Talk:Interactive Data Corporation

message: Although the new material added is helpful in explaining who IDC is, I've added an  tag; in its current form, it's a bit much like a corporate website. Per WP:NPOV and WP:V, it's important that article content be based on independent, reliable sources. Notable published references about IDC should therefore be located, cited, and used as sources. (Wikipedia editors will, of course, eventually remove unsourced content, even if well-written and accurate, so finding neutral sources for this article is important.) Trevor Hanson 21:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources needed 

message: Although Interactive Data Corporation trade on the NYSE under the ticker symbol "IDC", it is in fact a trademark of another company and Interactive Data are not allowed to use it.
Should the contents of the article therefore replace occurrences of "IDC" with "Interactive Data" ? --Fepple 11:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strange situation. A citation documenting this would be helpful, since the idea of an active ticker symbol being a trademark violation is counterintuitive. The company was historically referred to as "IDC" in publications (cf. the sources mentioned in History of CP/CMS) so I think the ambiguity needs to be addressed in this article. (Of course, Wikipedia has no connection with Interactive Data, so the trademark issues are quite different for content here.) It probably does make sense to replace the "IDC" acronyms within the text here with "Interactive Data" – but the trademark issue, and its potential for naming confusion, should itself be addressed. Trevor Hanson 21:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It states on the International Data Corporation IDC Trademark Page that they own the trademark "IDC".  So I have replace all occurances of IDC in the artical with "Interactive Data" --194.128.253.240 10:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not IDC 

message: 2015: "known as" - IDC - which was the company stock symbol, and was used in company literature.  Pi314m (talk) 00:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: NYTimes

message: This article still reads like an IDC brochure. Please see WP:ADVERT guidelines. Spinality (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Show us one page about a company not in the public light that doesnt also read like a brochure. There is really not much more to say about such companies than what you would find there...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.11.197.10 (talk) 13:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article remains strongly commercial in flavor 

message: Please do not remove this tag without actually improving the article.
Michael Eriksson (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 12:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-added advert tag 

message: The article was not only written as an ad, major portions were just taken from IDC site verbatim (example: http://web.archive.org/web/20100813021832/http://www.interactivedata.com/index.php/productsandservices/content/id/Derivatives+Services ). Therefore, I've removed such portions. Only IDC can authorize such usage of information (and even if it happens, it would immediately become a very strong case of WP:COI). Ipsign (talk) 10:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of copyright-violating material