Talk:Surplus

Clean-up

This page was tagged for clean-up in June 2009. Although no reason was given, I assume it was because of the minor tidying that has now been done, and that some of the entries seem to contain the word surplus, but may not meet the guidelines for inclusion. What do other users think still needs to be done? Boleyn3 (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of those difficult cases, because the disambiguated term is so basic that it appears in aspect in many topics, but inclusion of titles for which the disambiguated term forms only a part are contraindicated by the MOS:DAB. I included economic surplus because the article addresses "surplus" in various forms in economics, not specifically as "economic surplus"; but that may be a debatable inclusion. ENeville (talk) 04:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]