Suggestions for the Librarians

An archive of reference topics and posts (no new posts can be added)
terminer
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 3:26 pm

Re: Possible updates to the UK investing page ?

Post by terminer » Tue Sep 01, 2009 6:19 pm

darn...just noticed that the wiki link I followed to give suggestions for UK wiki page updates put me in the "librarians" area rather than the "wiki" area...apologies librarians for being in the wrong place...mea culpa, except I followed what I thought was the right link !.

John.

User avatar
Barry Barnitz
Wiki Admin
Posts: 2977
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Possible updates to the UK investing page ?

Post by Barry Barnitz » Wed Sep 02, 2009 12:36 am

johng wrote:darn...just noticed that the wiki link I followed to give suggestions for UK wiki page updates put me in the "librarians" area rather than the "wiki" area...apologies librarians for being in the wrong place...mea culpa, except I followed what I thought was the right link !.

John.


John:

You are in the correct place. Thanks for the suggestions. Hopefully, some our UK and European domiciled forum participants will help update the International Domiciles pages, since they are naturally much more familiar with the investing laws and investment mediums in their home countries than those of us residing on this side of the pond. Anyone who is not yet signed on to the wiki can simply pm me with a request to become a wiki editor (which simply means you can write and edit articles, add links, correct errors etc.) on the wiki as easily as you can post content on the forum.

You should be able to provide links once you have posted five times on the forum ( I think this is the threshold for new posters). Links would be especially helpful, since this terrain is unfamiliar to most of our current wiki editors.

regards,
Image | blb | December Birthday Celebration: Ludwig van Beethoven

User avatar
dual
Posts: 447
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 7:02 pm

Ibonds redemption

Post by dual » Sat Sep 19, 2009 2:47 pm

Consider adding the following to the Ibonds-Redemption section:

The procedure for redeeming the bonds depends depends on how you hold them. If you have them in electronic form on TreasuryDirect.gov, login to your account, and navigate to the appropriate page, select the bonds you want to sell and sell them. The proceeds will be placed into the bank account associated with your TreasuryDirect account. If you hold them in paper form, most, but not all banks, will redeem them. So call ahead and if they do, take them in and deposit them to your account. If your bank does not redeem them, some banks will redeem them even for non-customers so call around.

User avatar
Barry Barnitz
Wiki Admin
Posts: 2977
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Ibonds redemption

Post by Barry Barnitz » Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:29 am

dual wrote:Consider adding the following to the Ibonds-Redemption section:

The procedure for redeeming the bonds depends depends on how you hold them. If you have them in electronic form on TreasuryDirect.gov, login to your account, and navigate to the appropriate page, select the bonds you want to sell and sell them. The proceeds will be placed into the bank account associated with your TreasuryDirect account. If you hold them in paper form, most, but not all banks, will redeem them. So call ahead and if they do, take them in and deposit them to your account. If your bank does not redeem them, some banks will redeem them even for non-customers so call around.


I have added a quote box with text from treasury direct:
Please see I Savings Bonds on the Bogleheads Wiki.

thanks,
Image | blb | December Birthday Celebration: Ludwig van Beethoven

User avatar
gordoni2
Posts: 189
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:20 am
Contact:

Please consider adding HARS

Post by gordoni2 » Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:57 pm

Please add my HARS program Historical Actuarial Retirement Simulator to the Tools and Calculators / Retirement Calculators page.

http://www.gordoni.com/economics/hars.php

Pros: Runs until simulated death rather than a fixed 30 years. Able to give assets above some limit to charity/relatives/friends. Supports international diversification. Uses Shiller's return data, and U.S. LIfe Tables of mortalitly.

Cons: Doesn't simulate non-TIPS bonds.

User avatar
Barry Barnitz
Wiki Admin
Posts: 2977
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Please consider adding HARS

Post by Barry Barnitz » Wed Sep 23, 2009 6:57 am

gordoni2 wrote:Please add my HARS program Historical Actuarial Retirement Simulator to the Tools and Calculators / Retirement Calculators page.

http://www.gordoni.com/economics/hars.php

Pros: Runs until simulated death rather than a fixed 30 years. Able to give assets above some limit to charity/relatives/friends. Supports international diversification. Uses Shiller's return data, and U.S. LIfe Tables of mortalitly.

Cons: Doesn't simulate non-TIPS bonds.


I have added your program. Please see Tools and Calculators on the Bogleheads Wiki.

thanks!
Image | blb | December Birthday Celebration: Ludwig van Beethoven

User avatar
paulob
Posts: 1408
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 7:54 am

clarifcation for ROTH in the "Paying Down Loans" i

Post by paulob » Thu Oct 01, 2009 12:17 pm

However, if you add money to your IRA or 401(k) rather than paying down the mortgage, you do not normally gain any liquidity advantage, since you cannot withdraw from the IRA or 401(k) without a penalty until you reach the appropriate age.)


Shouldn't this be revised for ROTHS's? (e.g. the ability to withdraw penalty free the contributions).
Paul

User avatar
Barry Barnitz
Wiki Admin
Posts: 2977
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:42 pm
Contact:

Re: clarifcation for ROTH in the "Paying Down Loans&quo

Post by Barry Barnitz » Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:56 pm

paulob wrote:
However, if you add money to your IRA or 401(k) rather than paying down the mortgage, you do not normally gain any liquidity advantage, since you cannot withdraw from the IRA or 401(k) without a penalty until you reach the appropriate age.)


Shouldn't this be revised for ROTHS's? (e.g. the ability to withdraw penalty free the contributions).


I have added a clarifying reference footnote and have taken the opportunity to "wikify" the page by creating internal links to appropriate wiki pages.

Please see Paying down loans versus investing on the Bogleheads Wiki.

thanks,
Image | blb | December Birthday Celebration: Ludwig van Beethoven

idahospud
Posts: 405
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2007 10:58 am

Post by idahospud » Tue Oct 06, 2009 5:11 am

Barry,
In the wiki under 'FAQ on Vanguard International Funds' is this section:

Basic Questions
What broad international index funds does Vanguard have?
Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund
Vanguard FTSE All-World ex-US Index Fund
Vanguard Tax-Managed International Fund

The link to: Vanguard FTSE All-World ex-US Index Fund is incorrect. It links to Vanguard Growth Fund instead.
http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/FAQ_on_V ... onal_Funds

Werner

User avatar
Barry Barnitz
Wiki Admin
Posts: 2977
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:42 pm
Contact:

Correction:

Post by Barry Barnitz » Tue Oct 06, 2009 5:29 am

Werner:

Thanks for catching the error. I have updated the link. Please see FAQ on Vanguard International Funds on the Bogleheads Wiki.

regards,
Image | blb | December Birthday Celebration: Ludwig van Beethoven

User avatar
ObliviousInvestor
Posts: 3198
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 9:32 am
Contact:

Bogleheads' Guide to Retirement Planning Chapter 10

Post by ObliviousInvestor » Fri Oct 09, 2009 1:31 pm

I may be mistaken, but I believe the last line on page 155 should state that Social Security and Medicare taxes total 7.65% rather than 7.85%

Edit: Sorry if I'm posting this in the wrong place. I just clicked the "notify a wiki editor" link in the wiki page for the new book.
Mike Piper, author/blogger

User avatar
Barry Barnitz
Wiki Admin
Posts: 2977
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Bogleheads' Guide to Retirement Planning Chapter 10

Post by Barry Barnitz » Fri Oct 09, 2009 5:20 pm

ObliviousInvestor wrote:I may be mistaken, but I believe the last line on page 155 should state that Social Security and Medicare taxes total 7.65% rather than 7.85%

Edit: Sorry if I'm posting this in the wrong place. I just clicked the "notify a wiki editor" link in the wiki page for the new book.


ObliviousInvestor:

Thanks for the posting. (We now have a sticky post: Guide to Retirement Planning - Post Feedback Here on the Investing Theory Forum for this purpose. Better yet, since we are organizing these possible errata for the book editors and writers on the wiki, you could also post it there (editing the wiki is ridiculously easy). Signing up is painless, simply pm me.

I added the comment to the wiki.

regards,
Image | blb | December Birthday Celebration: Ludwig van Beethoven

retiredjg
Posts: 30844
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:56 pm

How to campaign link broken

Post by retiredjg » Mon Oct 26, 2009 6:29 pm

The how to cite link for How to campaign for a better 401 is not working. I have no idea what is wrong - it appears ok.

retiredjg
Posts: 30844
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:56 pm

How to campaign link broken

Post by retiredjg » Mon Oct 26, 2009 6:29 pm

The how to cite link for How to campaign for a better 401 is not working. I have no idea what is wrong - it appears ok. Jan

User avatar
CyberBob
Posts: 3166
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 2:53 pm

Re: How to campaign link broken

Post by CyberBob » Tue Oct 27, 2009 12:12 pm

retiredjg wrote:The how to cite link for How to campaign for a better 401 is not working. I have no idea what is wrong - it appears ok. Jan


It's the parentheses in 401(k) that's causing the problem on the forum. There is a page with the same name minus the parentheses that just redirects to the (k) page. However, the footer template uses current pagename. Hmmm. Manually doing the quote rather than using the footer template would correct it, but it sure seems like a crude fix. Anyone have any other ideas?

For now, retiredjg, as a temporary fix, after you cut and paste, just delete the parentheses around the first (k) before you hit Preview or Submit on the forum.

Bob

retiredjg
Posts: 30844
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:56 pm

Post by retiredjg » Tue Oct 27, 2009 12:19 pm

Thanks Bob! That would explain why cutting and pasting the actual URL at the top of the screen did not work either. No problem to just delete the parentheses. You're wonderful!

retiredjg
Posts: 30844
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:56 pm

New BH Book

Post by retiredjg » Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:24 am

Can someone please add the new book to

http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Books:_Recommendations_and_Reviews

Yeah, yeah, I should learn to do it myself...please forgive.

User avatar
Barry Barnitz
Wiki Admin
Posts: 2977
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:42 pm
Contact:

Re: New BH Book

Post by Barry Barnitz » Fri Nov 13, 2009 1:10 pm

retiredjg wrote:Can someone please add the new book to

http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Books:_Recommendations_and_Reviews

Yeah, yeah, I should learn to do it myself...please forgive.


Hi jg;

I have added the BGRP book to the page and also undertaken a modest editing of the page; here are the edits:
    1. I have made the page more neutral by listing the books according to first, the original publication date (newest to oldest) and second, by alphabetizing according to the primary author.
    2. I have organized the ==see also== and ==links== sections


Please see Books: Recommendations and Reviews on the Bogleheads Wiki.

Hope you like it.

regards,
Image | blb | December Birthday Celebration: Ludwig van Beethoven

retiredjg
Posts: 30844
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:56 pm

Post by retiredjg » Fri Nov 13, 2009 7:42 pm

Thanks Barry. I thought it might fit under the top heading - good start up books. No?

I'm asking because I don't have an opinion - I have not read it yet. But it is kind of lost down there in the other list - I don't think new people will find it.

However, if it is not a good start up book, then don't put it there. Thanks!

User avatar
Parthenon
Posts: 415
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:44 pm
Location: Illinois

Wrong fund number for VWETX

Post by Parthenon » Wed Nov 25, 2009 2:47 pm

On the Vanguard Fund Info page, URL: http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Vanguard_Fund_Info you have the Long-Term Investment-Grade Fund VWETX shown with a fund number of 0528. This should read 0568.

[The investor class VWESX is correct at 0028]

Ed
"What am I gonna do if I run out of money?"

User avatar
Barry Barnitz
Wiki Admin
Posts: 2977
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Wrong fund number for VWETX

Post by Barry Barnitz » Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:00 pm

Parthenon wrote:On the Vanguard Fund Info page, URL: http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Vanguard_Fund_Info you have the Long-Term Investment-Grade Fund VWETX shown with a fund number of 0528. This should read 0568.

[The investor class VWESX is correct at 0028]

Ed


Thanks Ed, we have corrected the entry.

regards,
Image | blb | December Birthday Celebration: Ludwig van Beethoven

User avatar
Fbone
Posts: 590
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 4:12 pm

Post by Fbone » Mon Dec 21, 2009 10:57 am

Can you have links to a 3rd party open in a new tab? I'm specifically referring to the Forbes articles. Thanks.

User avatar
Barry Barnitz
Wiki Admin
Posts: 2977
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:42 pm
Contact:

Post by Barry Barnitz » Mon Dec 21, 2009 12:29 pm

Fbone wrote:Can you have links to a 3rd party open in a new tab? I'm specifically referring to the Forbes articles. Thanks.


No, but if you wish to open the link in a new tab, use the left click on the mouse and select "open in a new tab".

regards,
Image | blb | December Birthday Celebration: Ludwig van Beethoven

User avatar
CyberBob
Posts: 3166
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 2:53 pm

Post by CyberBob » Mon Dec 21, 2009 1:05 pm

Barry Barnitz wrote:
Fbone wrote:Can you have links to a 3rd party open in a new tab? I'm specifically referring to the Forbes articles. Thanks.


No, but if you wish to open the link in a new tab, use the left click on the mouse and select "open in a new tab".

regards,

An even niftier way to open links in a new tab is to simply press down on your mouse's scroll-wheel. In addition to scrolling, most scroll-wheels are actually clickable as a button, and most modern browsers will automatically interpret this action as open link in a new tab.

Bob

User avatar
Taz
Posts: 291
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 9:10 am
Location: Florida

EE Bonds used for Education 2009 MAGI limits

Post by Taz » Thu Dec 31, 2009 7:03 am

Did last minute bond redemption for tax break & found an IRS update on 2009 MAGI limits which can be used to update the Wiki page ( http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/EE_Savin ... n_Expenses ).

- Taz

http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0, ... 03,00.html

2009
For 2009, the amount of your interest exclusion is phased out (gradually reduced) if your filing status is married filing jointly or qualifying widow(er) and your modified adjusted gross income (AGI) is between $104,900 and $134,900. You cannot take the exclusion if your modified AGI is $134,900 or more.

For all other filing statuses, your interest exclusion is phased out if your modified AGI is between $69,950 and $84,950. You cannot take the exclusion if your modified AGI is $84,950 or more. For more information, see chapter 11 in Publication 970, Tax Benefits for Education.
The destination matters.

User avatar
Barry Barnitz
Wiki Admin
Posts: 2977
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:42 pm
Contact:

Re: EE Bonds used for Education 2009 MAGI limits

Post by Barry Barnitz » Thu Dec 31, 2009 1:23 pm

Taz wrote:Did last minute bond redemption for tax break & found an IRS update on 2009 MAGI limits which can be used to update the Wiki page ( http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/EE_Savin ... n_Expenses ).

- Taz

http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0, ... 03,00.html

2009
For 2009, the amount of your interest exclusion is phased out (gradually reduced) if your filing status is married filing jointly or qualifying widow(er) and your modified adjusted gross income (AGI) is between $104,900 and $134,900. You cannot take the exclusion if your modified AGI is $134,900 or more.

For all other filing statuses, your interest exclusion is phased out if your modified AGI is between $69,950 and $84,950. You cannot take the exclusion if your modified AGI is $84,950 or more. For more information, see chapter 11 in Publication 970, Tax Benefits for Education.



Thanks Taz:

We have updated both the EE and I Savings Bond pages. Please see EE Savings Bonds,

regards,
Image | blb | December Birthday Celebration: Ludwig van Beethoven

foglifter
Posts: 234
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 1:28 am
Location: SF Bay Area

Typo in Delaying reinvestment of dividends

Post by foglifter » Fri Jan 22, 2010 8:49 pm

I believe the last line on page Delaying reinvestment of dividends should state "or an interest bearing bank account".

User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 41651
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Post by LadyGeek » Fri Jan 22, 2010 8:54 pm

Got it. Thanks.

Please see Delaying reinvestment of dividends on the Bogleheads Wiki.
To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.

tomis916
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 9:02 am

2009 Update to Asset Class Returns?

Post by tomis916 » Wed Feb 10, 2010 7:45 pm

Would it be possible to update the asset class returns to reflect 2009? Much thanks!

User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 41651
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Post by LadyGeek » Thu Feb 11, 2010 7:51 am

Welcome to the forum and thanks! The asset class return spreadsheet contains 2009 data, so I renamed the spreadsheet and updated the wiki.

The gold bullion prices are still at 2008, but I'll have to let another editor take care of that one (I don't know what info is needed).

Please see Asset Class Returns on the Bogleheads Wiki.

Comments / corrections / questions are welcome.
To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.

User avatar
bob90245
Posts: 6511
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:51 pm

Update for Wiki Editors

Post by bob90245 » Sun Feb 28, 2010 6:54 pm

Hi,

I am notifying blogs who have links to my website. My ATT web host is closing. The new domain name is www.bobsfinancialwebsite.com

There are two wiki pages that contain links to my website:

http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Financia ... _and_Blogs

http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Withdrawal_Methods

Please update the URLs so that they to point to my new website. Thanks!
Ignore the market noise. Keep to your rebalancing schedule whether that is semi-annual, annual or trigger bands.

User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 41651
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Post by LadyGeek » Sun Feb 28, 2010 8:46 pm

Done. I only found one entry on each page.

Please see Financial Websites and Blogs on the Bogleheads Wiki.

Please see Withdrawal Methods on the Bogleheads Wiki.
To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.

linuxizer
Posts: 1553
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 7:55 am

Post by linuxizer » Tue Mar 02, 2010 6:50 am

Suggestion for the librarians:
Consider having the forum automatically link terms in forum posts to the corresponding wiki page. For instance, if someone types in "MBS", have it automatically link to the wiki's MBS page. If someone types in "IPS" have it link to the wiki's IPS page.

I imagine there's a pre-written board plugin to do this, but perhaps I'm overly optimistic.

User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 41651
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Post by LadyGeek » Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:29 pm

Interesting idea, but I think you are being overly optimistic on user expectations. I wouldn't want any automatic linking in my posts. There's too much chance of error to be taken out of context. Especially for acronyms.

How do you know MBS isn't a bank name, or, something not related to finance? Same for IPS.

Then, I'd have to figure out a way to disable it. That gets complicated for many users and makes posting more difficult.
To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.

sommerfeld
Posts: 1157
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 8:02 pm

Post by sommerfeld » Tue Mar 02, 2010 9:21 pm

LadyGeek wrote:Interesting idea, but I think you are being overly optimistic on user expectations. I wouldn't want any automatic linking in my posts. There's too much chance of error to be taken out of context. Especially for acronyms.

How do you know MBS isn't a bank name, or, something not related to finance? Same for IPS.

Then, I'd have to figure out a way to disable it. That gets complicated for many users and makes posting more difficult.

What might make sense would be to extend the forum syntax to let us link to the wiki more efficiently -- if we could define a new BBcode "wiki" tag so that [wiki]IPS[/wiki] expanded into a link to that wiki article it would save a few steps for those who wanted to link to the wiki on a regular basis...

linuxizer
Posts: 1553
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 7:55 am

Post by linuxizer » Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:08 pm

LadyGeek wrote:Interesting idea, but I think you are being overly optimistic on user expectations. I wouldn't want any automatic linking in my posts. There's too much chance of error to be taken out of context. Especially for acronyms.

How do you know MBS isn't a bank name, or, something not related to finance? Same for IPS.

Then, I'd have to figure out a way to disable it. That gets complicated for many users and makes posting more difficult.


Good point. I guess it could be a per-post option, or a global option in the Profile page. Adds complexity though.

User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 41651
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Post by LadyGeek » Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:36 pm

Remember that a significant number of users are not "PC savvy" (Linux, Mac, or Win XP regardless).

I'd like to know if anyone other than "PC savvy" members understand what the check boxes under the post editing box (what you type your post in) are for.

I think we already have a solution. The bottom of every page has a text box that someone can copy-n-paste into their forum post if they want to link to a page. (Swipe text inside box with mouse, copy, paste into forum post.)

I see many forum links to the wiki using the address bar URL instead of swiping the citation text at the bottom of every page. Why isn't this used more?

Please see (insert topic) on the Bogleheads wiki.

Maybe we could improve the usefulness by rewording or formatting a bit better (remove the color shading) to make this easier to use? It can't be at the top of the page - very distracting and detracts from the content.
To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.

linuxizer
Posts: 1553
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 7:55 am

Post by linuxizer » Wed Mar 03, 2010 7:01 am

LadyGeek wrote:Remember that a significant number of users are not "PC savvy" (Linux, Mac, or Win XP regardless).

I'd like to know if anyone other than "PC savvy" members understand what the check boxes under the post editing box (what you type your post in) are for.

I think we already have a solution. The bottom of every page has a text box that someone can copy-n-paste into their forum post if they want to link to a page. (Swipe text inside box with mouse, copy, paste into forum post.)

I see many forum links to the wiki using the address bar URL instead of swiping the citation text at the bottom of every page. Why isn't this used more?

Please see (insert topic) on the Bogleheads wiki.

Maybe we could improve the usefulness by rewording or formatting a bit better (remove the color shading) to make this easier to use? It can't be at the top of the page - very distracting and detracts from the content.


I find the copy/paste link from the wiki to take way too much time. If I'm loading up the wiki page anyway, I just copy the URL rather than scrolling all the way down to the bottom.

What about if in addition to a (url) (/url) tag there was a (wiki) (/wiki) tag? So when dashing off a quick response to, say, a "why not 100% GNMA" thread (ok, bad example!), you could type:
"Hi Bob,
Consider that GNMA fund holds (wiki)MBS(/wiki) bonds, which have negative (wiki)convexity(/wiki). Therefore their (wiki)duration(/wiki) will shift in the undesirable direction whether rates go up or down."

There's no way I'm going to look up the individual links for each for a quick post. But if there were a tag, I might well do so. And the thread would benefit from it.

Shouldn't be too hard to do conceptually...just need to substitute the (wiki) tag for (url)http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/

Obviously when I'm using parentheses here I mean square brackets.

User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 41651
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Post by LadyGeek » Wed Mar 03, 2010 7:57 pm

I find it fascinating how many ways there are to solve a problem. Each person has a different perspective.

It takes too much time to scroll? I've always used <Ctrl-End> to jump to the bottom of the page. No time at all. <Ctrl-Home> gets back to the top.

The code is not hard to do at all, it's as you said: [BBCODE] Wiki Links in Forums. Adding the main page site implies that you need to append the actual page name. Spaces are substituted for '_', so spaces are not a problem.

You may want to use the search engine instead. http://www.bogleheads.org/w/index.php?t ... ch&search=

Consider the following cases:
Duration as a page link: you get the glossary, but did you mean the section from the Bond: Advanced Concepts page? Search will return valid results.
Convexity - there is no page. However, you will get valid results if the search engine is used. Which one did you want?

For the non-savvy PC member, this is why I think copying the code at the bottom of every page is the simplest. I took a stab to make it even easier to see. (Any wiki editor is also welcome to update).

Please see Test Sidebar Page on the Bogleheads Wiki.

(HTML disabled in this post.)
To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.

linuxizer
Posts: 1553
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 7:55 am

Post by linuxizer » Wed Mar 03, 2010 9:14 pm

Sorry sommerfeld. Did not see your suggestion before making my post. It's a good idea. So good I copied it inadvertently :-)

Ladygeek - the time sink is not using the browser's URL vs. the link at the end of the wiki link, it's having to load up pages individually at all when there are multiple words I'd like to link to in a post.

Convexity and duration both needed redirects set up anyway. Try them now.

I agree that "for the non-savvy PC member...copying the code is the simplest". But for the many members of this board who frequently field the same questions on the same topics over and over again, having a super-fast link available would greatly increase usage of the wiki. That's a bold claim, and perhaps an overly optimistic assessment, but at very least it would greatly increase my linking to the wiki :-)

User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 41651
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Post by LadyGeek » Wed Mar 03, 2010 9:53 pm

I see your point. Worth a shot. It will also increase your wiki editing activity (which is a good thing). :wink:

Convexity is good.

Duration: The original page used the Investopedia definition, which had some statements about risk. Those statements are not that obvious in the new redirect, so I'm wondering if anything was lost here. The links to Macaulay and modified duration were not carried over, so I fixed that.

If you go to the history tab and select the prior 2 versions, you can recover the text. The wiki is very good about that - you can edit (copy the source), but it won't let you save over a current version. http://www.bogleheads.org/w/index.php?t ... oldid=9350

BTW, I was hoping to clarify duration and developed a "test page" to see what needed to be done. There's additional reference material from William Sharpe. I'm up to Chapter 5 in Fabozzi, Bond Pricing. So I'd need your help to work on this now (or someone who's familiar with this stuff) as I haven't gotten to duration yet.

Please see Duration - Definitions Refined on the Bogleheads Wiki.
To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.

linuxizer
Posts: 1553
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 7:55 am

Post by linuxizer » Wed Mar 03, 2010 10:38 pm

I think if my wiki editing activity increases any I will fail out of school!

I overwrote the duration page because I feel that the wiki should contain original content wherever possible, because I knew it could be recovered if someone else objected, and because a principle of maintainability is to not have redundancy. I'm happy to take a stab at improving any page if someone gives me specific questions or places for it to be improved. That said, I'm not a huge fan of the Investopedia definition for a few reasons: it overplays the complexity of duration, it ignores other kinds of risk, etc. There is an extensive list of the risks of bonds in the Bond Basics page, including interest rate risk:
http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Bond_Bas ... _rate_risk
I have added in an intro paragraph to the duration section which introduces the idea that bond prices fluctuate in response to interest rates and links to the relevant bond basics sections.

Your query brings up a larger point, though, which is that we should really consolidate all the bond pricing information into a single page which more deliberately walks readers through from basic concepts to advanced ones.

The duration test page looks like quite an effort to bring various materials together. Thanks for getting this started. I'd be very careful about just quoting Investopedia directly, as with the first paragraph. Even test pages are live and need attribution to avoid someone later moving that chunk of text somewhere else resulting in inadvertent plagiarism. I think the math from Sharpe needs to go on a separate "super-advanced" page to avoid scaring people off.



LadyGeek wrote:I see your point. Worth a shot. It will also increase your wiki editing activity (which is a good thing). :wink:

Convexity is good.

Duration: The original page used the Investopedia definition, which had some statements about risk. Those statements are not that obvious in the new redirect, so I'm wondering if anything was lost here. The links to Macaulay and modified duration were not carried over, so I fixed that.

If you go to the history tab and select the prior 2 versions, you can recover the text. The wiki is very good about that - you can edit (copy the source), but it won't let you save over a current version. http://www.bogleheads.org/w/index.php?t ... oldid=9350

BTW, I was hoping to clarify duration and developed a "test page" to see what needed to be done. There's additional reference material from William Sharpe. I'm up to Chapter 5 in Fabozzi, Bond Pricing. So I'd need your help to work on this now (or someone who's familiar with this stuff) as I haven't gotten to duration yet.

Please see Duration - Definitions Refined on the Bogleheads Wiki.

User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 41651
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Post by LadyGeek » Fri Mar 05, 2010 4:35 pm

On the topic of making the "How to Cite" footer more visible, I updated my test page. It's not bigger or bolder, as the details can get lost. Instead, I updated the wording and made the text above and below more subtle.

I think the box will be much more obvious to draw your eyes to see what it says. Worth a shot?

Please see Test Sidebar Page on the Bogleheads Wiki.

How to Cite - http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Test_Sid ... ow_to_Cite
============
With regards to the URL pasting time sink:
Use the TOC (Table of Contents) to help you. Click on the relevant heading in the Table of Contents to jump to the section in question. Note that the URL is updated in the address bar. Copy that, then paste into your post.

Example: William F. Sharpe's definition of duration http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Duration ... _F._Sharpe shows the math.

Not clean, but it's close enough that the reader will see what's intended. I believe that a later version of the phpBB software will give you a pop-up box for you to paste in a link so it will display the intended text description instead of a URL. (Other forums have this feature.)

This still doesn't answer your request for an "instant" link, but it can help.
To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.

linuxizer
Posts: 1553
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 7:55 am

Post by linuxizer » Sat Mar 06, 2010 4:58 pm

I've been doing something like that. Keep a few common ones bookmarked. It helps, but it's not quite there yet :-)

User avatar
Barry Barnitz
Wiki Admin
Posts: 2977
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:42 pm
Contact:

Post by Barry Barnitz » Wed Mar 10, 2010 6:11 pm

LadyGeek wrote:On the topic of making the "How to Cite" footer more visible, I updated my test page. It's not bigger or bolder, as the details can get lost. Instead, I updated the wording and made the text above and below more subtle.

I think the box will be much more obvious to draw your eyes to see what it says. Worth a shot?


I have edited in the suggested citation templates. I have also started to standardize the general wiki syntax for page and link references.

Prevalent Wiki standards follow this order:

==See also==
This is the first header for links and is used for internal wiki page links.
==References==
Footnote references appear after the see also section and before the external links section.
==External Links==
This section contains outside links.


regards,
Image | blb | December Birthday Celebration: Ludwig van Beethoven

User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 41651
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Post by LadyGeek » Thu Mar 11, 2010 10:32 pm

Barry Barnitz wrote:I have edited in the suggested citation templates. I have also started to standardize the general wiki syntax for page and link references.

Prevalent Wiki standards follow this order:

==See also==
This is the first header for links and is used for internal wiki page links.
==References==
Footnote references appear after the see also section and before the external links section.
==External Links==
This section contains outside links.
I think Forum thread links should be in the See Also section.

Although wiki references back to the forum need to be coded as an external link, they're still part of the Bogleheads' domain name (maybe on a different server). I consider forum references to be "internal" links, not "external" links from that perspective.

Wikipedia doesn't have a forum, so there's no example for this case.
To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.

User avatar
Barry Barnitz
Wiki Admin
Posts: 2977
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:42 pm
Contact:

Post by Barry Barnitz » Fri Mar 12, 2010 12:31 am

LadyGeek wrote:
Barry Barnitz wrote:I have edited in the suggested citation templates. I have also started to standardize the general wiki syntax for page and link references.

Prevalent Wiki standards follow this order:

==See also==
This is the first header for links and is used for internal wiki page links.
==References==
Footnote references appear after the see also section and before the external links section.
==External Links==
This section contains outside links.
I think Forum thread links should be in the See Also section.

Although wiki references back to the forum need to be coded as an external link, they're still part of the Bogleheads' domain name (maybe on a different server). I consider forum references to be "internal" links, not "external" links from that perspective.

Wikipedia doesn't have a forum, so there's no example for this case.


Given that a number of editors believe that forum conversations should have no place whatsoever in the wiki, it is a compromise position to link to them as external links.

regards,
Image | blb | December Birthday Celebration: Ludwig van Beethoven

jefmafnl
Posts: 393
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 7:11 am

"Individual Bonds vs a Bond Fund"

Post by jefmafnl » Sun Mar 21, 2010 6:16 am

RE: Individual Bonds vs. a Bond Fund
(article on Wiki)

Great article!

A few suggestions and corrections:

"Rolling vs. non-rolling bond ladders", end of 2nd paragraph, needs close quotation marks.

"Zero coupon example"
In paragraph 5, first sentence "principal" is misspelled as "principle".

"Control over maturity and other bond characteristics"
Perhaps "Availability of other fixed income types" would be a more appropriate sub-heading than "Availability of other bond types."

"When to hold which", 2nd paragraph: Did Allan (not Alan) Roth really suggest $50m as minimum portfolio size for individual municipal bonds? Or 50k?

Those of you who run the Wiki perform a fantastic service for a broad community, please keep up the great work!

Sincerely,

Joel

linuxizer
Posts: 1553
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 7:55 am

Post by linuxizer » Sun Mar 21, 2010 7:26 am

Thanks jefmafnl! I made most of the suggestions verbatim to the wiki. He really did say 50m though:
"I'm not sure of your definition of smaller bond portfolios being better off in funds but I'd argue bond portfolios of $50 million or less are better off in the right bond funds than in individual bonds. I know you disagree."
http://moneywatch.bnet.com/investing/bl ... blog-river (comment #12)

Alfalfa
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 2:36 pm

Post by Alfalfa » Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:05 am

Isn't the current gift limit $13K? The side bar on the benefits to 529 savings plans in the 529 section shows it at $12K.

Locked