Talk:Straight-through processing

Computing Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Finance & Investment Start‑class 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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Loopholes of STP

what are the loopholes of STP.

common sense - with some more time I will care for this... stub. Still I suggest you sign next time. --Martin0815 (talk) 10:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly an advert?

The mention of a small, unknown, company, making its business around the NYSE, that is, with no international reach, is not only an advert, it is irrelevant. It offers e-trading onto a hand-held device. That has nothing to do with STP. This amalgam between e-trading and STP is deceiving and dishonest. And anyway Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia ; it is no place to single out any vendor.Bmathis (talk) 22:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted an entire paragraph that appears to have far more significance than one small, unknown company. Whilst your point is valid, and you probably know more about the detail of the NYSE's history than I do, this looks like a job for editing rather than a block deletion. Your deletion left a gaping hole. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists:

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Although a request for citation has been present since May 2017, there have been no citations added to support the claims that Mr James Karat "invented" STP. STP is a well known concept and not an invention created by a single person. It is simply the automation of business processes. There is no mention of what role Mr Karat played in the automation of the process - it appears he was working on an automation project anyway, so is it actually the case that he was the "jobber" and not a business process architect, system architect, system developer or any person who could have claim to "inventing" a concept. It appears that the entries have been made by Mr Karat himself and not someone independent. In fact in April 2016 the Edit History shows Graeme Austin commenting "Origination of phrase is in fact in dispute. James Karat may have been the first but I was deeply involved in STP in the early 90s in London and he is not known to me."

Should references to Mr Karat be removed?

Justiceforstp (talk) 12:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if his involvement and the facts stated can not be reliably sourced then they should be removed. MilborneOne (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Without citations and no clear connection of this person to the development of the concept, there's no need to keep this content. If a citation can be produced, then the content can be restored. 2601:186:827F:F9E7:3852:94B0:6F2B:C43E (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the references to Mr Karat should be deleted. Summoned by bot. Delete per WP:RS. I can't find any sources, although admittedly this would be hard to source. If it is true that "many sources" support this, then someone who can find them can add content supported by those sources. Since we don't have that now, we can't keep the content. Chris vLS (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]