Help talk:Contents/Archive 1

Suggested Chronology of Fund Data Updates
Given the demands placed on editors for keeping wiki data current and updated, I submit the following guidelines. In most instances we can provide annual data once it becomes available, with links to the sites which can provide subsequent monthly updates. Here is a suggested chronology for data updates.
 * Fund returns and standard deviations should be reported on an annual basis, with links to the Vanguard web pages for current year-to-date updates.


 * Fund accounting and tax distribution data should be reported on the fiscal year basis. A link to the Vanguard webpage can provide for the current status of these attributes. (Link to Vanguard site modified. Fund is closed to all investors and now resides on Vanguard's Institutional website. --LadyGeek 00:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC))


 * Fund expense ratio updates should be reported on the semiannual and annual report dates. We have usually made an internal note of the semiannual report er and then update all references of the er upon the annual report. The  issuance of the annual report also allows one to estimate the foreign tax credit for international funds and estimate the return of capital distribution for REIT funds.


 * Qualified dividend percentages are released after the end of the calendar year. Updates must wait for the data release. Late in the year, Vanguard provides estimates for qualified dividends, we can provide these links.


 * Fund brokerage commission expense is made available when the fund prospectus and statement of additional information (which is where brokerage commission expense is reported) is updated and released. Data for 2008 will become available by mid year 2009.

These directives should limit most data updates to the completion of the calendar year for updating returns, tracking error, and standard deviation; to the issuance of the annual reports for tax data; the issuance of semiannual and annual reports for expense ratios; and the timely issuance of final qualified dividend and brokerage commission data. Blbarnitz 09:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Administrative
Added reference to Wiki:Help (2nd sentence) that footnotes (references) aren't working on this site. Source: Talk:Matching_Strategy LadyGeek 01:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Something is Missing
On the Investment Planning talk page I was advised that what I had written was not up to Wlki standards. In particular I was advised to "Note the strictures for sourcing, no original research, objectivity. The page should provide general principles applicable to all investors, without reference to one long extended example. Please redraft the page in accordance with wiki guidelines."

If these ideas are central to the style we'd like then they should be made clearer up front on the help page. I think the help page needs to provide more general stylistic guidance before launching into syntax and technique. I've dropped in some stuff to motivate an upgrade of the page. But I do not feel qualified to put in the details. Sewall 14:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Having written "long examples should be avoided" I'm not sure I fully agree with the statement. I think examples are very helpful. In many ways they can help someone who is trying to learn and apply the ideas. Providing them on another page is one approach. Another might be to have an example template (maybe there is one--I'll look just after I finish typing this). Overall I do not think examples should be discouraged. I'd go the other direction and encourage them. It comes down to, who is the audience? If experts, then no examples. This is reference material only. If beginners seeking help, then examples are good. I'm pro-example and I would rather see this site help novices and DIY'ers. I'd like to see it largely replace the forum as a source for answers. What does the community think? Sewall 15:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Intro / Neutral Point of View?
The recent thread [ The Future of the Wiki] has several people saying that this wiki is intended to provide the "Bogleheads" view (i.e. our bias). If this is the official stance, perhaps the Intro should state that.  I assume that the existing text is largely standard boilerplate that comes with the wiki software?  [[User:mas|mas]], 10 November 2009


 * Mas, you are correct, the basic wiki standards were used at setup; customization was put off until later. This is a topic that we will need to address. I think it might be best to try and hash out a workable policy on the wiki admin. forum. I will start a topic on it. Blbarnitz 20:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Neutral point of view does not mean lack of viewpoint. It simply means that when you write an article, it should be editorially neutral and factual, rather than full of opinionated conclusions. --CyberBob 21:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)