Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Ticker symbols in article leads

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Keep; no clear consensus on userfication. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Ticker symbols in article leads


Page is misleading, it is not policy or guideline, and has been used as if it was - apparently over a hundred times in the month since it was created. The ticker symbol is similar to pronunciation or scientific name - gobbly gook to someone who is not looking for that information, but essential information for someone who is. Apteva (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC) *Delete Putting "per WP:NASDAQ" in an edit summary, as you yourself have done hundreds of times, is citing it as a policy or guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: I created this page. A few people have subsequently gone around claiming (without evidence) that I cited this page as policy. Is there any evidence for this claim? --MZMcBride (talk) 19:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If I put "per WP:TURKEY" in an edit summary, would that make WikiProject Turkey a policy or guideline? What about if I put "per DICK"? Would that make Don't be a dick a policy or guideline? What you're saying doesn't make any sense. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * According to UnitedStatesian, yes. But no. Rjd0060 (talk) 13:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: There's already a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Ticker symbols in article leads, WP:VPP, User talk:MZMcBride, and at User talk:UnitedStatesian. Was it really worth splitting the discussion even more? Legoktm (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per MZMcBride (uh oh, now MZMcBride is a policy). I don't see the issue with citing a page that provides a longer explanation than would fit in an edit summary.  Consider WP:SNOW, WP:NOTNOW, and, as seems to be relevant here, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. —Emufarmers(T/C) 20:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I see there has been no loss of irony on this site. Killiondude (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Essays get cited. No valid reason to delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see nothing misleading or representing policy. The page provides an edit rationale that makes for more readable, yet clickable/detailed edit comments. --Ds13 (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's an essay, and you don't delete essays just because you don't agree with them. Legoktm (talk) 10:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Changing !vote to Move to User namespace. Per WP:ESSAY, "Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace." (emphasis mine).  UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Consensus really hasn't even been determined yet on the Village Pump (in fact, there's even a meta-discussion on what consensus is), so it seems like a preemptive decision to move it now. Legoktm (talk) 20:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The village pump discussion is to change the existing consensus.  The hundreds and hundreds of articles that have the ticker symbol in the lead sentence are strong evidence that this existing consensus has already been long-determined.  UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because something has been allowed or has occurred does not mean there has been consensus for the practice. I'm not sure you're aware of what that word entails on the English Wikipedia. Killiondude (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * UnitedStatesian, the "strong evidence" you speak of is currently being edited by some of the contributors to this discussion. You and I included!  So I would recommend *not* treating article contents as evidence of consensus -- contents have been changing as a result of this discussion. --Ds13 (talk) 00:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think even (especially?) if we excluded the last month's edits, the overwhelming preponderance of article contents (2 out of 3 featured articles on public companies, a majority of the members of the S&P 500 and DJIA stock indices, etc., etc., etc.) would be evidence of consensus. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because something was done a certain way in the past doesn't mean consensus existed (status quo not always equal to consensus). What's happening on the village pump is a consensus making discussion. Legoktm (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * While it may be an attempt to reach consensus on the Village Pump, I don't seen any sort of actual consensus being reached. Regardless, the Village Pump discussion is irrelevant as to the final disposition of this page, other than that discussion triggered the deletion nomination of this page in the first place. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep or userfy. The essay certainly expresses a valid point of view (though I'm not sure I agree with it) and shouldn't be deleted outright. Whether to keep it in Wikipedia space or to userfy it depends on one's view about essays that are written in the style of policy or guideline pages, though clearly labeled at the top as not being such. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Userfy - The objective of this page seems to be as a personal essay to short-cut explaining a broad-based change across multiple pages. My initial objection about this page was that due to its location in the Wikipedia namespace made it appear as though it was official policy.  Yes, it wasn't expressly stated that it was policy, but when it was being used it didn't say it wasn't policy either and the "essay" nature was applied by somebody other than the original author.  If there was some sort of consensus being generated about a policy like this on even a wikiproject page or being discussed on the Village Pump, reflecting that consensus in this manner would be much more appropriate.  I am concerned about the meta issue here of somebody randomly creating a page in this manner and then acting upon that change as if there was a sense of authority to those actions.  I've seen other users and even administrators on other Wikimedia projects do similar kind of actions (write a rule, then act based upon that rule) where I've even had to engage in wheel warring to stop those kind of actions.  The precedence needs to be established to strongly discourage this kind of behavior, as having this being a typical user behavior would cause considerable chaos to Wikipedia as a project.  As a sub-page of User:MZMcBride this would be very apparent that it is his own opinion on this matter and could still be used to explain the reasons for his edits in the manner it was originally being used, without any sort of "official policy" presumption on the part of more inexperienced users to Wikipedia (my primary concern in this case).  --Robert Horning (talk) 18:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - no valid reasoning for deletion presented in the deletion nomination. VQuakr (talk) 06:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Userfication is an ill-suited solution. Userfication of essays should be used when the essay is either A.) intended to only be edited by one user (say a particular users RFA procedures or editing philosophy) or when it goes against established consensus (say, an essay explaining why "Per Nom" is a reasonable deletion argument). This essay is neither. Essays fill in the gaps of policies and guidelines. WP:AADD, WP:NAC, WP:AAGF, WP:DENY, WP:BRD...they're all essays the fill in the gaps. WP:TICKER fills in the gaps in WP:LEDE. No one, not even the essay, is suggesting removing the information, just putting it in the infobox to make Ledes more readable. Perfectly acceptable essay. Achowat (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep or if MZ prefers, userfy. It's a pretty standard essay and is clearly marked as such. Any misinterpretation/misrepresentation (if such actually has occured ) is a behavioral problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A behavior problem how? Isn't this page in and of itself a symptom of the behavior problem, or are you saying that this is something which needs to be taken to some other forum for a complaint?  Or are you suggesting that it is a behavior problem if somebody relatively new to Wikipedia used to things like "revert per WP:NPOV" or other similar kind of sentiments being misinformed by quoting this page is a behavior problem for new users?  --Robert Horning (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I disagree with MZM essay, but why deleting it? Just because you don't like it? If people quote it as guideline, well, this strengthens the case for its relevance in WP space (meaning that editors find it useful/consensual). Essays are cited in discussions all the time. -- Cycl o pia talk  19:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * SNOW Keep We generally keep essays. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - It is a project space essay, supported by Manual of Style/Lead section. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.