Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Finance & Investment

HomeDiscussionFeeds & open tasksRequestsAssessmentResourcesTemplatesParticipantsMailing listDrives

Sourcing help

Afternoon. I have an article here, Kapital Bank, which is in dire need of sources; I'm not finding anything acceptable in a Google search. As I'd rather not AfD the page without making sure that absolutely nothing usable exists is it possible there are offline sources about the bank? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 19:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Where is the boundary between options strategies?

Hello! I recently started completely rewriting the Strangle (options) article, but I've run into a problem: I plan to eventually rewrite most options articles but I fear that a large amount of content will simply be duplicated between articles. Should we really maintain separate articles on various strategies with small differences between them (I.E defined and undefined risk variants of strategies)? For instance, I don't see any functional difference for readers between the articles Strangle (options), Iron condor, and Condor (options)... obviously professionals will point out various esoteric differences in how the greeks work for each, and slight differences in management, but I don't really know if these small differences warrant dedicated articles, as opposed to one larger article. But the problem is, where would we draw the line in merging such articles? Straddle options are synthetically similar to each of the strategies i've listed, but that probably (maybe?) warrants its own article.

Clearly I think we should have some articles on options strategies, but I feel like many of the articles we already have duplicate each other substantially. TraderCharlotte (talk) 04:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I think in some cases an obscure strategy can be discussed in a section of an article about a closely related strategy, like in Straddle#Straps and strips and Butterfly (options)#Butterfly variations. But in general I agree that it's not easy to merge articles about different strategies. A condor is sort of like a strangle, sort of like a ladder, and sort of like a butterfly, but probably wouldn't fit comfortably as a section of any of those articles. Also, if we try to combine descriptions of a variety of strategies to completely remove repetition, I suspect the result might be so abstract it would confuse most readers, especially non-specialists.

Could you give some examples of information that's duplicated? Maybe that would help in thinking about solutions. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger: Sure! For instance, the content in the section "short strangles" would all also pertain to Iron Condors. Is there a way to include the content of part of one page in another, with a single word changed (i.e changing "strangle" to iron condor")? Maybe a creative use of transclusion could fix some of this? TraderCharlotte (talk) 23:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

With transclusion, I could write generalized sentences and paragraphs in some parts of the article with transcluded content, and then get to more specialized content with custom article-specific content in non-transcluded paragraphs. Template:Excerpt seems to support this. I'll try implementing this on some of the articles. TraderCharlotte (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I've tested this on iron condor (I will add references later). TraderCharlotte (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

For instance, the content in the section "short strangles" would all also pertain to Iron Condors. That's not true – unlike a short strangle, an iron condor is a limited-risk strategy. I guess you noticed this, which is presumably why you added the code <noinclude>un</noinclude>limited losses to the strangle article. It's a nice effort, but I don't support this approach. I think it's likely to be error-prone, especially if applied to more than two articles. It's also hard for other editors to maintain and improve – editors who want to change the articles are likely to have a hard time understanding what is going on with all the "noinclude"s and "includeonly"s, and might easily introduce errors. And this approach is hard to reconcile with WP:V – a source about strangles can't be used to support content about iron condors, unless it happens to discuss both strategies. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 10:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

In general I think the requirement for verifiability will make it hard to reuse content about different strategies. Information about a strategy can only be verified by a source about that strategy – a source about a different strategy doesn't work. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 10:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Alright then, thanks! I'll just edit them separately then. TraderCharlotte (talk) 22:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, TraderCharlotte. I've seen you around on some of the finance articles lately, which is great. I know what you are saying about the options articles being frustrating at times. I had the impulse to consolidate all of them, then some of them, when I started editing. I decided not to even try, for the reasons that Mx. Granger describes, that sourcing different strategies is going to require, well, different sources, and more concerning, that future editors might find it daunting to try to make any revisions if the options articles are um paramaterized using transclusions. Although that is a clever idea! Keep up your good editing work!--FeralOink (talk) 00:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Dan Wagner article update

Hi. Editors of this project might be interested in suggestions to update the article about Dan Wagner a well-known British tech entrepreneur. The proposals are here: Talk:Dan Wagner#Request Edits April 2022. Since I have a COI, an independent editor or editors should review these. Thanks.W12SW77 (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Douglas Leone requests

Hello there, WikiProject members. I recently posted two requests to the Douglas Leone article Talk page concerning proposed revisions. I have a COI so I'm hoping to get an experienced editor to review what I've put together. I thought I would try pinging here since Doug's career is obviously closely tied with Sequoia Capital and venture capital.

The first request involves a very straightforward update to the infobox. The second request involves changes to the article introduction (updating his title), Career section (lightly restructuring and updating existing claims), and Personal life section (adding one additional claim). Again, due to my conflict of interest I will not make any changes to the article myself so I'm hoping someone else can look over my requests. If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know. VS for Sequoia Capital (talk) 23:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

The shortcomings of Investopedia as a reliable source

Greetings Wikipedians! In my humble opinion, we should avoid overreliance on Investopedia as a reliable source for our inline citations. My advice is to use it if you must, but don't make it your sole source. Reasons are as follows:

1. Investopedia claims its authors are experts, but I am suspicious that their standards aren't very high. For example, check out the bio for Jason Fernando, who wrote the Investopedia article on yield to maturity.

2. Investopedia offers articles and courses that carry a short-term or fad investing focus, like Best Online Technical Analysis Courses, Best Online Gold Dealers and How to Trade Orange Juice Options. Their business model seems to be to advertise financial service products aimed at individual investors and advisors who cater to them.

I have more trust in financial journalists who write for prominent publications like The Economist, The New York Times, Barrons, Associated Press, Reuters and Institutional Investor's web site. Peer-reviewed academic journals, or at least published academic papers, are even better. A 1-year subscription to The Journal of Finance costs only $39 (free if you're a student). Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 12:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of adding it to WP:RSP tbh. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 13:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@User:Ixtal - It's already mentioned on WP:RSP, where it's classified as a tertiary source, with text that says no consensus exists. BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 20:53, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps a new RFC there is necessary? Last thread on the topic had barely any participation. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 22:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I think we should have our own view before going to WP:RSN. The noticeboard often is interested in and gives at least some weight to the views of the relevant WikiProject. My own impression is that Investopedia's quality is uneven, but I would not want to bar it altogether. Maybe something like: May be used as a source for uncontroversial statements, but prefer a more reliable source when available. Thoughts? John M Baker (talk) 22:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

As a test, I just looked at a couple of articles on Investopedia to see how they did in addressing subjects I'm familiar with. First, I looked at Mutual Fund vs. ETF: What's the Difference?. It's a bit simplistic and overlooks some of the factors I would consider important. Still, I did not see much in the way of outright inaccuracies. The article has a named author and indicates who reviewed it and who fact-checked it. I would not be upset to see this cited on Wikipedia, although there are better sources available for someone willing to take the trouble to find them.

Second, I looked at What Is a Hedge Fund?. There are three errors in the opening sentence alone. The named author is "The Investopedia Team"; there are also a reviewer and a fact-checker, although the latter did not seem to know what she was doing, and in fact her bio implies that she has good experience editing but not so much in finance. An article like this is obviously inappropriate for Wikipedia, and it leaves me wondering if my suggestion that Investopedia "may be used as a source for uncontroversial statements" is too generous. John M Baker (talk) 22:40, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Immunization article

Nobody has taken this on yet, so I today I took the first step towards improving this article. More to come. See Talk Page. BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@User:Ixtal - My work on this article is complete. I welcome any comments or suggestions. Regards,BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

@User:BuzzWeiser196 I will go have a look at what you have accomplished! --FeralOink (talk) 00:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

LendingClub Merge Request

Hello! I'm popping into this WikiProject to ask for help with a merge request. The basic issue is this: LendingClub absorbed a bank last year. That bank previously had its own Wikipedia page, which has since been renamed LendingClub Bank. But that entity doesn't really exist. LC offers banking services, but there's no arm of the company or subsidiary called "LendingClub Bank." It's all part of the same unified whole.

I'm a LendingClub employee with an obvious COI, so I don't get a vote on the issue. I'm just here to call attention to it. I went to the Proposed Article Mergers page and posted a request, but haven't yet received any feedback. Would anyone here mind reviewing my request? I'd be very grateful for any help I can get with this. EFlynn at LendingClub (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC)