Talk:Day trading

message: My changes to this article were significant and I hope to add more to this article as well as the empty tributary articles.  If you see any mistakes or faux pas, please let me know.
--Tony C- 22:09, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Technical analysis has been added to See Also section.  Fundamental analysis is listed there, and day traders use just as much (probably more) technical analysis as fundamental analysis.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.55.173.184 (talk) 03:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tech Analysis 

message: I've recently been reading about WikiBooks and there is some desire to move How-To information out of WikiPedia over there. Obviously this page has quite of a bit of How-To information (e.g. Techniques) which could be moved. I think it'd be nice to have a real instruction manual for Day Trading but it sounds like a bigger project than just editing this page, but maybe it doesn't have to be. For example see wikibooks:Technical Analysis Any thoughts? Ewlyahoocom 14:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to WikiBooks? 

message: Removed Stock Broker Career from external links. Talous 10:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  external links 

message: This article should be merged into day trading for the following reasons:
* Article in day trading is in much more depth than this one. This article should thus be merged into, NOT merged from
* Many info in this article is an duplication of day trading
* This term is related to day trading, so this article qualifies a redirect type of 
* Other articles do the same (eg scalper, scalpers, scalping)
--Wai Wai 19:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose the merging because day trader is the professional and day trading is the activity/investment strategy. Your proposal was made many times before, and I think the conclusion was to maintain two articles, one for day trading and other for day trader. Page Up 12:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge (to here) the only thing day trader talks about is daytrading  --Smallbones 12:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Suggestion 

message: I removed a paragraph describing day-trading as "negative-sum". This looked like original research, and was not strictly true: The number of players in the "game" is always changing, and inflation as well as economic growth make stock prices grow on average. Therefore zero-sum or non-zero-sum comparisons are of little use. Yandman 08:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zero-sum 

message: This article is completely devoid of any peer reviewed papers studying day trading. Furthermore, very little criticism of day trading is mentioned. Scott5834 16:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Scott. When starting new threads on talk pages, always add them to the bottom. And don't forget to sign your posts with ~~~~. Anyway, I agree that there are few references. However, the article is, in my opinion, neutral. The facts, and risks, are presented fairly. Remember that we are here to give facts, not to help the reader by giving him advice. Previous versions of this article read like warning leaflets, and so we changed them to try and keep an encyclopaedic tone. What particular criticisms would you like to add? yandman 09:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I feel the article is still giving advice. Sections like Key of success read like a magazine article promoting day trading. I'd like some analysis (in the form of reviewed papers) on whether day trading really involves skill/strategies or is merely gambling. There's one paper mentioned in the article (the only referenced peer reviewed paper), "Do Individual Day Traders Make Money? Evidence from Taiwan", but I've read many others contradicting this. I'll see if I can dig up references. Scott5834 13:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True. Would you be interested in trying to bring this article to GA (or even FA) status? Anyone else interested? Tell me, and maybe I'll set up a wiki-project so that we can get this show on the road... yandman 14:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a lot of work, but I'd be willing to help! Scott5834 18:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Froody. I'll get a few things up and running tomorrow. yandman 20:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of any peer reviewed references or criticism

message: Citecheck is an unusual template that has a very narrow purpose: it points to misuse of citations, such as quotes taken out of contexts or article statements that aren't supported by a cited source.  Citecheck doesn't apply if the problem is a need for more citations or if the article has an imbalanced point of view.  I suspect that some other template would be more appropriate for this article.  Please review. Durova 21:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds right. Go ahead and change the template to something more appropriate. Scott5834 21:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Put some new templates up. yandman 08:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citecheck template 

message: This section of the talk page is for discussing changes that have been, and should be, made to Day trading in order to get it to GA-status. Reply to the posts below if you've found something suitable, or add a new item if you think we've overlooked something.
yandman 09:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've put up "Cisco_Oct_30.JPG", but I'm sure there are better ones. yandman 13:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvement Drive 

message: ===Failure===
I guess my issue is, overall, are the sources for this article, or the lack of. Further tone seems a bit encyclopaedic, such as referring to the day-traders as "they" in many concurrent sentences. 
I think overall the article is good, but not good enough to fulfil the "good article" requirements (see WP:WIAGA). It would be hard to verify a lot of what is said in this article. However, If you could somehow incorporate citations and backup the claims in the article, then that would make a huge different and the article should then be re-considered for review.
:GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is well written.
#:a (prose):  b (structure):  c (MoS):  d (jargon): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (inline citations):  c (reliable):  d (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
#It is stable.
#:
#It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
#:a (tagged and captioned):  b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
--Nja247 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA nomination

message: I guess my issue is, overall, are the sources for this article, or the lack of. Further tone seems a bit encyclopaedic, such as referring to the day-traders as "they" in many concurrent sentences. 
I think overall the article is good, but not good enough to fulfil the "good article" requirements (see WP:WIAGA). It would be hard to verify a lot of what is said in this article. However, If you could somehow incorporate citations and backup the claims in the article, then that would make a huge different and the article should then be re-considered for review.
:GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is well written.
#:a (prose):  b (structure):  c (MoS):  d (jargon): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (inline citations):  c (reliable):  d (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
#It is stable.
#:
#It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
#:a (tagged and captioned):  b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
--Nja247 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Failure

message: It seems very strange that in America, you can go to a casino to pull a slot machine lever and lose several percent of your money on average with each pull, but there aren't (that I know of) places where you can go to wager limited amounts of cash on day trading.  It would seem a very attractive retail idea - set up a coffeehouse environment with computers and multiple news monitors and coin-operated "slot machines" that automatically buy a number of shares (on the house's margin) from a given exchange, and sell them some seconds later, returning a percentage of any profits as a payout (also perhaps providing a valuable information source...).  People could hang out there, eat, chat, watch the news, try their luck on the machines, and unlike at the casino, they'd come out ahead a little more often than behind, and with much more enjoyment.  I remember seeing a documentary describing that people often buy and sell stocks in a social retail environment in China - is something like this legal in the U.S.?  If so, is it done? Mike Serfas 05:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never heard about anything like this in the United States.  It would be fun to establish that sort of a business, but, entirely subjectively, I doubt it would attract many customers, even in New York City. Cww (talk) 07:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: There were such places back in the beginning of the 20th century. They were called "bucket shops" (take a look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucket_shop_%28stock_market%29 ). But today, with electronic markets and internet I doubt such an enterprise makes any sense. 77.240.251.193 (talk) 09:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retail day trading locations? 

message: The "stock" graph at the top of this article is abysmal.  It has no labels, no values, and no real content other than a jagged line.  I'm not at liberty to post screenshots of my own trading software, but perhaps someone else could? Cww (talk) 07:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stock graph 

message: On the TSE, what is the maximum increase or decrease per day on a single stock  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.80.159.194 (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  maximum increase or decrease in a value of a stock 

message: In particular the first section (Trade frequency) is poorly written.  I have a number of issues with it.
1. It hardly talks about frequency at all.  Do we even need a sub header at all?
2. It talks about scalping and shaving... shouldn't these be in the Techniques section?
3. What is even the difference between scalping and shaving... I am unclear....
4. I think bid and ask are mixed up, ie why would someone sell at 10.209 when someone's bidding 10.21?  I think the article meant to say the offer is 10.21.
5. In US equities, how do you even place sub-penny orders? ie I don't think you can even send at order at 10.209
6. After describing the scalping strategy, which is making profit on the spread, the article talks about making money by trading large price movements.  I find it confusing because it doesn't clearly explain this is a different strategy... and in any case should this also go in the Techniques section?
I'm new to editing but I'm going to go ahead and take a stab at it with these ideas.Timidpueo (talk) 05:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characteristics section 

message: Day trading is not investment since its objective is MERELY TO SPECULATE; in fact main difference between speculation and investment is the time horizon: the trader search profit continuously, while the investor manages its savings in an enlarged time frame. As indicated in the  Journal of ethics and social sciences INDIVIDUALS ARE OBLIGED TO AVOID SPECULATIVE FORMS MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE. The social and legal endorsement does not exempt from moral responsibility.  http://tradingonline-a-moral-problem.blogspot.it/  Unsigned comment added at 09:40 on April 1, 2016‎ by 5.170.14.158
:Let's be clear about this: we're trying to build an encyclopedia here, not a guide to good behaviour.  If you want to launch a moral crusade please don't do it here.  It's possible that there's scope for an article on :Criticism of day trading.  If you can find enough reliable sources that criticism of day trading is widespread enough to be notable then perhaps you'd like to register and make that your first article.  But please be sure that you are doing it for the right reason - to improve the encyclopedia, not to push your point of view. 09:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: DAY TRADING, SPECULATION AND THE MORAL PROBLEM

message: Characteristics=
Day trading is not to be considered investment since its objective is merely to speculate.
LucRos (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. EvergreenFir (talk) Please  23:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't object to the addition of the statement if it can be reliably sourced.  I'd rephrase it as "Day trading is not normally considered to be investment since its objective is to speculate", but we do need to cite an authority that says this. Dbfirs 23:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

text: I agree with Dbfirs and have once again removed the exaggerated moralizing. "Significant studies worldwide" apparently was code for "a single Italian paper published in an obscure journal". Besides, that article does not seem to even mention day trading, making it irrelevant to this topic. Huon (talk) 23:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I'm amazed at the wide range of IP addresses that add this opinion to the article.  Is it just one editor who travels, or is there some group or organisation behind the edits?  Dbfirs 07:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I'd guess it's one person. The main issue is, the Italian article that's ultimately, time and again, used as a source for this content on the morality of day trading does not say anything about day trading. This is not the appropriate article to discuss the morality of speculation in general, and putting this comparatively insignificant aspect in the lead - even if we could find a reliable source that explicitly discusses the Catholic stance on day trading - would give it undue weight. Huon (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed, and the recent French article added as a reference doesn't mention day trading either.  Dbfirs 08:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  There may be something worth coverage here, but the cite is not adequate, the editor's English isn't clear, and it probably best belongs on the Christian finance article. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 10:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2016 

message: both 151.0.0.0/8 (actually more narrow) and 5.170.0.0/16 IPs belong to an author who forced us (at it.wiki) to editprotect many pages or set up a couple of abusefilter rules. Trying discussing with him is, sadly, just a waste of time. --Vituzzu (talk) 09:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This also applies to scalping (trading) and you'll soon see him doing the same on many more pages. I'll globally blacklist his blogs and, starting from now, I'll have to globally block on sight (instead of local blocking)  --Vituzzu (talk) 09:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the warning about that anon editor.  He seems to use a very wide range of IP addresses.  Dbfirs 11:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

text: You seem to be distorting the purpose of Wikipedia, and ignoring conventions about not editing other user's comments.  Your persistence in re-adding the same content without adequate references is unacceptable, even to me.  There is no censorship here on Wikipedia, just consensus about what sort of content belongs in each encyclopaedia article.  Pushing your point of view against consensus will only serve to annoy even inclusionist editors.  You have already been told which article might be appropriate for your opinion, but it will need WP:reliable sources.  Dbfirs 18:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Italian moralizer 

message: Day trading is a trading strategy where an individual buys and sells financial instruments, such as stocks or currencies, within the same trading day. This means that all positions are opened and closed on the same day, and no positions are held overnight. The goal of day trading is to make a profit from the small price movements that occur within a single trading day, by buying low and selling high. Day traders typically use charting tools and technical analysis to identify buying and selling opportunities, and may use margin and leverage to increase their buying power and potential returns. Day trading can be risky, as it involves making quick decisions based on market movements, and it is important for day traders to have a solid understanding of the markets and trading strategies before they begin. 185.112.167.5 (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is day Trading?