Talk:London Stock Exchange/Archive 1

Random Request

 * I'm moving this post from the article. It probably shouldn't be here, I have no objection to its deletion.Zenosparadox 17:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

"Can I have names of Indian listed companies in London stock exchange. Sometimes these Indian listed companies are known as GDRs. Thanks Best Wishes, Sunder Thadani mailto:sunder360@yahoo.com Phone:91.22.24459165"


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a research service.  DJR  ( T ) ( WC ) 17:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

If possible, someone should update today's news about the second bid from Nasdaq. Egc


 * I have undated with the news that the offer has been rejected. 145.253.108.22 15:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Picture
Is there a reason why a picture of the NYSE is shown in this article? I was going to delete it, but I figured there might be a good reason. Betaeleven 19:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks much better. Betaeleven 14:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Trading hours
The standard equity trading hours are 0800-1630 - can this be placed somewhere? Sparky132 14:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Infobox
At the moment, the Exchange's motto is not displayed on the actual page -- and has not been displayed since the infobox was inserted -- despite the fact that the text has been placed in the infobox.

Is this a matter of coding? or is it that the mechanics of the site do not respond to a class designated "company slogan"?

BTW, it is very definitely a "motto" and it is most definitely not a "slogan" -- if, for no other reason than the fact that it appears in the Exchange's own Coat of Arms which it received in 1923. 

Can somebody please adjust the coding so that it actually can be seen on the page; and at the same time, replace the incorrect "slogan" with the correct "motto".Lindsay658 21:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed unsourced statement
I removed the following footnote from the article: "A piece of trivia: Upon occasion, financial companies will decide to use this motto. They only know the English 'My word is my bond'; and, due to the difficulty of locating the original Latin motto (from which the English version is taken), produce a fake coat of arms for their business embellished with the Latin motto verbum meum pactum. At first sight, this seems O.K. -- for this Latin motto also means 'My word is my bond' -- but, sadly for them, whilst dictum meum pactum very definitely means 'The words that come out of my mouth are my bond', the contrasting motto verbum meum pactum, in this context, means 'The words that I write on a page are my bond'; and, as a consequence, they are warning their customers that 'Nothing that I say can be trusted'." Firstly, it is unsourced. Secondly, it is by its own admission "trivia". Johntex\talk 17:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

London Stock Exchange Group plc
Now that the LSE has completed the takeover of Borsa Italiana, I would like to propose a change in this article. The new LSE is known as London Stock Exchange Group plc reflecting ownership of the LSE and BI. I propose that the LSE article is solely about the LSE and a new article titled London Stock Exchange Group plc should reflect the group as a whole. This would involve the relocation of some info to the new page, which now exists. I suggest that the Alliances section be removed from this article as they are now part of the LSE Group, rather than the LSE itself. Any thoughts and objections, then please let me know. Darkieboy236 12:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've changed the infobox on this article to Infobox Exchange to reflect that this article is about an exchange and not a holding company. Arsenikk 16:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Good idea...that should help people to distinguish between the LSE and the Group that owns both the LSE and the Borsa Italiana. As the Group grows, the differences will become more enhanced.  This is a similar format to other British groups listed on Wiki where they own subsiaries. In future, all info specifically relating to the LSE will be on the LSE page and information relating to the parent company, ie the Group, will appear on its particular page. Darkieboy236 19:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If there are no objections, then I might remove the proposal to merge the LSE and the LSE Group plc into one article as they both justify seperate listings. The two seperate articles make it more functional if the LSE Group plc buys another Exchange. Darkieboy236 12:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you should talk about the fact that, after the merger between the LSE and BI, Italians got the majority of shares in LSE Group! (28% as Dubai) --Alexander64 (msg) 08:44, 8 set 2011 (CEST)

Correct motto is "dictum meum pactum"
In relation to the entirely appropriate correction made on 24 November 2007 by Nsorelli, the actual motto of the stock exchange (as it appears on the Stock Exchanges own coat of arms -- see ) is dictum meum pactum. It is not, and it never was verbum meum pactum.

The English version of it motto, "my word is my bond", is well known; and the correct Latin version, dictum meum pactum, is its precise equivalent.

In a more precise analysis, when the correct expression dictum meum pactum is compared with the incorrect verbum meum pactum, the first delivers the intended meaning, and the second is wrong. Dictum meum pactum means "the words that I utter (the words that come out of my mouth) are my bond"; as distinct from verbum meum pactum, which means "the words that I write on the page are my bond" — and, therefore, is something that implicitly signals that "nothing that I say can be trusted".Lindsay658 (talk) 05:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Ssbprice.jpg
The image Image:Ssbprice.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --07:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Logo
The logo in the info-box is out of date; the current one (per their website) is sans serif. If a suitable low-resolution version could replace that presently in use it would improve matters. --AlisonW (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The Source
User:Kagiaras has said that The Source no longer exists. I've been trying to find a citation to confirm this one way or another, but cannot. Can someone with better Google-fu or who knows the matter help?

If it does indeed no longer exist, should it still be covered in the article? I remember that installation getting a fair amount of news coverage when it first opened, and it may thus be sufficiently notable to at least receive the brief mention it had previously in the article.

--me_and (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:COPYVIO content removed
I have just removed a large section of text that was copied verbatim from the London Stock Exchange's website. The specific sources were:


 * http://www.londonstockexchange.com/companies-and-advisors/main-market/companies/companies.htm
 * http://www.londonstockexchange.com/companies-and-advisors/main-market/main/market.htm
 * http://www.londonstockexchange.com/companies-and-advisors/aim/aim/aim.htm
 * http://www.londonstockexchange.com/companies-and-advisors/aim/for-companies/joining/aim.htm
 * http://www.londonstockexchange.com/companies-and-advisors/psm/about/psm-about.htm
 * http://www.londonstockexchange.com/companies-and-advisors/sfm/about/about-the-specialist-fund-market.htm

Additionally, since this content is a blatant copyright violation, I claim exemption from the three-revert rule (which I would otherwise be falling afoul of).

--me_and (talk) 19:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Products and services section.
Remove. This section, despite my recent efforts, still looks like an advertisement. Does anybody believe they are capable of revising it to a completely neutral perspective? I recommend removing it entirely, as other business pages do not have such sections, and it is intrinsically biased. I, Englishman Wouldst thou speak? • Handiwork 13:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How's about now? I've just cut out a lot of text that added little other than advertising speak. I don't think the section is inherently biased, and is useful since LSE offers a small number of fairly notable services. me_and (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Much better. I, Englishman Wouldst thou speak? • Handiwork 00:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Auto-archive
Does anyone have any objection to me setting up an auto-archive bot on this page, to clear off some of the stale discussions onto a separate page? --me_and (talk) 11:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. Go ahead. I, Englishman Wouldst thou speak? • Handiwork 13:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Done me_and (talk) 09:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Sri Lankan IP removing content relating to Sri Lankan IT company
in this edit removes information relating to the problems with the new software system developed by Sri Lankan IT company MillenniumIT. Let's just hope it's some fellow Sri Lankans who are embarrassed on their behalf and not employees of MillenniumIT who are making such an inappropriate edit. The edit has been reverted. __meco (talk) 18:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Technology Issues section outdated, inaccurate and incomplete
This section contains NPOV regarding the TradElec system. Furhter, it's outdated; as the new system is in place (tense problems). Furhter, the current Linux-based LSE system is in "Chaos" and yet nothing is mentioned, let alone the raving tone from the rest of the section.

Suggestsion:

A) Sobriety be brought to the MS/Accenture system.

B) Tense changes.

C) A synopsis of these articles be incluede at the top; as they are most current;

5 Hour Outage: http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/news/stock-exchange-blames-data-dissemination-for-outage-22165, http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/networking/3262702/london-stock-exchange-hauled-offline-after-major-data-problem/

Growing Anger: http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/it-business/3261816/london-stock-exchange-price-data-failures-emerged-immediately-at-millennium-launch/?intcmp=in_article;related

"data failures ‘emerged immediately at...launch’": http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/it-business/3261816/london-stock-exchange-price-data-failures-emerged-immediately-at-millennium-launch/?intcmp=in_article;related

These problems are wide and ongoing and should be correctly covered in this article. Instead the section is a NPOV smear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.107.188.5 (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Technology Used
Are there any confirmed reports on the technology used in the LSE? I heard it was a mixture of Microsoft SQL Server and .NET applications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.221.94.160 (talk) 07:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I found this article: is ComputerworldUK a reliable source? 195.212.29.163 (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The fact that they use Microsoft and .NET was widely published by Microsoft - the LSE platform was developed by Microsoft and Accenture and was used in Microsoft's "Get the Facts" campaign. It was supposed to have a five nines reliability platform. After suffering extended downtime and unreliability the LSE is planning to dump Microsoft and switch to Linux in 2010. As well as ComputerWorld it was covered in ITwire and even SlashDot. Despite this, and quite amusingly, Microsoft UK have have this "success" on their web site. 80.192.120.114 (talk) 13:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * And the new Linux system has been in constant chaos -- including full multi-hour outages -- since launch.
 * http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/it-business/3263747/london-stock-exchange-what-really-went-wrong/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.107.188.5 (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

IRA bombing
I have just reverted an edit by User:Kagiaras that removed mention of the IRA bombing. I disagree with Kagiaras' assertion that the content is unimportant, but would welcome comment and discussion. --me_and (talk) 20:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Kagiaras has been blocked for repeatedly removing this content after myself and User:Donald Duck returned it. I cannot currently return the content myself, as that would put me in violation of WP:3RR. However, if after a little time there is no consensus for the content to be removed, I will return it again. --me_and (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree the content belongs.Statoman71 (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Dead Citations
This article is full of dead citations. It doesn't look like they were done correctly previously (ie by hardcoding the [x] for example). Is there a way to tidy this up as most of the article is now uncited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Handheldpenguin (talk • contribs) 14:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The dead citations appeared when Razkam managed to destroy a load of references on 5th October 2011. I guess it went unnoticed, so those references need to be reinserted manually, since it can't be reverted now.--Movable Nu (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I just added a load of the old citations back in, and tried to sort out the worst of the damage. It's a bit of a quick fix though; this article's a mess. The "Others" section needs to be merged into history at some point.--Movable Nu (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Stock Exchange forgery
Interested as I and other philatelists might be in the 'Stock Exchange Forgery' link, it really falls into Grangerism territory. You might as well have a link to the Charles Dickens article on the grounds that he mentions 'Change' in Great Expectations. Guyal of Sfere (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on London Stock Exchange. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070305072552/http://www.forbes.com:80/finance/feeds/afx/2006/04/12/afx2665242.html to http://www.forbes.com/finance/feeds/afx/2006/04/12/afx2665242.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on London Stock Exchange. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011131125/http://www.londonstockexchange.com/LSECWS/IFSPages/MarketNewsPopup.aspx?id=1403960&source=RNS to http://www.londonstockexchange.com/LSECWS/IFSPages/MarketNewsPopup.aspx?id=1403960&source=RNS
 * Added tag to http://investing.reuters.co.uk/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=mergersNews&storyID=2007-08-20T091233Z_01_L2025258_RTRIDST_0_LSE-NASDAQ-SALE-UPDATE-1.XML

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

First Rule Book
Citation included to reference the statement 'With its new governmental commandments...' UX Ninja (talk) 12:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC) Please can someone verify?