the term "Capitalism"

On the "Competing Theme Parks" section, I propose splitting capitalism into to 2 subtypes, laissez-faire and social democratic. 76.99.91.17 (talk) 00:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

It's an interesting suggestion, though I think that it's better to spend time on such a split in actual "article space" rather than in the template itself. Besides - to maybe get a little technical - a division between "laissez-faire" capitalism and "social democratic" capitalism does not seem obvious to me at all. Social democracy is a political philosophy or ideology mainly, not primarily a school of economic thought; I assume that what you might be thinking of is something akin to "welfare capitalism" or some such? Regardless, I think there's good reason to keep the template as it currently is. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add Georgism

Thanks. I don't have editing privileges. CAPTCHER (talk) 00:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

You do indeed — you just edited by making this talk page comment. Also, the category "Economics" has now been added to the Georgism page. Thanks. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Change colour

I think this template looks too much like the pseudoscience one.

My suggested colour scheme is on the right. —Kazitor, ^pending 07:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The dismal science Economics

Competing Theme Parks

$ Capitalism   $ Communism   $ Socialism v - t - e

Getting the dollar sign icons

Something I want to do is get the dollar signs at the top to not be text, but part of an actual unordered list.

My first attempt unfortunately only works in Firefox (and it would work perfectly if other browsers supported this).

• Capitalism
• Communism
• Socialism

Something I've tried now is to use a base64-encoded image:

• Capitalism
• Communism
• Socialism

Unfortunately that looks ugly. And saving this, it looks like MediaWiki doesn't like it anyway. Maybe it wouldn't complain if the image were loaded from the server rather than base64-encoded?

In case it purges that once I save this, the style is list-style-image: url()

Any thoughts, or am I alone in this pedantry? —Kazitor, ^pending 07:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Kazitor The effort it'd take to make the section W3-compliant just isn't worth the "reward" of a dollar-sign list. FuzzyCatPotato of the Huge Beach balls (talk/stalk) 15:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Right, so it's just me who cares. Not exactly surprising, I fully agree that it's probably not particularly worth it. However, the regular bullet points do already use an image (defined in the stylesheets), which is why I tried it. —Kazitor, ^pending 04:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)