Talk:Middle-market company/Archives/2012

mysteriously tagged for "cleanup"

 * Middle-market: Poorly formatted. And talks only of middle-market newspapers - the term could almost certainly be applied to other things as well. -- Smjg 09:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The present formatting is fine. No evidence is presented that the term is used in other contexts, even if that were relevant. Thinking of new ways to use the term is "original research" and beyond. The article is already marked as a stub.


 * The cleanup page is a place where articles with problems (ungrammatical, poorly formatted, confusing, etc.) can be listed.

Neither the generally understood meaning of the word "cleanup" nor the three examples listed apply to this article. There is nothing wrong with it. That a longer article could be imagined does not mean the short one is bad. User:Lotsofissues apparently agrees and is a different person from me. Don't send messages to this IP, it's used by more than one person and I have no interest in conversation. If you don't like one of my edits then revert it. 64.105.253.69 04:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I replied to the message on your talk page before I discovered that you'd posted your comment here as well. But debate over the point of the cleanup request would be more on-topic here than on a user talk page.


 * Both times, no valid explanation of the removal was given. Lotsoffissues claimed to the effect that the cleanup request was unexplained even though it wasn't, and in the latest removal no explanation was given.  One of the golden rules of Wikipedia: Always fill in the summary field.  (To be honest, I don't know why Wikipedia allows it to be left blank.)


 * Now to the point. The article certainly ought to be improved, whether this improvement counts as cleanup or not.  "No evidence is presented that the term is used in other contexts, even if that were relevant."  It certainly is relevant.  Nobody would cite "a kind of newspaper" as a primary dictionary definition of either "upmarket" or "downmarket".  It makes no more sense to claim that it's the primary dictionary definition of "middle-market".  In almost any context in which "upmarket" and "downmarket" would be used, I can imagine this term for the in-between level being used.


 * Incidentally, Google gives many hits. Investigating some of these might help to put things in better perspective.... -- Smjg 11:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Middle-market companies
The section on middle-market companies is negative and opinionated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.243.195.136 (talk) 02:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)