Category talk:Orders, decorations, and medals
Thread
change- This series of diffs was moved from User talk:Auntof6 here.
Please review the categories I have added here at Barney Hajiro. I think Category:Victoria Cross winners is not a good name. IMO, perhaps Category:Victoria Cross recipients would be better ... or something else?
On the other hand, I notice that the members of the French Legion of Honour are in Category:Legion of Honour. Recipients of the Order of Canada are in Category:Order of Canada. This causes me to wonder if Category:Victoria Cross might be preferred? better?
As context, please notice that I have created Order of the Rising Sun. I wonder if a reasonable next step would be to create Category:Order of the Rising Sun recipients -- compare en:Category:Recipients of the Order of the Rising Sun?
Do you see where this string of open-ended questions is leading? What do you think? --Ansei (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- Recipients isn't a simple word. I believe that is why winners was probably chosen. It isn't a perfect word for the situation, but it is a much simpler word. I should also note that I believe the source you have is wrong, Barney Hajiro didn't receive the Victoria Cross. He received the en:Military Medal. He wasn't eligible for the Victoria Cross since he wasn't from a Commonwealth nation. If you look at his en.wiki article they don't mention the Victoria Cross. -DJSasso (talk) 18:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- DJSasso's diff raises more questions than answers. For example, the reasoning suggests that there may be a problem with the term "recipient" in any/all SEWP categories, including
- The word "winner" does not work well as an alternative. Courage Under Fire is a 1996 American film which emphasized that the word "winner" is not used in the Medal of Honor context.
- This subject has consequences which we need to consider carefully. --Ansei (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- Courage Under Fire' is a
filmmovie and written in full English. It has no bearing on this discussion nor setting policy in a language it is not even written in. Technically, no award, prize or honor is won. They are all granted. This includes Nobels and entertainment awards such as Oscars and Grammys. Colloquially, all these awards are still considered to be won. "Received", "got" or "was given" should be used in the prose to describe the action instead of won, but winner is the closest simple term that is widely connected to any award. --Creol(talk) 20:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)- This thread is cut short by ipse dixit. --Ansei (talk) 00:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that generally the use of winner and award should be avoided when referring to a Medal of Honor or someone who got one. I am somewhat sympathetic though that it may not be a simple word and some generalization is ok for the sake of clarity of the message to our readers even if its not 100% accurate. I think there are a few other ways we could say it though. I'm not quite sure what the sentiments are towards the Victoria Cross. Here are a couple suggestions:
- We could say recipient and then state what that means in parens or link to Wiktionary. I think if we articulate in the article that some recipients of the Medal find it offensive it would be clear enough.
- We could use other terms like got, earned or presented when applicable but I'm not sure if these 2 words are any simpler
- I hope this helps. Kumioko (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- In regards to the categorization I think if we Drop the Winners/recipients at the end it would be fine. There aren't that many exceptions even in ENWP (a few video games, Some books about and from recipients, a few general articles like Medal of Honor, etc.) Kumioko (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- Reviewing Simple English Wiktionary: The template in the upper right corner explains that wikt:receive is one of the 1000 most common British National Corpus (BNC) headwords -- compare wikt:recipient. --Ansei (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- In regards to the categorization I think if we Drop the Winners/recipients at the end it would be fine. There aren't that many exceptions even in ENWP (a few video games, Some books about and from recipients, a few general articles like Medal of Honor, etc.) Kumioko (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that generally the use of winner and award should be avoided when referring to a Medal of Honor or someone who got one. I am somewhat sympathetic though that it may not be a simple word and some generalization is ok for the sake of clarity of the message to our readers even if its not 100% accurate. I think there are a few other ways we could say it though. I'm not quite sure what the sentiments are towards the Victoria Cross. Here are a couple suggestions:
- This thread is cut short by ipse dixit. --Ansei (talk) 00:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- Courage Under Fire' is a
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
If we were looking at Category:people who received the Medal of Honor, then this could be an arguable point. As the issue is recipient, the argument brought up places the term below continuance in terms of simplicity as continuance is one of the alternate forms of the BNC 1000 headword continue while recipient is only semi-related to receive. And this is all based on frequency of use of various forms of words in regular English publications - while it can be useful at times, it is not the language being discussed. --Creol(talk) 18:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- I personally would have no problem with going with the People who received the Medal of Honor cat naming but that still doesn't solve the problem of using the term recipient in the article itself. As I mentioned I think there are a couple of ways to deal with using the word recipient and I am ok with avoiding it when possible but I think we should try our best to avoid using the words winner and award when referring to a military medal of this type (including Victoria Cross, Navy Cross, etc.). Its a decoration that is presented, not an award to be won. Kumioko (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- There is absolutely no problem with using the term recipient in articles. That is one of the things wikilinks are for and the sole purpose for wikt: links. It can be said in different ways to avoid having to link, but there is nothing saying that it has to be done. Category names can't be linked and as such are the entire problem. (and the one I listed is far too wordy for a category name) --Creol(talk) 22:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, well speaking from the category standpoint and as I mentioned before I think we can just drop recipients then and just say United States Army Medal of Honor or Medal of Honor as appropriate. The vast majority of the articles will be recipients. Kumioko (talk) 04:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- There is absolutely no problem with using the term recipient in articles. That is one of the things wikilinks are for and the sole purpose for wikt: links. It can be said in different ways to avoid having to link, but there is nothing saying that it has to be done. Category names can't be linked and as such are the entire problem. (and the one I listed is far too wordy for a category name) --Creol(talk) 22:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@Auntof6 -- Please provide an e-mail option for the kind of discussion which is not possible on your talk page. In future, when I want to engage and understand your point-of-view, the one venue I now know I must avoid is your talk page.
My nuanced set of related examples and questions had to do with a fuzzy logic topic. I was interested in your thoughts about how to draw inferences from comparable yet dissimilar patterns of parsing. This thread could have provided an opportunity for you to help me. The cumulative history of your diffs caused me to appreciate that you are able and willing to help me figure out what I do not understand. This thread did not help me.
@Others -- This is not the first time an open-ended discussion was drowned out by ipse dixit diffs.
FACT: Over time, Auntof6 has found her voice -- a recognizable voice -- but we had no opportunity to listen to it in this venue.FACT: Not everything needs to be parsed as if it were controversial.FACT: Investigation is not the same as dispute.
This thread illustrates a persisting problem -- an 800 lb gorilla and an elephant in the room. For emphasis, it is significant that this thread was not started at Wikipedia:Simple talk. --Ansei (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- You do realize that every thread everywhere is open to comments from anyone on the wiki right? No one page (even talk pages) are owned by anyone. Trying to hide discussion from the wiki looks bad on your part. Perhaps if she didn't comment it was because she had no comment, or others said what she felt. You can't go on assuming that every discussion is a dispute. This was a discussion of people involved trying to help you investigate your problem. If you didn't like their responses that is your issue not theirs. Stop assuming bad faith of everyone that responds to you. -DJSasso (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- @ DJSasso -- No. Your sentences and word choices are sometimes "spin". For example, WP:AGF lacks tractive force because it is not a stick.
FACT: Auntof6 has found her voice and I want to engage it
- In this thread, yes, your tactics are recognized; but no, the words and sentences are off-topic. Please try not to be small.
- @ DJSasso -- No. Your sentences and word choices are sometimes "spin". For example, WP:AGF lacks tractive force because it is not a stick.
- You do realize that every thread everywhere is open to comments from anyone on the wiki right? No one page (even talk pages) are owned by anyone. Trying to hide discussion from the wiki looks bad on your part. Perhaps if she didn't comment it was because she had no comment, or others said what she felt. You can't go on assuming that that every discussion is a dispute. This was a discussion of people involved trying to help you investigate your problem. If you didn't like their responses that is your issue not theirs. Stop assuming bad faith of everyone that responds to you. -DJSasso 17:25, 18 December 2012
- FACT: The noun wikt:focus ≠ the adjective wikt:open
- FACT: The verb wikt:focus ≠ the verb wikt:own
- FACT: The verb wikt:focus ≠ the verb wikt:hide
- FACT: The verb wikt:assume is not a fact. It is ipse dixit.
- FACT: The verb wikt:focus ≠ the verb wikt:hide
- FACT: The verb wikt:focus ≠ the verb wikt:own
- FACT: The noun wikt:focus ≠ the adjective wikt:open
- The ipse dixit strategy is a mirror. The mirror remains even as I withdraw from this page. The diff here is an example of a problem which is an 800 lb gorilla and an elephant in the room. --Ansei (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- And as per usual you make a bunch of comments that make no sense in the English language. -DJSasso (talk) 14:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- The ipse dixit strategy is a mirror. The mirror remains even as I withdraw from this page. The diff here is an example of a problem which is an 800 lb gorilla and an elephant in the room. --Ansei (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)