Jump to content

Talk:True strength index

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case

[edit]

I've moved the title to True strength index (for the third time) per MOS:CAPS, which says that we avoid unnecessary capitalization, and that we capitalize proper names, as determined by consistent caps in reliable sources. This term is very widely lowercase in reliable secondary sources, so we avoid capitalizing it. Why has that not been clear? None of the cited secondary sources even use it as proper, and Blau's capitalization of his own baby is not really relevant. Dicklyon (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No capitalization is strictly necessary, even for works of art, but we use it anyway. The term "True Strength Index" is also very widely used as a proper noun in secondary sources. The inventor gets to choose what to call his invention, and if he refers to it as a proper noun, then so should we. The fact that this article references some sources that use the term in lowercase means nothing. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When the majority of books use lowercase, as shown here, there's not even a question that we're close to the criterion in MOS:CAPS. It doesn't matter that the guy calls his own baby in his primary sources. Dicklyon (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have other books here at home that aren't on Google that use the uppercase. A Google search doesn't show anything. Let's look at those sources anyway:
These use it as a proper noun:
  • William Blau's book, where the term is first coined
  • Poitras, Valuation of Equity Securities: History, Theory and Application
  • Technical analysis of stocks and commodities - compilation of magazine issues. This is one of the definitive periodicals in the technical analysis world. Their spelling of the term carries much weight, and they have published the term more times than in one book.
Of the others that don't capitalize, only three others are meaningful. One is a journal that uses the term in a completely different context, and one is a book by Fontanills, in which the author has a personal stylistic convention not to capitalize anything, not even people's names (as in Williams %R), hardly a precedent.
Looks like it's evenly split among those Google sources. And from the looks of it, the value of those sources would be weighted heavier on the side of the inventor and the magazine. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it's "evenly split" as you note, then according to MOS:CAPS, capitalization being not necessary, we don't. And giving more weight to the author's primary source is exactly backwards; everyone capitalizes their own stuff, but that's not the test. Dicklyon (talk) 07:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to take one of your points, Amatulic, some capitalisation is strictly necessary. For example, caps for acronyms and initialisms by long tradition (and as a psychologist of the reading process, I can say this is a sensible evolution: NASA and PBS, not nasa and pbs. True proper names as distinct from more generic usages, almost as important: american–canadian trade relationship? Tony (talk) 08:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dicklyon: I noted that the sources you identified were evenly split. That is neither an argument for nor against capitalization. We can both cherry-pick sources all day long that support our respective positions and it wouldn't prove anything.
The point is, you have it exactly backwards. We have zero precedent established for calling a creative work something other than the creator called it. These technical indicators are creative works. They were invented, they are recognized as significant. For any creative work, whether it be a song, short story, journal article, or so forth, we use the capitalization used by the creator (or the publisher, in the case of journal articles, some of which use title case, some of which use sentence case). Now here we have a creative work to which you want to apply a standard that we don't apply to any other creative work.
If you want to argue that these inventions are not creative works worthy of proper names like other creative works, then present the argument. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Amatulic, if the sources are evenly split (or even 20–80% for downcasing), that settles the matter: we should go with our own house style. If there's almost no usage that agrees with WP's house style, then we'd have a problem. The sources have to be balanced with a number of other issues, not least of which is the desirability of internal consistency across the project (not always achievable, I concede; but here, it seems like an easy decision). Tony (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, the sources aren't evenly split. The examples Dicklyon cited above are just a small sampling of books. Other books not found online use the uppercase version (for example Trading for a Living by Alexander Elder).
Furthermore, all sources are not equal. The reputation of the sources matter. Searching for RSI as well as TSI, I find highly reputable sources that use the uppercase versions of these indicators. Aside from the TSI author himself, such sources include the #1 technical analysis periodical (Technical Analysis of Stocks and Commodities already cited above by Dicklyon), and reliable sources like the Motley Fool,[1], The Wall Street Journal[2], Investors Business Daily.[3], and Financial Times[4] (admittedly FT uses it both ways).
Guidelines should not be applied slavishly, but rather with common sense. That's why they are guidelines. I have yet to see a compelling argument beyond simple counting of sources (regardless of their quality) that we need to use a different standard for naming this kind of creative work than we use for anything else. If an author of a book or journal article decides to use lowercase title, so would Wikipedia. If they use title case, so would we. And yet, we're applying a different standard here just because some sources can be found that use their own convention?
It would be interesting to have this discussion over at Talk:Bollinger Bands where the creator of that indicator is pretty adamant about it being a proper noun. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unless someone presents a convincing argument that this kind of creative work should be treated differently than others, addressing how the more reputable sources refer to topic, I will move this back to the original title sometime in January. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is this novel theory? Are you saying that "True Strength Index" is the title of a creative work now? Most books don't seem to treat it that way. The test for proper name in MOS:CAPS seems appropriate, and since it's not consistently capitalized in reliable sources, it's not a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Most books" do treat it that way. Most reputable sources do treat it that way. As I stated before, not all reliable sources are to be given equal weight.
It is not a "novel theory" to say that a technical indicator is a creative work. In fact, it is a novel theory to claim that it isn't a creative work. That's your assertion, and I'm curious how you would back it up. And you haven't explained why an author's capitalization of his own work isn't relevant.
Regarding MOS:CAPS it looks to me like this would fall under the "etc." part of MOS:CAPS#Composition titles. In some cases, these indicators may be trade marks, in which case we treat them as proper nouns (I'm not saying that's the case here). ~Amatulić (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying it's up to me to disprove your novel theory that a "technical indicator" is a titled creative work? You're not even going to cite any evidence first? And which books are you challenging the reliability of? Some of these [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]? I see only a handful of books (3) that capitalize it (so what did you mean by "most books"?). And Blau himself has it lowercase in this article he wrote. A review of the lead of MOS:CAPS says we don't capitalize it. Dicklyon (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to chime in on this, but won't have the time for a few days. I plan to propose moving TSI it to commonly accepted usage. MarketTechnician (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than simply reiterating my point of view, I spent quite a bit of time in my library this weekend. I seems quite clear that standard usage is indeed pretty standard. Most TA books cite an indicator like Joe Granville's On Balance Volume in uppercase on the first citation and as a capitalized abbreviation, OBV, thereafter. There are of course exceptions and prior commentators have noted them, but by far the usage just cited is the most common in my library. I've quite a bit more to contribute on this and will continue as time allows. MarketTechnician (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On-balance volume is lower case in 8 of the first 10 book hits here. Dicklyon (talk) 07:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kirkpatrick and Dahlquist "Technical Analysis" is widely accepted as the best / most authoritative resource, see page 418. Bye-the-bye, are you are now arguing both sides of the coin? You dismissed Google search results earlier. MarketTechnician (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
FYI
 – User:JCScaliger has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Pmanderson (blocked for another year for abusive sockpuppetry).
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: Clearly no consensus in the discussion below to make this move. Enforcing consistency with other WP articles is not the job of a closing admin. It is the job of the editors involved in the discussion if they can come to a consensus on such consistency, of which they have not in this discussion. This article has been move protected for 30 days. If consensus to move is reached within that timeframe, I will unprotect. Mike Cline (talk) 14:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


True strength index → True Strength Index – To return to proper capitalization per common usage and discussion above. My review of the literature overwhelmingly supports this move.relisted--Mike Cline (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC) MarketTechnician (talk) 03:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose – I can agree with MT that typical usage of technical terms is to capitalize first usage when defining an acronym; no dispute there. But for our purposes, the question is whether a phrase is consistently capitalized when used alone in a sentence. This particular one appears in very few books, so there's not a lot of evidence: just 5 books with lower case and 3 with upper, as far as I can find (including uses in headings, which are themselves mixed): [10]. Dicklyon (talk) 04:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, other fields have muscle strength index, impact strength index, reactive strength index, bank financial strength index, point load strength index, etc. How will we determine which ones are to be capitalized? I'd stick with MOS:CAPS, to avoid unnecessary capitalization, and to take it as necessary when sources do so consistently. Thankfully, that's not the case for any of these. Dicklyon (talk) 04:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a non sequitur. All professions have there unique usages, doctors, lawyers, architects. What we should focus on hear is how these TA terms are actually used in the real world and the standard usage is quite clear. Dalhquist and Kirkpatrick is as good a reference as I can think of and it falls in line with most of the literature, i.g.: "Relative Strength Index" RSI MarketTechnician (talk) 18:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I showed a majority lowercase usage in books. Why do you insist on ignoring that if you want to focus on real-world usage? Dicklyon (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is always possible to find exceptions, which is what you have done, but exceptions are just that, exceptions. Any reasonably wide-ranging survey of the literature shows that technicians treat indicator names as proper names and have done so all the way back to the writings of Richard D. Wyckoff 100 years ago. MarketTechnician (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The technicians are the exceptions. We're supposed to look at how terms are treated more generally. Dicklyon (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The technicians aren't the exceptions because they are the largest population of users of these terms. What's next, tossing out academic sources in science articles because they're written by experts in a narrow field rather than being general-usage pop-culture sources? WP:RS says otherwise. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is suggesting throwing out expert sources. But you have suggested that "It is irrelevant what mainstream or popular press calls something outside the field where a term is most often used," which is certainly not supportable. You want to ignore majority lower-case usage in books by appealing to those insiders who capitalize as somehow more important. I believe policy suggests the opposite kind of wieghting, based on the fact that we are creating an encyclopedia for a general audience. Dicklyon (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you have it backwards. You want to ignore majority uppercase usage based on a Google search. That is not supportable. Giving predominant weight to usage by the majority of the most reliable sources certainly doesn't qualify as "appealing to insiders" any more than using academic sources in science articles appeals to insiders. Yes, we are creating an encyclopedia for general audiences, but it is a non-sequitur to argue that we should weight sources in any other way than how our policy says to weight them, regardless of what MOS:CAPS says. In the event of a conflict between a policy and guideline, the policy wins. WP:RS is not trumped by MOS:CAPS. That guideline so clearly and obviously does not apply here that it continues to amaze me that this debate has grown so long. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. One can find all sorts of sources that use either format. Dicklyon's arguments have two weaknesses: first, there's the fact that all reliable sources are not the same, and second, relying on online searches of a very small sample size means nothing in a field full of publications that pre-date the internet. My own 30 years of experience working with literature on technical indicators nearly every day, as well as my circle of friends and acquaintances who make their living trading, means something to me, and I rarely ever see indicator names non-capitalized. I have my library, as does MarketTechnician. It is irrelevant what mainstream or popular press calls something outside the field where a term is most often used. What matters are how the most reliable sources use a term, those sources that experts in the field use as references, or those that use technical analysis terms most frequently. Look at periodicals like the largest-circulation technician's journal (Technical Analysis of Stocks and Commodities), which capitalizes the names of indicators. Other financial publications such the Motley Fool, The Wall Street Journal and Investors Business Daily, do the same. Sources considered reliable in the field, such as those mentioned by MarketTechnician, do the same.

    MOS:CAPS does not exist to be slavishly applied. It exists as a guideline for which one must apply common sense. Clearly, the failure of MOS:CAPS to recognize obvious exceptions such as the names of technical indicators, is not a reason to change every article on the subject to lowercase, it's a reason to improve the guideline. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You say, "It is irrelevant what mainstream or popular press calls something outside the field where a term is most often used." I take the opposite position. A generalist encyclopedia should not follow the style of specialists in their fields; most specialists do capitalize their own stuff, but MOS:CAPS says we don't do that. Dicklyon (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:CAPS is a guideline, a description of best practices that I have already pointed out is imperfect. WP:RS is a policy. I think everyone would agree that a policy carries greater weight. The policy states Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. My position is that the majority of reputable sources available for this topic follow the capitalization style. If we took your position to the extreme, we'd be emphasizing references to popular press rather than sources by experts in the field on every technical Wikipedia article. We don't do that. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Clearly a proper name, which MOSCAPS says to capitalize; Dicklyon's reading of the guideline has been often repeated, but it has not convinced any but the two or three editors who came in believing it. WP:TITLE supports following the usage of reliable sources, not random google checks. JCScaliger (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—there is no question about it. WP's house style is to minimise unnecessary capitalisation. No one here has presented the slightest case that such is necessary, and Dicklyon has pointed to good evidence of lower-case usage in good sources. Caps would provide utterly no advantage in disambiguation: as he pointed out, there are true strength indexes in a number of fields ... that's right, plural, indexes, which is as good as any sign that this is generic and needs to be down cased to avoid the proprietary sense. Anyone here can also see that many WP articles on indexes—even unique ones—are in lower case. Tony (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Name one, please, that has wide recognition as a term in other fields. Dicklyon has pointed to a few sources. Reliance on a Google search is not a fair representation, and belies a lack of awareness of how the majority of reliable sources treat this and other technical indicators. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, what I showed is that are various "xxx strength index" in various fields; and none of them are routinely capitalized, just like "true strength index" is not, in the majority of books that Google has scanned with the term at least. What's clear is that capitalization is not necessary. Dicklyon (talk) 03:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question and supporting argument: I'm curious as to why a couple of you are trying to rewrite TA history? I could be wrong, but it appears that you have no special expertise in the area and are not aware of long standing TA conventions. It is as if you were demanding the translation of medical Latin into English or forbidding Greek taxonomy. If instead of searching for exceptions, you actually went to the literature to ascertain usage you would immediately see that TA indicator names are near universally treated as proper names. The bottom line is that Wikipedia should reflect reality, not attempt to change it. A few hours spent in a good library... MarketTechnician (talk) 06:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I admit to having no idea what TA is, or what history or conventions there might be among its insiders, but most technical market indicators are lowercase in most sources; yes, even the ones introduced by Blau and Wilder who liked to capitalize their new indicator names. Dicklyon (talk) 07:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"most technical market indicators are lowercase in most sources" -- no, they are not. This assertion is not backed up by fact, just by a sparse google search result. MOS:CAPS does not override WP:RS, and WP:RS has no requirement that sources be online. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was also wondering what the h... TA means. WP is for a general readership where possible. That is why our formatting conventions are kinder than those of, say, the inventors/coiners of phrases who often as not engage in boosterism by capping the words. Tony (talk) 07:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TA = Technical Analysis. I thought it’d be OK to use the abbreviation without defining it on a talk page devoted to a TA article and as I had used it earlier on this page without question, but I guess not. My bad. In any case, since less that 5% of the literature of TA is on line (my estimate), I am at a complete loss as to how you can make a statement like “most technical market indicators are lowercase in most sources” without having consulted original sources. A trip to any library with a decent TA collection will show that assertion to be untrue. MarketTechnician (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, Dicklyon, this push to revise historical TA style and usage. Why? Two thoughts: By its very definition, an encyclopedia is a derivative work, so Wikipedia should reflect standards, not seek to set them or change them. When Wikipedia employs non-standard usage it discredits itself in the eyes of users familiar with the correct usage. MarketTechnician (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. First of all, this is not a question of "proper nouns" (more correctly in modern terms, proper names). That is a linguistic term on which "technical analysts" are not competent to give an opinion, despite what we read above. It is a question of capitalisation. Now, very clearly the sources retrieved with Googlebooks (nothing "random" about that!) favour lower case, except in a couple of instances where their chosen style uses upper case as a default for terms generally. Very well, those few have made their style choices, according to their manuals of style. And Wikipedia, guided by best-practice publishing, makes Wikipedia's style choices. There is no perfect solution that will satisfy the whole world. So we have a Manual of Style to settle these things efficiently. This a general encyclopedia with readers who are typically not specialists in the topics they are looking up. We meet their needs best by using standard publishing practices, rather than cleaving to some or other contested practice among content specialists, whose expertise is pretty obviously not in clear communication. When the practice is a minority one (among those specialists who publish in real books), there is even less reason to be swayed. NoeticaTea? 23:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That completely undermines WP:RS. Look bad if you must, I tried. MarketTechnician (talk) 00:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It patently and obviously does no such thing. Have you been following? First note what I say about Googlebooks results. Then consider: WP:RS is about articles and their content; WP:MOS and the other MOS pages (like WP:MOSCAPS) are about style on Wikipedia. Our style guidelines are in harmony with our other sorts of guidelines, and with WP:TITLE. Why do you suppose they exist at all, if it were not so? They draw on reliable sources – including, rather centrally, other major style resources like CMOS (Chicago Manual of Style), which supports this preference for lower case. Raw appeal to reliable sources without consideration of our MOS guidelines is inefficient, unreliable, and needless except as a last resort: where a matter of common practice has not yet been settled and incorporated in MOS. NoeticaTea? 01:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Noetica: As has been explained above, MOS:CAPS is not all-encompassing and not perfect. The relevant part of that guideline would be MOS:CT, which recommends uppercase, and which should also be clarified to include proper names that authors give to their creations or inventions. So far, none of the opposers have made a convincing case made for using lowercase in technical analysis indicators. The vast majority of sources don't use them that way, and guidelines should be applied not slavishly, but with a modicum of common sense. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
O, I know it's not perfect. But the section you direct us to is most inapposite, having to do with "compositions (books and other print works, songs and other audio works, films and other visual media works, paintings and other artworks, etc.)". For all its elegance and for all the virtuosity with which it might be handled, a stock-analysis index is not a work of artistic composition. NoeticaTea? 01:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do tell? Explain how so, please. Those working in the field would disagree with you. Those who don't work in the field but who study mass psychology would probably disagree with you. (And it isn't a stock analysis index, it's a creation to express the effects of mass emotions in any openly-traded market, not just stocks). I can tell you from firsthand experience that trading successfully is indeed an art form, involving far more than mechanically applying mathematics (if it were, then everyone could do it), but rather having the ability to read price action and understand the psychology of the players involved. And it is also an art form to use that knowledge and insight to create meaningful indicators to express some of that insight. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear adjudicators. Please put an end to this attempt to revise Technical Analysis history and style. Technical indicator names are usually treated as proper names when they are names of specific indicators created by specific authors. Usage for more general versions of indicators usually follows proper name usage, though it is a bit more varied in the literature. Unfortunately only a tiny bit of TA's literature is available on line, but this can be easily ascertained by a visit to Baruch College's Library, where the Market Technicians Association Educational Foundation Library is housed. The collection is massive, open to the public and access is free. MarketTechnician (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to review WP:ORGNAME. And if you have relevant sources in your library, why not cite them and tell us what they say? Dicklyon (talk) 07:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why should I review WP:ORGNAME? MarketTechnician (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Also note that the originator of this index uses lower case true strength index" and "stochastic momentum index" in his article: Stocks & Commodities V. 11:1 (11-18): Stochastic Momentum by William Blau 19901993. Dicklyon (talk) 07:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, 4,200 words and counting and who knows how many hours of effort. A friend told me that this crusade was continuing here and I must say that I am amazed. MarketTechncian, Amatulic and others have made most of the germane points, so I won't reiterate what seems obviously true/correct to me, title case for the name of technical indicators. I will say that from my perspective it is about respect. It is Joe Granville's 'On Balance Volume', Richard D. Wyckoff's 'Upthrusts' and 'Springs', Welles Wlder's 'Relative Strength Index'. These are the proper names of technical indicators created by brilliant technicians and yes, Noetica, they are an art form. The creation of a successful/useful market indicator is very hard, it requires inspiration and perspiration and we should at the very minimum honor and respect the creators by correctly capitalizing the names of their creations. John Bollinger, CFA, CMT (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note to closing admin: This renaming discussion started as a result of this article being renamed to lowercase without any prior notice. There is no consensus here. If this discussion had been started properly before the article was renamed, the non-consensus result would be the same, in which case the result would be to keep the status quo: title case. Note that this result has already occurred in the closing of the debate at Talk:Relative Strength Index#Requested move. For the sake of consistency, in particular until Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Article titles/MOS is resolved, the article title should be restored to its original state. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—We should have a consistent style on Wikipedia; respecting RS doesn't mean using a hodgepodge of styles. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support restore the original name by the creator of the article, as supported by reliable sources and advice from experts above. At the top of every guideline it says to use common sense and takie into account that there are ocassional exceptions. Also, as pointed out above, the burden of proof is reversed here: you need to show consensus to lowercase the title. If there is no consensus to move then we should go back to the original title. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a return to original upper case as used in the relevant industry. Symmetry with Relative Strength Index is a reasonable goal as the terms are complementary. Binksternet (talk) 02:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If symmetry is your goal, it makes more sense to notice that capitalization is an extreme outier in Category:Technical_indicators. The relative strength index would be the one to fix. Dicklyon (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bogus argument because it relies on manipulated evidence. It's an outlier now only because Tony1 went on a mass-renaming spree. For example, Ulcer Index, Vortex Indicator, Range Expansion Index, Smart Money Index, Rahul Mohindar Oscillator, Commodity Channel Index, Drummond Geometry, and Volume Spread Analysis were all bunched together renamed to lowercase in Tony1's move log. There may be others. They should all be reverted back. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's called progress. Those were outliers, too, and now it's mostly fixed. If you think they should go back, find us even a single use of "Rahul Mohindar Oscillator" that's not either a heading or for defining an acronym; contrast that with how many "Rahul Mohindar oscillator" you find along the way. Same with the others. Dicklyon (talk) 02:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Symmetry is my secondary reason—frosting on top. My main reason is that upper case is used in the relevant industry. Binksternet (talk) 01:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, several people have been saying that. Have you seen any evidence of it? Isn't the apparently majority lower-case usage in books a good reason to conclude that it's not a proper name? Dicklyon (talk) 01:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the evidence is there for anyone who cares to go to a good library and look. You keep basing your assertion on a Google search. You haven't actually looked at the reliable sources, most of which aren't online. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dick, I would consider industry periodicals to be closer to the man-on-the-street than the books which would be subject to an editor's attention, the editor possibly not familiar with common usage. Binksternet (talk) 01:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like an odd bias, since we know that insiders are always biased toward capitalizing their own stuff, but I would like a chance to see what you're referring to. Where are all these not-on-Google sources that you and MarketTechnician and Amatulic refer to? Did I miss some citations? Dicklyon (talk) 02:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are many websites and house-hosted glossaries which use the capitalized version. The magazine Futures Mag uses the capitalization in this product review: ""Vantage Point 8.0", dated May 2009. Here is one newspaper article which uses the capitalization: "What’s The Next Direction For Gold Prices? (GLD, IAU, GDX, GDXJ, DZZ, GG, ABX, AUY)" by John Townsend, an industry expert. Binksternet (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are many websites and house-hosted glossaries. I was wondering more about the non-on-Google books that MT and A say they have, but haven't cited. Dicklyon (talk) 06:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring our citations does not mean that we have not presented them. MarketTechnician (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, a truly reliable source, Amazon rank 1,231,293. Perhaps consulting a more standard reference like Kirkpatrick and Dahlquist, might provide a different perspective. MarketTechnician (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Origin

[edit]

The article said the TSI was first published in Blau's 1995 book, but his 1993 article talks about it and cites his 1991 article on it and a talk on it, etc. I was able to get the 1991 and 1993 articles, which aren't free, but cheap; so I cited them and included quotes in case anyone wants to see what they said. They don't capitalize it. Dicklyon (talk) 06:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:True_strength_index&oldid=1208569132"