Talk:Pythian Group

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Computing

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Canada: Ontario / Ottawa Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ontario portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Ottawa (assessed as Low-importance).

Requested move 8 April 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. We have a fairly strong consensus that Pythia remains the primary topic of the term "Pythian". Cúchullain ^t/c 15:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pythian Group → Pythian – The appropriate name for this page is "Pythian" according to rules in Wikipedia:Article Titles. References include the company web site http://www.pythian.com, it's trademark registration http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-3022756321.html or it's LinkedIn company page https://www.linkedin.com/company/35510. However, a redirect currently exists for Pythian to point towards an article about the Pythia, commonly known as the Oracle of Delphi. The redirect as it stands is inappropriate as the word Pythian cannot be used standalone to refer to the Oracle of Delphi as it is an adjective ref. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Pythian. It's only meaning as a standalone referential noun is this company. As a result, I propose deleting the redirect and a move for Pythian Group to Pythian. Disclosure: I am the founder of Pythian which is why I care about this. Paulvallee (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Pythian clearly refers totally to Pythia. Is this new company stub even notable? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note my WP:COI As for notability, I should hope the company passes that test through the application of any number of criteria by now (Wall Street Journal article quoting us for instance: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323466204578384960741506402 , a search in Ottawa's leading business paper reveals http://www.obj.ca/?controllerName=search&searchQueryString=pythian, the Google Books search https://www.google.com/search?q=pythian+database&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks Paulvallee (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As you are closely connected to this topic, please bear in mind WP:COI -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I mention my COI for that reason and I will continue to mention it with every comment. Paulvallee (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose {{R from adjective}} we have redirects from adjectives to nouns all the time. Please show that this is the primary topic. "Pythian" seems to be used as an adjective and demonym for ancient Delphi, as well as an adjective for Pythia. In Google News, the company does not appear to be the primary topic. In Google Books, I don't see the company showing up in results. Even regular Google search shows no great dominance by the company. Perhaps a disambiguaiton page should be built -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note my WP:COI This company is the primary topic in Google search: As for the google search not showing great dominance, I wonder what the fair criteria for that would be: the company is the google-selected infobox, the company's home page is the first result, the company's career page is the second, the company's blog is the third, and the fourth, to the wikipedia article Pythia, is a direct google-calculated consequence of this problematic redirect. The fifth and sixth are examples of the word as adjective and my research shows we should be selecting article titles with a heavy bias towards nouns as per Wikipedia:Article Titles (and of course I would support a disambiguation page). The redirect in either the adjective sense or in the homonym sense should not point to the "Pythia" article regardless, it would make more sense for it to point to Delphi. Paulvallee (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note my WP:COI While this company is not the primary topic in Google books, all references not to this company in Google Books illustrate the use as an adjective (followed by Games, Apollo, Temple, Sisters). Furthermore, references to this company as the only meaning of the noun "Pythian" in Google Books abound in hundreds of references: https://www.google.com/search?q=pythian+database&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks
Comment Note my WP:COI This company is the primary topic in Google News. I did a google news search on "Pythian" and found the following on the first ten results: 4 articles about Pythian, 1 obituary mentioning a woman's participation in the Pythian Sisters, 1 mention of a building named the "Pythian Building" in Martinsville VA, 2 are anniversary notices members of the "Pythian Sisters", 1 is a mention of a street name in Springfield MO, and 1 is a crime report of a person whose last name is "Pythian". So the final tally would be this: This company 4, The Sisters of the Knights of Pythias 3 (note - absolutely zero association to the the Pythia), anything else single random mentions. As such, the company is the primary topic in Google News, and furthermore the secondary topic does not support the current redirect to Pythia. Paulvallee (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE the above !vote is the 1st, 2nd & 3rd !vote by Paulvallee who is also the nominator -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Resolved by correcting to "comment" I apologize for my misunderstanding of the process. Paulvallee (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note my WP:COI One final comment referring to the rationale in Wikipedia:Article Titles. Given that "Pythian" and not ever "Pythian Group" is the commonly recognizable name, and given that "Pythian" is the only meaning that is a noun, I reiterate that deleting the redirect leading the article with is appropriate based on both the "Use the commonly recognizable name" directive and the "Use nouns" directive. Paulvallee (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE the above !vote is the 4th !vote by Paulvallee who is also the nominator -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note my WP:COI There is ample precedent for what I am proposing without digging deep. For instance, I think we should follow the precedent set by Delphic, which is an adjective referring to Delphi, as well as a noun referring to Delphic, and as such Wikipedia biases towards the noun but ensures that the Delphic article is led with a "About" disambiguation. Paulvallee (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE the above !vote is the 5th !vote by Paulvallee who is also the nominator -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Sorry. I didn't realize there was any automated scoring of these? Changed them all to "Comment" ... first timer your indulgence appreciated. 13:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment to the nominator, you are not allowed to stuff the ballot box, stop !voting multiple times. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Resolved by changing my posts to comments. I apologize for my misunderstanding, I had no idea there was an automated scoring process and I took great pains to ensure that all my contributions were clearly attached and signed by me and indicated my COI. I do hope the issue is still measured by a careful read of this page rather than a scoring, does that not happen? Thanks for your forbearance. Paulvallee (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Pythian seems ambiguous and this company not the primary topic for it. Some other move might make more sense, such as Pythian Co. or Pythian Inc. 173.160.224.84 (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can you map your opposition to the obvious Delphic precedent? What other noun primary topic exists for "Pythian"? Paulvallee (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.