 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hi Richard, Nomally I favor merges, but here, I think the topic is broader than horse grooms (note the WP Trans tag). I think there is a historic use that is sufficient to distinguish the 'ostler from the modern groom. But I'm open to other thoughts. Montanabw (talk) 23:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
From 2005 to mid-2010, this article contained information about the railroad occupation known as hostler. In June 2010, User:Richard New Forest removed that information, calling it "trivial" in his edit summary. Since that time, at least three other editors have attempted to reintroduce that information to the article, myself included, [1] only to be reverted by Richard New Forest, who believes that this article should be about the occupation, not the dictionary definition of the word.
And that's exactly my point. In the United States, if you walk into an employment agency and say "I'm looking for a job as a hostler," the agency is going to assume you want to work for a railroad, not a horse stable. If you open up the classified section of a United States newspaper and look for the word "hostler," chances are that you'll find it in advertisements from railroads, not horse stables.
This is not simply a slang term or something made up by railfans. Hostler is the official name of the railroad-related occupation. Ask any railroad employee, railroad manager, or railroad CEO in the United States what a hostler is and he'll tell you it's a person who moves locomotives from one track to another track within a rail yard or locomotive shop.
We need to come to a consensus on this issue. Until that happens, please do not remove the tags at the top of the article. Thank you. – BMRR ( talk) 16:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, of course there is a railway occupation called an ostler, and I did not suggest it was slang or made up. It is just not the subject of this article, which is about an occupation of looking after horses. WP articles are always about one thing or group of things: please see WP:DICTDEF, especially under "Major differences, homographs". If we want to talk about the railway ostler, we need a separate article for it, such as hostler (railroad), and this one could be disambiguated as, say, hostler (stable). This is well-established WP convention.
- I did use the word "trivial". However, I was not referring to the railway occupation, but to the other things I removed in that edit, which were indeed undoubtedly trivial. My phrasing was careless though, and I can see how it could have been misread.
- If we want to talk about all the things named using the word "ostler", we are not making an encyclopaedia article about a thing, but a dictionary definition of a word, and this belongs in Wiktionary. In fact, that entry already exists.
- The reverse argument also applies: I still can't really see why this article should not be merged into Groom (horse): the word "ostler" is really just an archaic variant of "groom", and it's hard to see what material they do not have in common. That would of course leave the title Hostler available for the railway occupation, if it is notable enough for an article and not already covered under some other name.
- Incidentally, I'm mystified by the "worldwide" tag: the term is not used much if at all in British English – in this sense it's archaic in both, as far as I can see. Likewise I can't really see where there is a lack of neutrality. Richard New Forest ( talk) 22:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- As the same term is used to refer to occupations in two different fields (horses and railroad), then clearly both usages should be included and defined. The scope of this type of article includes any occupation referred to by the specific term in any and all fields in which the term is used to describe a job category within each field. I don't see any need at all for separate articles, however, as each occupation can be fully explained and differentiated in one sentence each. Centpacrr ( talk) 22:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- Richard New Forest, thank you for explaining/clarifying your position on this matter. I don't have time to write a thorough reply at the moment, but I wanted to thank you for joining the discussion, and also apologize if my original post came across as assuming bad faith. That was not my intent. We all have things we're passionate about; one of mine just happens to be railroads. :-) Happy editing, – BMRR ( talk) 23:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- (MTBW cannot believe I'm making the argument that follows, those who know me well will know why, but...) I wonder if in this case we actually have a situation where we do need to split out the two articles and make this a disambiguation page. I do agree that as an alternative, the horse occupation could be merged into the horse groom article as it is archaic and not used at all in US English, either. That said, the RR version probably derived from the horse version, so maybe the actual solution is some footnoting to say that a modern Hostler is a RR employee, derived from the early history of the job, which was originally the arranging, prep and organization of horses in a livery stable. (Assuming that this is true, I just pulled that bit out of my hat, taking a guess and I actually have no clue if the two are really connected). Probably a bit of research would settle the matter. Montanabw (talk) 03:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Centpacrr, your argument is entirely logical. However, it is in direct conflict with WP:DICTDEF. You say "the scope of this type of article includes any occupation referred to by the specific term...". That is a good description of a dictionary definition, but not of an encylopaedia article, which is the other way around. What justification do you propose for disregarding WP convention?
- BMRR, I understand your passion, though don't share it (my anorak is used more for twitching than train spotting...). I didn't think you were assuming bad faith – at most being a bit touchy, but several of us here can exhibit that particular characteristic... I see no reason why there should not be a separate article about the railway occupation, though I don't know enough about it to judge if it's notable.
- MBW, your theory about the origins of the railway ostler (which I think I've seen elsewhere and no doubt could be reffed) would belong in an Hostler (railroad) article. If we did still have an 'Ostler ('oss) article, we'd include the other as a see-also or hat-note. Richard New Forest ( talk) 10:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- The form in which the "article" is now, it consists only of a pair of one sentence descriptions of two different occupations called "hostler" -- i.e. two "dictionary definitions" of the word -- followed by a brief discussion of its etymology, and thus, I gather, you are claiming renders it as not legitimately "encyclopedic" as a WP entry. You also appear be arguing, however, that if entry were limited to just one definition (job description) and ignored the other it would then magically become encyclopedic. This is, of course, illogical on its face as you have provided no basis on how to determine which one should be ignored. (Of course there is no such basis.) The only solution, it seems to me, is at a minimum to leave the entry exactly as it is now (with both job descriptions), or delete the "article" altogether and forget the hairsplitting of trying to decide between two equally legitimate "dictionary definitions" of occupations called "hostler" while pretending the other one doesn't exist. The latter is hardly a useful or informative exercise. Centpacrr ( talk) 18:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- It's a stub, so the length of any material is irrelevant. Yes, we must have just one thing in one article. Each thing stands or falls on its own merits independently: we could have an article on the horse occupation, and we could have an article on the horse occupation, or one, or the other, or neither. The one solution we cannot have is one article about both things. In WP, if we have two things with similar names, we have two articles with their titles distinguished by epithets in brackets, as discussed above: we do not jam the two things into one article just because they share a name. The basis on which we decide whether each subject deserves an article is a different convention, WP:NOTABILITY. Whether either is called simply "Hostler" or both have epithets is governed by yet another convention, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Richard New Forest ( talk) 18:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- I gather, therefore, that you now are no longer objecting to the entry on the grounds that it is only made up of dictionary definitions of hostler (which is clearly the case, and was even when only the equine related occupation was included) and nothing more, but instead now your issue is that it defines what hostelers are in two different fields. However as a Wiktionary entry for "hostler" already exists and this "article" includes nothing that not already in that, then what's the purpose of keeping this entry at all? Better to just delete it altogether as superfluous. Centpacrr ( talk) 19:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Centpacrr, I don't think you've yet quite understood WP:DICTDEF. The problem is not that the article defines a subject: both a dictionary and an encyclopaedia do this. The problem is (and always was) that the article defines two different subjects. Dictionaries deal with words, and therefore include every definition associated with a word. Encyclopaedia articles deal with things, and therefore describe just one thing using whatever word or words that are commonly used for it. It is not the phrasing of the definitions but the number of things which makes these dictionary definitions, not encyclopaedia definitions.
Yes, we do need to consider whether we keep either of these subjects in Wikipedia. You're quite right that at present there is not enough material to make an article, and we must decide whether it's likely that further material will appear in due course. If it will, we can have one or both articles as stubs, pending further material. If it won't, yes, we delete one or both articles. Regards, Richard New Forest ( talk) 21:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- As after five years (since April, 2005) this entry has not been developed beyond being anything more than a regurgitation of the dictionary definitions of the word without any additional detail, background, or other context I see no reason to retain it. Centpacrr ( talk) 22:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well, maybe we just merge the two sentences into the relevant horse and railroad articles, redirect and then put a hatnote on one or the other that says "Hostler redirects here, for the (other kind) see (other article). Someone can play "rock, paper, scissors' to decide which one gets the nod. Can't say I care a whole lot either way. (grin) Montanabw (talk) 05:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
|
| This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hi Richard, Nomally I favor merges, but here, I think the topic is broader than horse grooms (note the WP Trans tag). I think there is a historic use that is sufficient to distinguish the 'ostler from the modern groom. But I'm open to other thoughts. Montanabw (talk) 23:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
From 2005 to mid-2010, this article contained information about the railroad occupation known as hostler. In June 2010, User:Richard New Forest removed that information, calling it "trivial" in his edit summary. Since that time, at least three other editors have attempted to reintroduce that information to the article, myself included, [1] only to be reverted by Richard New Forest, who believes that this article should be about the occupation, not the dictionary definition of the word.
And that's exactly my point. In the United States, if you walk into an employment agency and say "I'm looking for a job as a hostler," the agency is going to assume you want to work for a railroad, not a horse stable. If you open up the classified section of a United States newspaper and look for the word "hostler," chances are that you'll find it in advertisements from railroads, not horse stables.
This is not simply a slang term or something made up by railfans. Hostler is the official name of the railroad-related occupation. Ask any railroad employee, railroad manager, or railroad CEO in the United States what a hostler is and he'll tell you it's a person who moves locomotives from one track to another track within a rail yard or locomotive shop.
We need to come to a consensus on this issue. Until that happens, please do not remove the tags at the top of the article. Thank you. – BMRR ( talk) 16:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, of course there is a railway occupation called an ostler, and I did not suggest it was slang or made up. It is just not the subject of this article, which is about an occupation of looking after horses. WP articles are always about one thing or group of things: please see WP:DICTDEF, especially under "Major differences, homographs". If we want to talk about the railway ostler, we need a separate article for it, such as hostler (railroad), and this one could be disambiguated as, say, hostler (stable). This is well-established WP convention.
- I did use the word "trivial". However, I was not referring to the railway occupation, but to the other things I removed in that edit, which were indeed undoubtedly trivial. My phrasing was careless though, and I can see how it could have been misread.
- If we want to talk about all the things named using the word "ostler", we are not making an encyclopaedia article about a thing, but a dictionary definition of a word, and this belongs in Wiktionary. In fact, that entry already exists.
- The reverse argument also applies: I still can't really see why this article should not be merged into Groom (horse): the word "ostler" is really just an archaic variant of "groom", and it's hard to see what material they do not have in common. That would of course leave the title Hostler available for the railway occupation, if it is notable enough for an article and not already covered under some other name.
- Incidentally, I'm mystified by the "worldwide" tag: the term is not used much if at all in British English – in this sense it's archaic in both, as far as I can see. Likewise I can't really see where there is a lack of neutrality. Richard New Forest ( talk) 22:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- As the same term is used to refer to occupations in two different fields (horses and railroad), then clearly both usages should be included and defined. The scope of this type of article includes any occupation referred to by the specific term in any and all fields in which the term is used to describe a job category within each field. I don't see any need at all for separate articles, however, as each occupation can be fully explained and differentiated in one sentence each. Centpacrr ( talk) 22:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- Richard New Forest, thank you for explaining/clarifying your position on this matter. I don't have time to write a thorough reply at the moment, but I wanted to thank you for joining the discussion, and also apologize if my original post came across as assuming bad faith. That was not my intent. We all have things we're passionate about; one of mine just happens to be railroads. :-) Happy editing, – BMRR ( talk) 23:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- (MTBW cannot believe I'm making the argument that follows, those who know me well will know why, but...) I wonder if in this case we actually have a situation where we do need to split out the two articles and make this a disambiguation page. I do agree that as an alternative, the horse occupation could be merged into the horse groom article as it is archaic and not used at all in US English, either. That said, the RR version probably derived from the horse version, so maybe the actual solution is some footnoting to say that a modern Hostler is a RR employee, derived from the early history of the job, which was originally the arranging, prep and organization of horses in a livery stable. (Assuming that this is true, I just pulled that bit out of my hat, taking a guess and I actually have no clue if the two are really connected). Probably a bit of research would settle the matter. Montanabw (talk) 03:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Centpacrr, your argument is entirely logical. However, it is in direct conflict with WP:DICTDEF. You say "the scope of this type of article includes any occupation referred to by the specific term...". That is a good description of a dictionary definition, but not of an encylopaedia article, which is the other way around. What justification do you propose for disregarding WP convention?
- BMRR, I understand your passion, though don't share it (my anorak is used more for twitching than train spotting...). I didn't think you were assuming bad faith – at most being a bit touchy, but several of us here can exhibit that particular characteristic... I see no reason why there should not be a separate article about the railway occupation, though I don't know enough about it to judge if it's notable.
- MBW, your theory about the origins of the railway ostler (which I think I've seen elsewhere and no doubt could be reffed) would belong in an Hostler (railroad) article. If we did still have an 'Ostler ('oss) article, we'd include the other as a see-also or hat-note. Richard New Forest ( talk) 10:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- The form in which the "article" is now, it consists only of a pair of one sentence descriptions of two different occupations called "hostler" -- i.e. two "dictionary definitions" of the word -- followed by a brief discussion of its etymology, and thus, I gather, you are claiming renders it as not legitimately "encyclopedic" as a WP entry. You also appear be arguing, however, that if entry were limited to just one definition (job description) and ignored the other it would then magically become encyclopedic. This is, of course, illogical on its face as you have provided no basis on how to determine which one should be ignored. (Of course there is no such basis.) The only solution, it seems to me, is at a minimum to leave the entry exactly as it is now (with both job descriptions), or delete the "article" altogether and forget the hairsplitting of trying to decide between two equally legitimate "dictionary definitions" of occupations called "hostler" while pretending the other one doesn't exist. The latter is hardly a useful or informative exercise. Centpacrr ( talk) 18:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- It's a stub, so the length of any material is irrelevant. Yes, we must have just one thing in one article. Each thing stands or falls on its own merits independently: we could have an article on the horse occupation, and we could have an article on the horse occupation, or one, or the other, or neither. The one solution we cannot have is one article about both things. In WP, if we have two things with similar names, we have two articles with their titles distinguished by epithets in brackets, as discussed above: we do not jam the two things into one article just because they share a name. The basis on which we decide whether each subject deserves an article is a different convention, WP:NOTABILITY. Whether either is called simply "Hostler" or both have epithets is governed by yet another convention, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Richard New Forest ( talk) 18:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- I gather, therefore, that you now are no longer objecting to the entry on the grounds that it is only made up of dictionary definitions of hostler (which is clearly the case, and was even when only the equine related occupation was included) and nothing more, but instead now your issue is that it defines what hostelers are in two different fields. However as a Wiktionary entry for "hostler" already exists and this "article" includes nothing that not already in that, then what's the purpose of keeping this entry at all? Better to just delete it altogether as superfluous. Centpacrr ( talk) 19:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Centpacrr, I don't think you've yet quite understood WP:DICTDEF. The problem is not that the article defines a subject: both a dictionary and an encyclopaedia do this. The problem is (and always was) that the article defines two different subjects. Dictionaries deal with words, and therefore include every definition associated with a word. Encyclopaedia articles deal with things, and therefore describe just one thing using whatever word or words that are commonly used for it. It is not the phrasing of the definitions but the number of things which makes these dictionary definitions, not encyclopaedia definitions.
Yes, we do need to consider whether we keep either of these subjects in Wikipedia. You're quite right that at present there is not enough material to make an article, and we must decide whether it's likely that further material will appear in due course. If it will, we can have one or both articles as stubs, pending further material. If it won't, yes, we delete one or both articles. Regards, Richard New Forest ( talk) 21:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- As after five years (since April, 2005) this entry has not been developed beyond being anything more than a regurgitation of the dictionary definitions of the word without any additional detail, background, or other context I see no reason to retain it. Centpacrr ( talk) 22:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well, maybe we just merge the two sentences into the relevant horse and railroad articles, redirect and then put a hatnote on one or the other that says "Hostler redirects here, for the (other kind) see (other article). Someone can play "rock, paper, scissors' to decide which one gets the nod. Can't say I care a whole lot either way. (grin) Montanabw (talk) 05:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)