Talk:Financial Instrument Global Identifier

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment 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.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Open (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OpenWikipedia:WikiProject OpenTemplate:WikiProject OpenOpen articles

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Andrewmp (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection.

Sources

Andrewmp Thanks for creating this article, and thank you for asking my opinion of it.

The base of Wikipedia is information coming from reliable sources which are cited and independent of the subject of the article. Consider the references used in this article. References 1-4 are to sources published by Bloomberg, so those and the information from them are mostly out of scope for what this article can cover. Reference 5 is a good source. References 6 is dead and to a nonstandard and therefore dubious publisher; 7 is a press release; and 8 seems like news at first look but with the article undated and without a byline, it seems most likely that this information came from a press release wire service. If challenged, 6-8 and all information from them would be likely to be cut.

That leaves just reference 5. For a Wikipedia article to exist, notability has to be established, which usually means 3 publications have to be identified which have the subject of the article as their own subject.

Have two other sources covered this concept? If so, I encourage you to list them to establish notability. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lane - I made a rough attempt/start at adding content and information to this page with the focus on fixing the citation issues. Was thinking that maybe a further reading section might help? I think the direct links to PDFs are important and helpful, just maybe not as citations? Open to discussion about this for sure. This is definitely just a start -- will continue as I get some free time. Hope this is helpful, plan on tighten up and adding to these citations, etc. Best, Erika BrillLyle (talk) 12:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BrillLyle! I cleared up one thing -- BBGID is not regulated by FINRA, FINRA is a regulator that uses BBGIDs in their data feed. The facilitators page where the names come from merely separates the users into three separate categories based upon whether they are an exchange, regulator, or third-party. Andrewmp (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking for a more specific inception date than "~2009", I believe the site was properly announced on November 3rd, 2009. I found this ZeroHedge post referencing it. Andrewmp (talk) 14:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming the article

At the September meeting of the Object Management Group (OMG), they adopted the BBGID system as their new standard Financial Instrument Global Identifier (FIGI). Thus, BBGIDs are now standardized by an external body and renamed the FIGI. Maybe this also helps with some of the source referencing issues because Bloomberg is dropped from the name and a third party is standardizing it. I'm not sure how this is typically handled when renaming happens, but the article should be moved with redirects from BBGID and Bloomberg Global Identifier redirecting to the Financial Instrument Global Identifier page. The moved page should then clearly state the timeline so that people are aware they are the same thing. You can read more about the standardization and the spec here. The renaming was announced by Bloomberg LP on their blog. Andrewmp (talk) 14:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added some minor edits to add information about the re-branding / re-naming. After reading the talk page Andrewmp's approach of creating a new page and re-directing users sounds more appropriate. Are there any reasons why you didn't add the news items to the current page in the meantime, Andrew? And is it appropriate that I did? Zadacka (talk) 07:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at what you did. Assuming that everything is in order, this page should be moved/renamed to the new name. The move should be accompanied by a cleanup of the article. The part that is missing is references to third-parties who recognize the name change. By "third party", I mean someone distant to the standardization, so preferably not the Object Management Group but rather an observer to the change.

When article cleanup happens, materials which are self-published by either Bloomberg or the OMG should be removed as WP:SPS. The article currently contains such sources and it never should have. I am at hand if anyone has comments or would like me to execute the move after reviewing available sources to cite. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]