This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to not merge Sargdub (talk) 04:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
MetaQuotes Software doesn't seem to be notable. As it has more info about the MetaTrader 4 then this article, I suggest merging that article to this one. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
The products of MetaQuotes Software (MetaTrader 4, MetaTrader 5, TeamWox) are different. MT4 is only for Forex market, MT5 is for Forex and stock markets. MT5 written from scratch. So programming languages MQL4 and MQL5 aren't inherited. And TeamWox is a business management system for SMB (ERP). Rather, each of them (mt4, mt5, teamwox) easier to create your page - Renat.Shafigullin (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not really sure I understand you, but it seems you don't get my point: the MetaQuotes Software article is about the MetaQuotes Software Corp, a company. This company is not (yet, probably) notable. If MetaTrader 5 and TeamWox are also not notable, probably no articles should cover them. Still I believe that the quality of MetaTrader 4 and 5 coverage would be greatly improved if this article would be devoted to both versions explaining the difference between them. The article could also give a short company background and a note about TeamWox. Your interest in getting some publicity for these products will be satisfied most by this option, as the separate pages will always be challenged: the notability for each of them is not (and probably can't be to date) established. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Dmitrij, I disagree with you. Why do think MetaQuotes Software Corp. is not notable? I've included 13 notable links in the article. Also MetaQuotes is a world leader in its market segment. I think this should be enough to ensure that the company mentioned in the Wiki. Also I've added links of two wonderful interviews: "Interview with Metaquotes – Lenar Fatkhullin" by Forex Magnates and "Exclusive interview with Alexander Saidullin, Director of Trading Platform Development at MetaQuotes" by FX Trader Magazine - Renat.Shafigullin (talk) 12:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Your links are about the products, not the company. It is an issue with implied inherited notability. See these examples on how do the references supporting company's notability look like: , , . Hope you see the difference: when the source describes the software by company, it proves notability of software, when the company on its own is described, it proves notability of the company. None of the references you've added don't describe MetaQuotes Software Corp itself, so they don't serve the purpose of establishing notability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I am a consultant in the forex industry and MT4 is very well known. MT5 is quite a different product despite masquerading as a descendant of MT4 (probably just to leverage the good will around the company's other product). An article about MetaTrader with a section about differences between the versions really won't make sense. If we keep separate articles for MT4 and MT5, then I don't see how you would merge the Metaquotes article into either one. I think the best solution here is separate articles for MT4, MT5, and Metaquotes. If any of those are deemed not notable enough for an article (i.e. Metaquotes) then its article can be removed, but a merger doesn't make sense. Bigmantonyd (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Agree. Moreover, all three appear to be notable enough. But it can be difficult to write all three articles without to much repetition and with little links that could be considered spammy.Enivid (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.