Talk:New York Mercantile Exchange

NYMEX announced a new uranium product offering. The contract will be for U3O8 also known as yellowcake. Perhaps this should be added within a couple weeks. Rraicu 05:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

--Added Uranium. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rraicu (talk • contribs) 06:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Isn't it traded here?

Norm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.198.53 (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Cotton traded on the New York Board of Trade, which is now owned by the InterContinental Exchange. Cotton does not trade on the NYMEX. Swim900 (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

CME Group lists Cotton and other soft commodities but they do not trade there, historically NYBOT is the main reference market for soft commodities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blaze3000 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Dubai

London

most mentions of specific persons (mostly out of fear)

Mezrich's book

the oil price spike of 2008

etc etc.

read Goodman's book if you want to really know the details. Decora (talk) 23:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

"The New York Mercantile Exchange, Inc. is a private company which plays a vibrant role in the commercial, civic, and cultural life of New York and supports thousands of jobs." I think this sentence would be more neutral if the word vibrant were removed, it actually smacks somewhat of the copy that might be found in a brochure for the Mercantile Exchange. I don't know what it means to play a vibrant role in the commercial, civic and cultural life of New York.

Removed most of the sentance ""The New York Mercantile Exchange, Inc. is a private company which plays a vibrant role in the commercial, civic, and cultural life of New York and supports thousands of jobs." as it sounds like marketing copy, and is little content. Made other minor NPOV changes, but this page still needs work.

Removed the reference to the film 'Trading Places' which was filmed on the NYBOT floor not NYMEX.

Irrespective of Neutrality a lot of this article looks like it has been taken out of the new book. A lot of it is irrelevant, and can be rolled into a broader article about open outcry or futures exchanges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blaze3000 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Beyond My Ken (talk It is unusual to revert a series of edits as being "unhelpful."

The reference for Goodman's book floats at the end as the sole entry in a bibliography. It is cited numerous times, why not include it with the other references and use the ^: page template?

You deleted the reference by the same author which is quite useful.

I completed references that lacked titles, dates, work, etc. as in the CME article. I spent sometime finding urls directly at the NYT site instead of an archived url for example. What is the problem with that?

I noticed that the section with the odd title "Goods" is more of a history of only two of the commodity futures traded: specifically potato and oil futures. It is covered in a very fragmented way. At one time I believe someone entitled these sections simply "potatoes" and "oil." NYMEX trades in a number of other commodities that are only listed at the bottom of the page. The section "Goods" is more of a poorly summarized history of NYMEX administration, etc. It would be more useful if there were sections in which the Commodities traded were fleshed out.

The relationship between NYMEX and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has been explored at depth in the literature. Simply listing two names as directors of NYMEX leaves no room for exploring the uneasy relationship between the regulator and the regulated in the person of James Newsome.

The history of NYMEX and its relationship with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission is relevant to current affairs.

All editors should be encouraged to contribute. If you want to revert an edit, put it on the talk page and ask for consensus, one edit at a time. Don't revert and then explain. It will discourage new editors and is entirely unhelpful.

Your reverts are heavy-handed and not at all Zen Ken. :) Oceanflynn (talk) 04:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

If the article was better before the edits, then the number of them is irrelevant. BMK (talk) 04:49, 27 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Who decides then that the article was improved by an edit? I thought I improved it. BMK thought it didn't. One edit may have improved. Another edit, not so much. Reverting them all at once is not useful.

Why is it not helpful to have this reference in the text like all the other references?Oceanflynn (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)^[1]Reply

example^[1]: 1, example^[1]: 2, example^[1]: 35, etc

This reference^[1][2] was replaced with ^[3] which includes more attributes, ref details.

Oceanflynn (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

When multiple references are to a single source, the usual procedure is to put that source in the bibliography, and then to refer to it by the author's name, date of publication, and a page number (if one is available). That's what was done. You have un-standardized it in an unhelpful way, because now, if the one reference that carries the publication information is removed by another editor (for whatever reason) all of the other references are pointing to to nothing. BMK (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

There are a number of reference templates used in Wikipedia. The most common is the simple reflist. Using a ref name attribute <ref name=goodman/> and the {{rp|1}} template the editor can cite the same reference multiple times with different page numbers that all links to the reference in the automatically generated reflist. I had added the ref name to the reference and I added the rp template too. See for example Steam-assisted gravity drainage. Or in the example above. Anyhow, enough said. If it is that important to you keep it the way it is.Oceanflynn (talk) 01:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)Reply