Talk:Apple Computer financial history

Untitled

I'm sorry... what is the subject of this article? Paul^C/_T+ 21:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• Thats what I thought - So I rewrote it so that it actually has a subject. Take a look now — Wackymacs 10:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Route

I wanted to add a sentence or two to the main article on Apple Computer Corp, but a senior editor would not allow it, and told me that I was annoying people by contributing. So I took this route. DeveloperFrom1983 03:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Trivial information about a stock split? And a sentence about what they were peddling in 1983? As a "retired professor of computer science" I would think you'd have more to contribute than crowing about how much money you made on your inestments. I can almost understand that editor's sentiments. Ewlyahoocom 21:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not make money from Apple Stock. It takes money to make money, and I do not have money. But the stock split that already occurred is important business information. There were people, unfortunately for me, not I, who hextupled their investment. But the stock split is not trivial information. It is important information in an article about the company. Why are so many Wikipedian editors so uncivil and so contentious? I am not "crowing about how much money" I "made" on my "investments", since that is not the case. Why are you so uncivil and so unkind to others? Does it satisfy you in some way that you can do on the internet yet not in person? I thought Wikipedia was better than this. This is like those chat rooms that I avoid. DeveloperFrom1983 06:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Imagine if you would for a moment that you're back in your office and one of your fresh grad students comes in. He announces, not asks, what direction his research is going to take. How would you have responded? Perhaps at first you might even be amused and try to guide him with a gentle hand. You check to see what's he's published and find nothing. Now imagine that he ignores you and continues on. How would you have responded then? Now imagine that you are that grad student. Ewlyahoocom 07:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

image: graph

how about a graph showing 5 days? 3 months? a year? 5 years? that would be more informative than a graph of one day. 141.152.249.145 07:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

response to Ewlyahoocom

About the hypothetical graduate student

I would think that he or she was innovative and clever. I would have nurtured his or her enthusiasm and never used uncivil language, insults or name-calling. In fact, this has occurred more than once in real life, not just in the world of the internet when we do not meet face to face. If the person had an idea with which I disagreed, I would still keep an open mind and a civil tongue. I assume that you were the anonymous responder on my talk page, and I assume you are very young. DeveloperFrom1983 08:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge

I think the verifiable information in this article should be merged back. I do not believe there is precedent for articles on individual stock symbols, and this does appear to be a content fork, however well-intentioned. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 11:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

No. The Apple Computer article is already long enough, and this article has a clear subject. There are no guidelines saying stock symbols cannot be talked about. I don't think the company article should be cluttered with the financial/stock information that is in this article. I am trying to expand this article to a decent size (15k+ hopefully). — Wackymacs 16:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

In that case, why not put one for X_(stock symbol), C_(stock symbol), GOOGL, DB_(stock_symbol, RHAT, CSCO, and a slew of other ones? To me it doesn't seem the proper way to do it. If this topic is about the Apple financial information (as it seems), then it belongs within the Apple topic. If that article is long enough already, then create a section called Apple Finances or somesuch. Just my 0.02USD. -^demon 21:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

What is this article's purpose? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, this is not the place to publish stock price analysis. I support merging into Apple Computer the few parts of this article that won't become obsolete in the near future. Rhobite 04:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Fine then. Nobody agrees with me. I say we rename this Apple Computer Finances as a sister article of Apple Computer and then in the main article use summary style with a new ==Finances and stock== section using the {{mainarticle}} template. — Wackymacs 07:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with a separate article on the financial history of Apple, but there is very little verifiable encyclopaedic information here, so I don't think a merge would bloat the Apple article out either. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 16:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Very little verifiable encyclopedic information? Please explain. Try looking at Apples 1994-2005 annual reports and press releases. Try looking at hundreds of press stories and magazine articles about Apples financial history and performance. All of the information is verifiable, and I am going to add more soon, with citations. — Wackymacs 17:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Note words verifiable, encyclopaedic and (especially) here. If you think this subject has the potential to grow massively, and want to take it on, go right ahead :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the move or with the merge. This article shouldn't be just about the stock symbol, it could be about Apple's financial history. There isn't almost anything about that in the Apple Computer article. Apple's website has a lot of information about their quarterly financial results. Mushroom 22:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the user who originally forked this, User:DeveloperFrom1983, is now indef-blocked as an abusive sockpuppet. I see nothing preventing Wackymacs and Mushroom from boldly merging, or moving, refactoring and expanding. Since I came along mainly in response to issues surrounding DeveloperFrom1983, I'll bow out at this point. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

OK. Sorry, I didn't know that guy was a sockpuppet - I think its a good idea to make this article about Apple's financial history in general, including the stock and stock symbol. I am going to rename the article Apple Computer financial history, if everyone is happy with that. — Wackymacs 21:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan! Looking forward to contributing. Paul^C/_T+ 22:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I like that name. Mushroom 00:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

AFD

I am nominating this article for AFD. Its current content is completely non-notable. It is embarrassing. Tempshill 21:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

New redirect only points to consistent corporate name.

Never mind the rationale typed there, it's still pointed to "History of Apple Inc.". Godric/^Talk 07:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)