Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rusticated

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep with move to Rustication (academia). (Original title redirected to Rustication, a disambig page). Physchim62 (talk) 14:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rusticated

[edit]

dicdef Flapdragon 00:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would be useful in a glossary of Oxbridge terminology (OK, not necessarily Oxbridge, but typically so), which I think has been proposed on some talk page but does not yet exist AFAIK. Would not normally expect to find it in the past participle though, as opposed to the infinitive (to rusticate) or the noun (rustication). Flapdragon 00:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect and merge into rustication suspension. Wikipedia does not make exceptions for verb form just because the past participle is used more often than the noun. Countless pages use verb and noun forms other than the ones most commonly used for the sake of consistency, because, unlike disputes over which name is correct for a person or place or whatnot, it is easy to be consistent regarding verb form, which makes things much simpler for anyone trying to find these articles. Plus both rustication and rusticated are so small that merging them does no harm, and helps make both less like dictionary-ish. If we had an "expulsion" article that wasn't just a disambiguation page, I'd recommend merging it into that. -Silence 03:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It seems that Rustication (architecture) and Rusticated (academia) have quite distinct meanings. Should they be in the same article? --Vsion 03:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into rustication, per Silence. This seems worth discussing encyclopedically. Superm401 | Talk 04:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Pintele Yid--there's more to be said about the historical practice, the effect it may have had on particular figures, and the guidelines for it today. I'd oppose merging it with rustication; even under the guidelines cited above, it should be moved to "rusticating," not "rustication," no? --Dvyost 07:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Could become an interesting article. Absolutely don't merge. By the way it is NOT exclusively an Oxbridge term -> [3]--Alicejenny 07:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, no-one has asserted it was just an Oxbridge term (the aricle referred to Oxford), though I would be surprised if it was in use in most British universities.
  • Keep as a well-known term with notable examples in literature and British public life (e.g. Oscar Wilde and Auberon Waugh); the usage is distinct from rustication, the term rusticated is used in this context, rustication generally not. Needs expansion, but is more than a dicdef and more than a variant of the (unrelated) rustication. Links between the two would help to avoid ambiguity. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 13:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia isn't about defining words (like a dictionary), it's about describing concepts. As has been pointed out, it's not a question of what form the verb is most commonly found in: even if it's more common to speak of being electrocuted, the concept will be dealt with at electrocution.
  • Correct. If it were to be kept in its own article, the only acceptable form would be Rustication (academia) or similar. The commonly used form of a verb is not an excuse for breaking the standard format for articles named after verbs, which is to use the noun form—which is "rustication", not "rusticating", obviously; "rusticating" would be if it were in a sentence in the article, like an article about "Colleges rusticating students". "Rusticated" would be appropriate for an article about "Students who have been rusticated". "Rustication", however, is the standard for the concept itself. Also note that "rustication" is nothing but a British variant on the meaning of rustication; it is not a different word, just one of several definitions of the same word, with the definition at "rustication" being another of these definitions. -Silence 15:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rephrasing vote, see below. Weak keep. Move, merge, wherever; but I do feel strongly that enough dabs and redirects should be created to ensure that anyone, curious about the academic usage, who types in "rusticate" or "rusticated" as the "go" term, will easily find what they seek. I found a boatload—well, several more—literary references, and some British and U.S. notables who were rusticated in their college days. It seems that the term was not limited to England but was also common in nineteenth-century America. I have a preference for keeping it at rusticated, because, in reference to college suspension, the word is frequently used in that form, whereas "rusticate" and "rustication" seems to be rare. Despite what folks say are naming conventions (I thought "use the most common term" was the überconvention. But whatever. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That convention applies to choosing between different words, names, and titles, not between different forms of the same word. In other words, the "name article after the most common name" would apply if we were discussing which of two more-or-less-synonymous words to have an article at, with the less-common name being a redirect to the more common one. The rule does not apply to choosing between different forms of a single noun, verb, adjective, etc., however: with that, the policy is quite clear, to have all nouns singular (even though very often the plural is more common) and all verbs in their noun form, rather than in a past participle form like "rusticated". For non-Latin words, "-ing" is typically the noun ending (running, eating, bleeding, juggling, etc.) whereas Latin words tend to have an "-ion" ending, especially "-ation" (cancellation, excommunication, navigation, masturbation, etc.), and still other words can have the same form as a noun or verb, avoiding the problem altogether (love, cough, sleep, hope, etc.). But regardless, only in truly rare and unusual situations is a form like "rusticated" ever used; simply having one form be more common is not good enough. There are many other words that are almost always used in -ed form and yet aren't listed there; being consistent is a good thing, and means we don't have to make tricky judgment calls like "'Vikings' is more common than 'Viking'" or "'obey' is more common than 'obedience'", which are sadly unavoidable with most names, titles, etc. -Silence 22:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Rustication (academia) per Dvyost's suggestion. - Dalbury (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC) Withdrawing this vote. - Dalbury (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Trollderella 19:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In discussing merges, moves, and general organization, I think we should consider... is rustication not a synonym for "suspension?" Suspension, at least in the U. S., is the name for an academic disciplinary action, stronger than probation but weaker than expulsion, defined as loss of student status for a specified (limited) period of time. e.g. Stanford defines it that way and then goes on: "All rights and privileges of student status are suspended during this time, including but not limited to: the right to attend classes; use library facilities; use any other facilities of the University except those open to the general public; obtain credit for any academic work; engage in any activities, or hold any position on any University committee or student organization, whether appointive or elective; live in student housing; participate in intercollegiate athletics." Loss of the right to "use any other facilities except those open to the general public" sounds essentially the same as "the student may not enter any of the university's buildings or facilities." Dpbsmith (talk) 20:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. And, for obvious reasons, suspension gets over 400 times as many hits on Google. Suspension is currently a disambiguation page; if listing noteworthy people who have been rusticated is a worthwhile endeavor, then why not also list noteworthy people who have been suspended? Why not make a page for suspension in an academic context, merge this information to that page, and then simply list at the top of Rustication, "This article is about the architectural term. For the academic term, see Suspension (academia)". Then we could mention both terms, and the differences between them, on that page. Wouldn't that solve all of these problems?
  • Anyway, regardless of what we do, the current situation is clearly ridiculous: (1) having a disambiguation page for only two pages is absurdly inconvenient and unnecessary, rather than just picking one and having it link to the other; (2) if Rustication is going to redirect to Rustication (disambiguation), why not just make Rustication itself the disambiguation page?! No matter what, Rustication (disambiguation) is a bad idea; (3) my original suggestion of merging the two Rustications onto one page was actually, if you like, supposed to be a quasi-disambiguation page, sans the links and with a bit more information on each item, to provide all the information necessary on both terms in a quick and simple manner. I recommended it because there was so little information on each term, with the idea that they might eventually be turned back into separate articles once they'd been expanded enough. But such a solution isn't ideal, so I'm happy now that an ideal one has been found: create an article for suspension and put this there as a type of suspension, and leave the architectural term at rustication with a link to suspension/rusticated. -Silence 22:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

**Delete. In Wiktionary, the first meaning of rusticate is "(British) to suspend or expel from a college or university". That seems pretty straight forward to me. - Dalbury (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC) - changing my vote to Merge and Redirect per User:Silence as the best outcome that has a chance here. - Dalbury (talk) 17:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Expulsion and suspension can be very significant events in many people's lives, often turning points in their goals and ambitions. Once we have an article for expulsion or suspension, we may want to consider incorporating pushout into it as well, since it's a much less common term than dropout. -Silence 23:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly oppose such an article, because it violates Wikipedia naming conventions, just as Rusticated does. Expulsion would be the correct name. And yes, I'd support some sort of move like that, though it seems that Suspension is a much better description of the term and thus is a better candidate for making a new article to merge this into (as both "expulsion" and "suspension" are disambig pages, we'd either need to move them to (disambiguation), or, probably the better idea, add an (academia) or (education) or similar to the end of the name). Dictionary.com gives this meaning of the word as "Chiefly British. To suspend (a student) from a university."[4] -Silence 23:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article Rusticated as it stands now is defective, in my opinion, no matter what you call it. It currently is no more than a list of citations for the use of the word, and therefore belongs in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. - Dalbury (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article as it stands now is defective. I don't know how I could have made that any clearer in my comments. I said to integrate it into a new article, called "expulsion" or "suspension" or similar, if only as a mentioning of the term. It obviously doesn't stand well on its own. -Silence 23:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. And as I said, the article is primarily a list of citations of useage, and I think that kind of thing belongs in a dictionary, not in an encyclopedia. I would be opposed to simply tacking it onto some other article. If someone can show how this material could be effectively integrated into an encyclopedic article, I would have no problem. - Dalbury (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, move I suppose to rustication, not that one often comes across the noun form. To be rusticated is quite different from being suspended, and as has already been pointed, the term has a long and crucial history in English culture. Chick Bowen 18:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the noun form is to be used even when it's uncommon; we have redirects for that. But for the second time, if this is moved to rustication, what do you propose we do about the architectural term? Do you want them listed on the same page? -Silence 19:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig as usual, of course. In fact, I see it's already been done; Rustication is a disambig page pointing to Rustication (academia), which is currently a redirect but could be easily swapped with the page under discussion. I'm sorry, Silence, 'cause you seem kinda worked up about it, but I really don't see a problem. Chick Bowen 22:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not worked up about it, just interested; a scholarly, long-winded tone is hard to convey over the Internet, so it may come across as just being frenzied, which is not my intent. :) Anyway, I illustrated the problem with a disambiguation page above: it's impractical and pointless to have a distinct page for links to the two articles when you could just have the page go directly to one of the articles instead, and provide a link to the other at the top. In this way, the people looking for the other article are no more inconvenienced than they would be by a disambig, and the people looking for this article are much better off! Neutral/win situation. Also, even if we have a disambig page, having it at Rustication (disambiguation) makes no sense, because Rustication is just a redirect to that page--so why not have the disambiguation page at Rustication? So either way, Rustication (disambiguation) will have to go (and it looks like you agree on that at least, I think, and just didn't notice that Rustication is a redirect to a disambig page, not the disambig itself; correct me if I'm wrong), but for the most convenience and to stick with the standard for most Wikipedia articles, we probably shouldn't really have a disambiguation page at all, as they're usually only for when there are more than two or three articles to choose from, or in especially contentious situations where it's totally impossible to pick one over the other to start from. I don't think we're that stuck in the mud here. But anyway, thanks for clarifying! I only asked because I genuinely wasn't sure what your vote was; while you say "Disambig as usual, of course", you're only the second or third of all the people who have voted or commented here to yet say that we need a disambiguation page at all! (The other one I can think of is Uncle G, who's the person who changed the pages recently by moving the former Rustication page to Rustication (architecture) and having Rustication redirect to Rustication (disambiguation), both of which I think are mistakes—the only page that needs to be moved is "Rusticated", everything else worked more or less fine the way it was before this debate.) So it's not as clear-cut as you think. -Silence 23:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, I see what you mean. Yes, it's not as clear-cut as I was suggesting. Your suggestion is quite sensible, and I'm sure you can get an admin to do whatever you need to be done. My advice (I've done this): put it on requested moves, wait a couple days to see if you get any votes (you probably won't, I suspect) and then just ask an admin to do it--since nothing with any significant history would be deleted, I'm sure it'll be easy to make happen. Chick Bowen 02:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I'll pull some strings and see what I can get done. Doesn't hurt to at least see what it would look like to have Rustication be the architecture page + Wiktionary in external links and the link to "Rusticated" at the top. -Silence 03:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I vote: Keep, and ask User:Silence to do whatever he thinks best after AfD is closed. In more detail: Keep most of the text in the present article, subject to cleanup and normal editing, and ask Silence do whatever moves, redirects, dabs etc. will, in his judgement, serve readers best. After all, whatever he does is just normal editing and anyone can change anything he does anyway. From the Talk page I see don't see anything remotely approaching a consensus to delete--I see at least a 2/3 vote to keep it in some form, in fact--and I don't see any strongly held views or overwhelming majorities on how, exactly to do this. Personally, the only situation I would object to is one where we have information about a topic, but a reader who types something reasonable into the Go box doesn't find it. Really, AfD is for discussing whether a page should be deleted. As long as we're here, if we're keeping it's not unreasonable to discuss how to keep it, but there's no reason to put that burden on the closing sysop. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heh! Well, I can't really show what my version of the articles looks like because I'm not an Admin; I could change all the article texts, but the history and talk for the page that used to be "Rustication" is currently at "Rustication (architecture)", and I'd need to be able to delete the "Rustication" redirect and move "Rustication (architecture)" there to make the pages functional. If I did it someone else would just have to redo it, in other words. But if anyone doesn't understand an aspect of the page moves I've proposed, I'd be glad to explain, demonstrate, or show examples of similar articles being handled in a similar way.
  • Also, I kind of wish you hadn't deleted your previous comment, because it's quite a reasonable suggestion, and is the suggestion I'd be endorsing myself if I thought that the topic "rustication in an academic sense" and the current article text we have merited a distinct article at this point, rather than a significant subsection of a larger article on expulsion and/or suspension in general. And, of course, having each article link to the other on the top, rather than wasting readers' time with an extraneous disambiguation page for only two articles, is just common sense. Why make twice as many people click an extra link when you don't have to? -Silence 23:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted it because I saw I was just repeating what you had already suggested. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rusticated&oldid=1265662153"