Talk:Day trader

Notice: Most contents moved to avoid duplication and extra maintenance

Most of the contents are duplicate and should go to day trading. Also it qualifies "Category:Redirects from related words". Actually this page should not exist at all. A redirect is much better in this case.
See Talk:Day_trading#Merge_Suggestion for details.

This is an independent main article about an occupation (the professional). We don't need to shrink it just because there's an article for day trading (the strategy/profession). Think about (and check for yourself) the articles economist/economics; physicist/physics; mathematics/mathematician; fisherman/fishing; footballer/football... Typelighter 13:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

---

How about advertiser=advertising, scalper=scalping, stock trading=stock trader, investment=investor, and so on?

This is what I thought. The point is whether or not it must merge or not merge article. It depends on what contents you have put. Unfortunately what is mentioned here is completely overlapping. First all these content here has been mentioned in the article day trading, so this look like a duplication. Second what the contents talking are characterisitcs and strategies of day trading, which should go to the field of day trading. Third, unless we start discussing some daytrader-related topics like legendary day traders, we are just duplicating our efforts (eg you asked for a citation of a study which study the risk of day trading. It has been mentioned and cited already in the day trading article)

If you investiage into your given links, "footballer" is a disambiguation page which is irrelevant in this discussion. "fisherman" has a simple description only. "Economist" and "Physicist" is perfectly fine since it talks about education of phyicist (qualification of being a pyhsicist) and its employment situation.

Nevertheless our article is simply repeating:

• characterisitcs of day trading - risky and profitable, leverage approach
• day trading strategies - fundamental/technical analysis and so on
• "See also" links - you try to incorporate links like swing/trend trading into the text. Also it's another duplication of day trading "see also" links.

I proposed the following solution:

1. redirect (as it qualifies "Category:Redirects from related words")
2. a simple sentence of description, then linked to the main article day trading

Any further discussion is welcome.
--Wai Wai 04:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the Taiwanese study and added other link to day trading. I think the article must be preserved and expanded with daytrader-related topics (like legendary day traders - I do find this a very nice idea, thanks to User:Wai Wai). For the other side, this is the professional trader (a person), and is the only way to put a day trading-related occupation in the category: Business and financial operations occupations. Page Up 04:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

But don't you feel the 2nd, 3rd & 4th are just talking about the characteristics of day trading and its strategies? If you have nothing to talk like phyicist, you shouldn't try to repeat the topic which is related to day trading, not day-trader eg you mentioned "Many daytraders use different strategies...". It is against your statement made that "for day trading strategy/technique, see the article day trading"). Also don't repeat the "see also" link. It is not necessary to mention them again in the text. I simply remove duplication as per wiki standards. --Wai Wai (talk) 06:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

If you read fisherman, the article does not try to repeat things on fishing simply it is short. Try to add stuff, instead of repeating stuff. --Wai Wai (talk) 06:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• 1-The text isn't mine. I didn't write the text you deleted.
• 2-I think you are deleting too much text because there's an article about "day trading", but your actions will lead this article to a permanent-stub status.
• 3-I do not agree with a redirect to day trading or make this article as short as the example you gave (fisherman). The example you gave is not a standard.
• 4-I agree with your suggestion (legendary day traders). Why don't you start a new section right now?

Best regards, Page Up 14:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Better than nothing...

It is surely better than nothing, but that doesn't mean the article is now more complete or interesting. Typelighter 13:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you able to expand the section of "Famous day trader"?--Wai Wai (talk) 15:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

"It puts the lotion on its hands."

What's up with the creepy wording? I understand the term "daytrader" holds a negative connotation among the masses, but come on! They're not monsters. Rearden Metal 02:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

There is also this line. Wikipedia is supposed to deal in facts, or at least generally proven, theoretical, or accurate information. If we go under the premise of stating fact, then the wording of this as "the fact is" tends to indicate that this article is attempting to persuade someone of something, which is not the purpose of a wikipedia article.

"Although the activity can be profitable, it requires effort to be put in and is a difficult skill to master. Many people expect to make large profits with little effort, and the fact is that around 80% of day traders lose money.[3]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.74.102.230 (talk) 03:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Day trader. 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/20100723173738/http://daytradershuddle.com:80/auto/ to http://daytradershuddle.com/auto/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 20:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)