Talk:Real versus nominal value/Archives/2013

This is an archive of past discussions about Real versus nominal value. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Proposal to merge "Real versus nominal value (economics)" into "Real versus nominal value"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

As to the above proposal, the reason offered for it (in the Edit mode of the merger template) is as follows:

["Real versus nominal value (economics)"] seems to be a subtopic and the parent isn't big enough to need a split.

Well, Real versus nominal value (economics) did have a "Main article" banner to Real versus nominal value, but they started off as different articles. So, it's not a matter of splitting them. More importantly, most of the "Real versus nominal value" article is about a totally different usage of the 'real versus nominal value'. That usage (from the 1st paragraph there) can be paraphrased as "actual- versus approximately-stated value". By contrast, the economic usage of "real versus nominal value", refers to differences in the purchasing power of the same money amount (from a change in prices).§ Given those big differences, I don't believe that there is much of a case for merger. If there is no consensus otherwise, I'd propose to remove the Merge banner after a reasonable period for comment (say, after a week?).

§ To point out that difference, I have changed the "Main article" banner to read: "For engineering and other usages, see Real versus nominal value.[1] --Thomasmeeks (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge banner was removed per the above. P.S. I believe that good side effects of the above proposal were in clarifying and simplifying the scope of this article article per the proposal below (now acted on). --Thomasmeeks (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

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.

Proposal to remove Economics section (with disambiguation banner at the top instead)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The the previous section noted the totally distinct uses of 'Real versus nominal value' in Engineering compared to Economics. In light of that I'd like to propose removal of the one-sentence Economics section in this article (with the current disambiguation banner in place of it).[2] Credit would go its editors in the Real versus nominal value (economics) article for any of the removed material used there.

Any action could await a review period of say a week. Thank you. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Remove the section, but keep a link to that article in the See Also section. Rlsheehan (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. In the Real versus nominal value (economics) Edit summaries, I did try to acknowledge contributors to the present article of material moved or adapted there.[3] --Thomasmeeks (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

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.

Ambiguous linkage

A great number, but by no means all, articles that are now linked to Real versus nominal value should really be relinked to Real versus nominal value (economics). Doing that is a monumental job. Peter Horn User talk 16:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Not so hard really. Go to What links here, click on any page in the list, click "edit" for that page, and search within the editable text for 'Real versus nominal value'.

I've finished making all the relevant changes I can find (not counting talk pages). If you think more pages need to be changed, please see What links here. Rinconsoleao (talk) 10:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Not hard, just time consuming. Peter Horn User talk 23:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I only found three, includong one reversal of a redirect page. Peter Horn User talk 00:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

real

I believe the article describes nominal very well. Indeed the article titled "nominal" also describes the term well. The term "real" is ridiculous and best left to the dismal science and freshmen making loud inhaling sounds while stating our solar system could actually be a single atom of the toenail of a giant. Nominal, measured and absolute are the terms used in measuring things. You buy a ruler. the marks on the ruler are nominal. They are not perfect and for good rulers the manufacturer will share information about how imperfect the markings are. You measure something with the ruler. The ruler isn't perfect and the act of measurement isn't either. You get a measured value. Some clever person comes up with a method that removes some aspect of the ruler's imperfection out of the equation as a factor in contributing error at least to some significant degree. That is an absolute method of measurement. It still isn't perfect. All three forms of expressed values are real. None are perfect but you may be able to state with some confidence how far off those values are in terms of range, percentage or the like.184.45.20.17 (talk) 18:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)