Wikipedia talk:Ticker symbols in article leads

This page was nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep.

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]

Given the voiced input in the MFD and the discussion elsewhere, an RFC is probably appropriate, but more towards documenting this in an appropriate MOS. Which one, I don't know off-hand. You can leave this as an essay to explain the reasons. --MASEM (t) 21:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC seems to me like forum shopping: you didn't like the outcome at WP:VPP (failure to develop consensus to make your proposed change to thousands of public company articles), so you want trying again in a different forum. Can't we move on to something else? UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where in the VPP discussion there was a consensus against this. Seemed like most of the concern was if it was being represented as a policy or not which it has since clearly been tagged as an essay. IT seems to me that the opinions in this essay logically follow from MOS:CONTEXTLINK. Unless a ticker symbol is the reason a company is notable my reading of the MOS implies it shouldn't not be included in the lead. I noticed that the essay was edited to add the opposing view but don't see a rational against following the MOS rationale. PaleAqua (talk) 05:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the inclusion rationale that was added. #1 doesn't seem valid. This is not about completely excluding the ticker symbol from an article only from the lead. #2 ( and the corresponding exclusion #2 ) both boil down to the question of what is the consensus, and don't seem to be a rationale on their own. #3 again doesn't seem to be a rationale for inclusion just an argument that we don't have to follow what other encyclopedias do. #4 This to me is valid inclusion argument. But seems almost like saying for US citizens we should include the SSN number since it is a unique identifier of the person. Why the ticker symbol and not the DUNS number for instance? #5 seems to partly be an exclusion argument, saying more than one is clutter but one isn't? #6 Seems to be against an argument that currently does not appear on the essay page at all. It does seem to me that consistency is important though and that the exclusion argument should be do not include the ticker symbol in the lead unless it is particularly notable to the subject. PaleAqua (talk) 06:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not every public company has a DUNS number, and not every person has a social security number (or is even an American, believe it or not!). Every public company, everywhere on the Earth, has a ticker symbol, just like every living (or formerly living) species has a Latin name. And of course, any informaiton needs to be verifiable; the ticker symbol certainly is, while the DUNS or SSN almost never is. UnitedStatesian (talk) 10:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear I was not seriously suggesting using the SSN number or the DUNS number. Merely stating that including the ticker symbol seems to me that using the ticker symbol feels more like clutter along those lines than along the lines of latin names. Latin names also categorize related animals. PaleAqua (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calling the suggestion that we start an RFC forum shopping is idiotic. And the MFD pretty soundly rejected your previous assertions and views toward this page.

It seems there continues to be genuine disagreement on the issue. We'll start an RFC to try to gauge consensus. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users notified about this talk page section, based on participation in the village pump discussion
Robert Horning Legoktm Apteva ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ Izno postdlf Ds13 Rangoon11 MASEM UnitedStatesian Corn cheese

Areas to advertise an RFC, should it come to fruition
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style Wikipedia:CENT? Various village pumps Various WikiProjects, including WikiProject Companies Individual users who have participated in past discussions about this issue?

Discussion opened

Hi. I've started an RFC here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ticker symbols in article leads. Please weigh in there. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noted the RFC at Template:Centralized discussion, the policy and proposals village pumps, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies, and of course this talk page. I didn't notify individual editors as I assume they'll have watched this talk page if they care about the issue. I also didn't notify other possibly related WikiProjects. If anyone feels I should, please let me know and I'd be happy to. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of inclusion rationale

Hi. In these edits, I removed the "inclusion" rationale from this page and marked the page an {{info page}} (as opposed to an {{essay}}), following the outcome of WP:RFC/TICKER. Let me know if you have any questions, concerns, comments, etc. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]