Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Ticker symbols in article leads

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MZMcBride (talk | contribs) at 18:20, 7 November 2012 (→‎Next steps: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This essay is a fraud

Even though the creator of this essay carefully selects only 5 (out of the many thousands) examples, I disagree with the implication that all of the inline usage of the ticker symbol template is a "historical artifact:" editors have continued to use the in-lead ticker template alongside the infobox ticker template with no issues until the writer of this essay started to remove them, and misleadingly cited this essay in the edit summaries on those removal edits. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A fraud? That's pretty strong language.
Where does this page say that "all of the inline usage of the ticker symbol" is a historical artifact? I believe both the page title and page content make it very clear that we're talking about the article lead.
Regarding misleading edit summaries, what are you talking about? I removed ticker symbols with a clear edit summary that linked to this subject-space page as a means of further explaining my actions. What about my edits was misleading? --MZMcBride (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Linking to this page in the edit summary implied that it was a policy or guideline and not a user's personal essay. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You think including a link in an edit summary makes it seem as though that link is a policy or a guideline? I don't understand. What you're saying doesn't make any sense. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Not at all. It just means it was his rationale for making an edit. Just because something is linked to in WP: space doesn't mean its a policy/guideline/edict/law/etc. Legoktm (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree that it is clearly the appearance of stating a policy or guideline by using "per" in the edit summary. Nobody cites "per WP:Point" when they are vandalizing an article, even though they are. It would be easier if they did, to know which should be reverted. Using per in my opinion clearly indicates that the reason for the edit is per policy or per guideline, not "per my personal suggestion", or "per a historically kept joke that was rejected long ago". Apteva (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your analogy is a bit flawed. If a vandal used "per WP:POINT" in an edit summary, according to your logic, WP:POINT would automagically become a policy, even though it is not. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"policy or guideline". WP:Point is a "behavioral guideline". Apteva (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have completely missed the point. Both you and UnitedStatesian have now claimed in various places that this page was cited as a policy or guideline, yet neither of you have any evidence to support these claims, other than edit summaries that use the English word per followed by a link to a page in the Wikipedia namespace. I believe this type of dishonesty is wildly inappropriate here and I wish both of you would retract the false statements you have made today, on this page and elsewhere. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to retract. The cite of a policy is a commonly used edit summary - per MOS, per NPOV, per WEIGHT, per HYPHEN, per DASH, the list goes on and on. Anyone reading the edit summary "per WP:NASDAQ" is logically going to assume that WP:NASDAQ offers some sort of policy or guideline on the use of Nasdaq symbols, whereas it is simply a made up suggestion from a month ago. Here is what can be done though, change it to say "Articles about publicly traded companies should have their ticker symbol listed after the company name, using either the {{NASDAQ}}, {{NYSE}}, {{TSX}} or other Category:Ticker symbol templates, and in an infobox, if one exists. Only one or two exchanges should be listed in the lead sentence." Apteva (talk) 14:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Next steps

Hi. Now that the deletion discussion has concluded, I believe, based on past discussion with other users, that a Requests for comment (RFC) is needed to reach a consensus on this issue. I'm posting here to make sure that this is indeed the next step to take. My view is the view outlined in the subject-space page. Others have (or had) an alternate view of the role of ticker symbols in article leads. Due to the current inconsistency in many of our company articles, I'd like to reach a decision about how we want to move forward. I don't believe including the ticker symbol in some article leads and omitting it in others is a good way to proceed.

Is an RFC needed? My only hesitation is that I don't want to waste contributor time participating in a Requests for comment if there's general agreement about the issue now. If a consensus still hasn't been reached, however, it makes sense to try to gather a clear consensus on this issue, in my view. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users notified about this talk page section, based on participation in the village pump discussion
  1. Robert Horning
  2. Legoktm
  3. Apteva
  4. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫
  5. Izno
  6. postdlf
  7. Ds13
  8. Rangoon11
  9. MASEM
  10. UnitedStatesian
  11. Corn cheese
Areas to advertise an RFC, should it come to fruition
  1. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
  2. Wikipedia:CENT?
  3. Various village pumps
  4. Various WikiProjects, including WikiProject Companies
  5. Individual users who have participated in past discussions about this issue?
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Ticker_symbols_in_article_leads&oldid=521860073"