Talk:Registered representative (securities)

Business Low‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Finance & Investment Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Move?

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: no consensus to move. Andrewa (talk) 02:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Registered representative (securities) → Registered Representative –

procedural request per WP:BRD Dohn joe (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Object – improper capitalization and removal of info that helps clarify what the topic is. Dicklyon (talk) 05:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't understand why this request was moved here. I was trying to follow WP:RM#Requesting technical moves, which says: "If the page has recently been moved without discussion, then you may revert the move (although this is not required, and may not always be possible) and initiate a discussion of the move on the talk page of the article. (See also: Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.)" That's exactly what happened here. The article was moved without discussion, so I intended to revert the move and initiate discussion on the talkpage. Since there was a technical issue, I couldn't revert it myself, and so I asked an admin to help out. Isn't that what technical requests are for? Dohn joe (talk) 07:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd prefer if it were moved to general securities representative, the other name listed. "registered representative" is highly generic, since a representative of somebody who has registered somewhere falls under the generic term. (like someone holding power-of-attorney, a designated proxy, an ambassador, etc) 76.65.128.132 (talk) 07:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dicklyon. (Why don't we go the full way and rename it just "Representative"?) The anon suggestion sounds acceptable to me. $Tony (talk)$ 08:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "Registered Representative" alone is not specific enough: there are millions of representatives of various sorts in the world, and many of those are registered with something or another. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Try a Google Books search for "registered representative". You'll find, as I did, that the vast majority of entries in published sources refers to this topic. Just because something sounds generic doesn't mean it is. And if it is, then what do people propose doing with Registered Representative? If it's too generic to point to this article, it has to go somewhere, yes? Dohn joe (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—Without commenting on the disambiguation parenthesis, Representative shouldn't be capitalized. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
:Would you mind commenting on the parentheses? That's actually the main point here. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- quitre apart from the capitalisation issue, there must be registered representatives in many fields, so that making something related to American stockbroking the primary subject is inappropriate. 19:20, 3 January 2012‎ User:Peterkingiron

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.

Alternatives to move

I think there's every reason to doubt that this article should exist at all, but AFD probably isn't the answer either, possibly a redirect (not even a merge) is appropriate.

Currently, this article is flagged as a stub, and also flagged as unsourced.

Its title is a local US-only legal term for what everyone (US included) calls a stock broker, and its content consists of some US legal details and recent US legal history most of which is already at stock broker#United States and the rest could easily be added.

Unless the article is expanded a lot (and sourced) there seems no call for a separate article. Other views? Andrewa (talk) 02:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge to stock broker. Dicklyon (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I could live with Dick's proposal. $Tony (talk)$ 04:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]