Talk:Energy economics

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Energy economics article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Economics Mid‑importance

	Business and economics portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Climate change Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change 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.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Energy Low‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy 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.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To merge International Association for Energy Economics into Energy economics; alternative to deletion for notability; merge for context. Klbrain (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Formal request has been received to merge: International Association for Energy Economics into Energy economics; dated: July 2023. Proposer's Rationale: The page for this association has been tagged with multiple issues for five years: COI, ADVERT, single source, and lack of multiple sources. The only issue that's been resolved in several years is the removal of copyvio from the Association's official website. Current sources for this article are almost entirely links to this organization, its publications, and its affiliate organizations. The exceptions were to one third party summary of an IAEE publication and to one Archive.org page, which appears to have tried to reference an affiliate IAEE chapter but instead pulls up an unrelated page of old movie posters. Although this organization ought to be notable--it's nearly fifty years old and has legitimate academics on its council--it keeps such a low profile that there doesn't seem to be enough independent third party coverage to rewrite this obvious PR piece into an encyclopedic article. If anyone wants to try, here are the sources I was able to dig up.[1][2] Most of the search engine returns resolved to primary sources or the LinkedIn pages of individuals affiliated with the organization. Since there doesn't seem to be a prospect of a reasonably encyclopedic article about this association itself, propose merging salvageable content into the general topic of Energy economics. GenQuest ^"scribble" 03:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC) for proposer, TheTortillaBook. Discuss here.[reply]

It's been a month with no responses on the article talk page. Thinking of waiting another two weeks and then doing a bold merger if there's still no response. Sounds good? If not then what's your recommendation? TheTortillaBook (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is no opposition expressed, I'd say go for it. It has been over a month now and is getting stale. Regards, GenQuest ^"scribble" 20:21, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- - It's been a month with no responses on the article talk page. Thinking of waiting another two weeks and then doing a bold merger if there's still no response. Sounds good? If not then what's your recommendation? TheTortillaBook (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Moved to merge discussion area. Should consider proceeding BOLDLY sooner than later. GenQuest ^"scribble" 20:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you for the advice. Hoping for at least a second editor more familiar with the topic. Willing to give this a little more time before moving boldly. TheTortillaBook (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Great. However, please confine merge talk to this page. Thanks, GenQuest ^"scribble" 18:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We'll wait for an RM to voice our opinions when a justifiable reversion of this proposed merge occurs. I'm wondering what you're waiting for already! Intrisit (talk) 18:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.