Talk:Average directional movement index

Suspended requested move (February 2012)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Await Arbcom decision before proceeding with this debate. Since almost all participants below are mentioned in the arbcom case, solving this issue first is a pre-requesite to this discussion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Average Directional Movement Index → Average directional movement index – Nomination to rename the article title to lowercase consistent with MOS:CAPS. This is one article among many in Category:Technical indicators that were recently moved to lowercase. These moved have generated controversy (see Talk:Relative Strength Index#Requested move, Talk:True strength index#Requested move, as well as a pending ArbCom case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation), and therefore should not have been made without prior discussion. In that spirit, I have restored this article to its original uppercase version, protected it to prevent further move-warring, and initiated this proposal to rename it to lowercase.

Here is my attempt at summarizing the arguments that have transpired on the other talk pages mentioned above.

Basic arguments in favor of uppercase:

• Experts in the field assert that the invention of a technical indicator is a creative work that would fall under MOS:CT, and therefore its name would be a proper noun.
• The field of technical analysis pre-dates the internet, and the majority of sources are not online.
• The majority of reliable sources on technical analysis indicators use the names as proper nouns.

Basic arguments in favor of lowercase:

• A technical indicator is not a creative work, therefore MOS:CT does not apply.
• Reliable sources that can be found online don't use uppercase consistently.
• Lowercase is consistent with MOS:CAPS.

Participants may feel free to adjust my summary of the arguments above if I missed anything. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Process objection – this is not a good time or a good process for dealing with this. The page was stable enough at lower case when Amatulic moved it back and protected it (a violation of WP:INVOLVED). He has also involved himself in an ongoing ArbCom case concerning MOS:CAPS and WP:TITLE and me and Tony, in which he seeks an exception for technical market indicators. It would be best to put things back for now and consider an RM after that case settles out. Dicklyon (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

  It was also stable enough in uppercase until Dicklyon moved it, in spite of knowing it would be contentious. Other editors besides me (including a respected expert in the field) disagrees with the MOS:CAPS promoters named in the ArbCom case regarding that guideline's application to technical analysis articles. I fully agree, this is not a good time for continuing to move such articles to lowercase, seeing that an ArbCom case involving DickLyon, not me, is pending (I merely volunteered a comment), so why continue beating this horse when it has already been well established that such moves are contentious? Please refrain from disruption to make a point. I reverted back to the original capitalization and started this discussion in good faith. Dicklyon knows fully well that this discussion should have been initiated first, instead of making a contentious move to lowercase. My actions in this regard are an attempt to correct that oversight. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

As I've pointed out on your talk page, your flagrant breach of wp:admin policy is the issue, not the casing of the title. When are you going to unprotect it and ask an uninvolved admin to look into the matter? Tony (talk) 02:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong. Preventing disruption is the job of an admin, and your insistence on unprotection suggests that you intend to continue your disruptive activity even after being aware of the controversial nature of your renamings. The capitalization is the issue here in light of the disruptive renaming you and DickLyon have engaged in. The article is unprotected now that this discussion has been initiated — which is something I should not have had to do; you should have done that in the first place. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, preventing disruption is the job of admins. But not you, in this case, since you are involved (involved up to your ears, actually). I'm concerned that you don't seem to have understood this basic tenet of admin policy. If you want me to explain it, I will. If you persist, the matter might have to be taken elsewhere. You should not have the tools if you're going to wilfully misuse them—that is, to act administratively while you're involved in the article and/or issue in question. The simple thing is to undo the admin action and ask another, uninvolved admin to review the matter. I'm surprised you don't understand this. Tony (talk) 07:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC) Ah, I see from your talk page, of all places, that you have undone the policy-breaching action. Please do not do this kind of thing again. And for the record, I don't give a fig about the article title—that's for the community to decide. I just care that you understand how to be a good admin. Tony (talk) 07:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Move to close – An uninvolved admin can decide whether to also undo the recent move by the involved admin. If he doesn't undo, we can consider a move request later. I don't want to argue this while the people who care are arguing elsewhere about more general issues. Dicklyon (talk) 06:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• comment the article is unprotected against moves at the moment. I will close this without prejudice. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move (April 2012)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Average Directional Movement Index → Average directional movement index

- Renominated by Dicklyon (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination to rename the article title to lowercase consistent with MOS:CAPS. This is one article among many in Category:Technical indicators that were recently moved to lowercase. These moved have generated controversy (see Talk:Relative Strength Index#Requested move, Talk:True strength index#Requested move, as well as a pending ArbCom case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation), and therefore should not have been made without prior discussion. In that spirit, I have restored this article to its original uppercase version, protected it to prevent further move-warring, and initiated this proposal to rename it to lowercase.

Here is my attempt at summarizing the arguments that have transpired on the other talk pages mentioned above.

Basic arguments in favor of uppercase:

• Experts in the field assert that the invention of a technical indicator is a creative work that would fall under MOS:CT, and therefore its name would be a proper noun.
• The field of technical analysis pre-dates the internet, and the majority of sources are not online.
• The majority of reliable sources on technical analysis indicators use the names as proper nouns.

Basic arguments in favor of lowercase:

• A technical indicator is not a creative work, therefore MOS:CT does not apply.
• Reliable sources that can be found online don't use uppercase consistently.
• Lowercase is consistent with MOS:CAPS.

Participants may feel free to adjust my summary of the arguments above if I missed anything. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support – as re-nominator – I don't know if Amatulic still stands behind his proposal above, but I've copied it here verbatim, along with his Feb 3 signature. This article stands out as an outlier of over-capitalization. It's quite often lower-case in books, and where it's not it's usually because it's used to define an acronym. Dicklyon (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support. A straight case of applying Wikipedia style, as we have been doing in similar RMs. Noetica^Tea? 03:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Average directional movement index. 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/20130727115731/http://www.tradesmartu.com:80/news/one-of-my-favorite-technical-indicators/ to http://www.tradesmartu.com/news/one-of-my-favorite-technical-indicators/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140620042339/http://www.mta.org/eweb/DynamicPage.aspx?webcode=journal-2000-winter to http://www.mta.org/eweb/DynamicPage.aspx?webcode=journal-2000-winter#section05

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)