Talk:Hikkake pattern

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

removed "how to trade hikkake pattern" since it was factually and technically inaccurate. 209.182.101.102 (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Formally adopted?[edit]

FTFA: "Some technical analysts may also refer to the hikkake pattern as an "inside day false breakout," however this term has never been formally adopted."

What, exactly, is this supposed to mean? Formally adopted by whom? I see the first article in the external links section uses the term, and is written by the discoverer of the pattern, so I don't understand what lack of formality stands in the way of using this term. Anyone? JulesH (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Link of dubious relevancy[edit]

The link is directly relevant to the proper definition, as noted in the 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph of the introduction. Please exaplain why you feel it has "no revelency".

It's not relevant to the topic of the article. Description of "fakey pattern" isn't required in this case, as it's mentioned only as an alternative name for the Hikkake pattern in the article. Besides, the external link page has only one sentence about "fakey pattern", which could have been easily included into the article's text if it was needed for understanding the article (but it isn't). Please read WP:EL for more information on what constitutes a worthy external link and what doesn't.Enivid (talk) 07:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

eSignal link not spam[edit]

this link is not spam. its an educational article, specific to the topic of the hikkake pattern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duttywine (talkcontribs) 14:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

But does it provide anything important that isn't provided in the article itself or in the three preceding external links? Enivid (talk) 08:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Enivid. The article provides detailed graphic examples, illustrating the theoretical and practical application of the article subject. Also note that the external links section for technical analysis category wiki articles, can vary from zero external links, to many. For example, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIN_(finance) Duttywine (talk) 19:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
The first external link provides the same without any ads. Why do we need another link here? Enivid (talk) 05:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Enivid. Specifically, the disputed link shows more recent examples. In addition examples are shown using alternate time frames to the examples shown in the first link. Also note that the external links section for technical analysis category wiki articles, can vary from zero external links, to many external links. For example please see external links section for TRIN: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIN_(finance). Awaiting feedback. Duttywine (talk) 02:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
The age of the example charts, as well as the used time frame, is irrelevant to the described TA concept. The fact that the number of external links may vary doesn't mean that we need one more link here. Enivid (talk) 08:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)