Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Changes to the article[edit]

I was thinking about implementing changes to this article with the hope of moving it in the direction of GA status. There is still a lot to do and one point concerns the general structure of the article. There was a lengthy debate over 3 years ago about whether the semantics studied in computer science and psychology should be included in this article. I've had a look at several dictionaries and overview sources ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]) and they contain very little on what the corresponding sections in our article discuss. For example, I don't think that the Routledge Handbook of Semantics discusses programming languages anywhere. It may not be necessary to remove these topics from our article altogether but they do not deserve the status as main sections (see WP:PROPORTION). I was thinking about having a section at the end of the article to discuss semantics in various fields. Some information from the current sections "Computer Science" and "Psychology" could be added to it in summarized form. In the field of semantics, the distinction between linguistics and philosophy is difficult to draw and is not found in the sources mentioned above so I'm not sure that we should impose this distinction through our section structure.

Another point that needs to be addressed is the history section, which is very incomplete, and not all of the material in it is relevant. There are good and detailed works on this so sourcing shouldn't be a problem. We might also consider having a section that explains how semantics is defined and how it differs from related fields, such as semiotics and pragmatics. A further omission is a proper explanation of the basic concepts of semantics, like the concepts of meaning, reference, and truth conditions. More specific terms should also be explained somewhere, like polysemy and compositionality. The subsection "Disciplines and paradigms in linguistic semantics" already contains helpful information but is still far from complete. Another point is that several paragraphs and some full subsections lack references.

Various smaller adjustments would be needed for the different topics discussed in the article but they can be addressed later. I was hoping to get some feedback on these ideas and possibly other suggestions. I still have to do some research to work out the details. After that, I would start implementing them one at a time but it will probably take a while to address all the points. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the split discussion needs to be formally closed or something. I think it has stalled with no one responsible (or wanting to be responsible) for closing. Right now it's just an extended disambiguation page consisting of small sections. But I do agree with your assessment of the situation, but I'm not sure it's fair if some of your suggested changes affect the discussion? But it also is a piece of work that can be affected by various discussions and the choice of sources... //Replayful (talk | contribs) 17:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Replayful: Thanks for your input, you make a good point. The discussion has been open without a consensus for over 3 years. It's probably best to close it due to a lack of consensus. If the implementation of the proposed changes is successful then it would address at least some of the concerns brought up in the old discussion. My suggestion would be to reassess the situation once this is the case to see if more adjustements are needed. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just can't figure out who may close the discussion, or how to determine consensus (or whatever consensus is at this point). If you can do it, sounds fine by me! //Replayful (talk | contribs) 18:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I get your confusion since the discussion ends with a vote on whether Meaning (linguistics) should have its own article. Most seemed to be in favor of it but it's not clear how this is related to the previous discussion since this was not mentioned before. The previous discussion was mainly about whether the sections on computer science and psychology should be removed from this article, without a clear consensus. There seemed to be agreement that semantics associated with linguistics is the primary topic of this article. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've archived everything older than the split discussion. Should I archive it as well? — Remsense诉 18:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A close hasn't happened yet, so I don't think it's ready. The split discussion notification template is still in the article for instance. //Replayful (talk | contribs) 19:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection, though I think the task will be harder than you're anticipating. Botterweg14 (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably right, this is a huge topic and the article is still far from meeting the GA requirements. At least there are some good overview sources available. I've started working through them and I'll see how far I get. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Passed. Remsense诉 21:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Semantics/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Remsense (talk · contribs) 17:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yoink! Don't mind if I do. I'm really excited to review this one.

@Remsense: Thanks for doing this review! I've gotten used to waiting several months before someone picks up my GA nominations so I'm happy to get feedback without this lengthy waiting period. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Following my first read through the article, I have a question that would feel pedantic to ask about most other articles but seems cogent here. The prose style generally is very deliberate with names and conservative in its treatment of words as words, which is nice. In some places you use italics when mentioning words, and quote marks in other places. Is there an intent behind the use of both? I couldn't immediately identify it if so. Remsense诉 17:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to use italics for words and shorter expressions and quotation marks for sentences but it's possible that I was not always consistent. I'm not sure if that's the best practice. What are your thoughts on how to best handle this? Phlsph7 (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think what you've described is as good an approach as any. I'll keep that in mind as I'm reviewing, and tweak anything I catch so that it follows it. Remsense诉 18:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Phlsph7: I have now properly gotten into surveying the bibliography and weight given: while this may be my particular biases showing, do you think the analogous Chinese tradition deserves a sentence or two in the History section inline with India and Perso–Arabic? Perhaps specific names would involve Mohism and the School of Names, though this area on Wikipedia is comparatively underdeveloped.
Thanks, that's a good point. I added a short explanation. I felt that finding a good way to cover the eastern semantic traditions was a bit of a challenge since they should be included but they get very little attention in the general overview sources. That may also be a reason why the corresponding Wikipedia articles are underdeveloped. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Such topics are certainly on my contributor's bucket list, as an aside.) Very good with the addition. I've mentally checked off the "History" and "Theories of meaning" sections, leaving "Branches" as my next section of review—probably the most technical of the article. Remsense诉 18:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, I'm purposefully referencing Thebiguglyalien's review of your Knowledge GAN since I want to do the best job I can and I've never reviewed an article of this scope or sophistication before. Many of the potential issues they mentioned there seem to be largely absent from the prose of this article. Remsense诉 22:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the lead, I think the distinction could be made more clear between syntax, which studies the rules that dictate how to create sentences by arranging words, which is to be contrasted with semantics, and Phrasal semantics studies the meaning of sentences by exploring the phenomenon of compositionality or how new meanings can be created by arranging words, which is a type of semantics. The difference between these two things may be unclear to a skimming lay reader. Remsense诉 23:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, describing both disciplines in regard to arranging words may give the false impression that they are more or less about the same thing. I reformulated the description of syntax, which I hope avoids the problem. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for lack of updates the last few days, I'm still working through the material.
I would perhaps quibble with the selection of "objective" for the caption in #Basic concepts#Meaning, given how theories of semantics can generally be logically independent from positions of metaphysical or epistemological relativism. "Public" sounds a little odd as the lone adjective in this sentence, but perhaps it's the right choice. Remsense诉 18:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, there is a sense in which the word objective can be misunderstood in this context. The word public is also not ideal but I hope that the the meaning becomes clear in the context of the paragraph next to it. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious if you'd find any other links in the See also section to be beneficial? I was thumbing through Category:Semantics and some of its subcategories, but I could find fairly few articles to put there that aren't already linked in the article. Remsense诉 09:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to add some if you find good candidates. Personally, I'm not a big fan of them, mainly because there are usually too many articles that are somehow relevant and the choice can be rather arbitrary. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aye—they are a bit of an edge case thing rather than a default. In any case, I'm getting ready to wrap this one up and write my review, just want to do one more pass. Congrats—and maybe leave some vital articles for the rest of us? Remsense诉 14:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the work you have put into this review, including revisiting old reviews. Please let me know if further issues catch your eye. I'll make sure to save a couple of vital articles for you in their pre-GA status. :)
Phlsph7 (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Exceedingly so.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Broad in scope and meticulous when called for. The article does very well with containing the history of a relatively new field as so constituted, as well as giving one grounding as to why it's important and where it came from. I have a particular interest in the field, and I learned a lot myself.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. An area I want to explore at some point with this or related article is perhaps providing additional illustrations of a few of its abstract concepts, but presently meets the criterion.
7. Overall assessment. I genuinely apologize again for dragging my feet passing this one through, but I was almost worried in my review that I simply couldn't find much other than tweaking minutiae to talk about, even after reading through it around eight times, and doing a broad spot check of the sources. I wanted to give this extremely ramified subject and your work the review it deserved, but it's simply excellent. I'll stop piling it on and wave you through though—congratulations, and I look forward to further collaboration in the future

Remsense诉 17:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Hilst talk 20:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Citations

References

  1. ^
  2. ^
  3. ^

Sources

Improved to Good Article status by Phlsph7 (talk). Self-nominated at 10:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Semantics; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
  • Cited: Yes - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
  • Interesting: Yes
QPQ: Done.

Overall: QPQ done. Thorough GAN review here suggests great care was taken in writing this; concur. Sourcing is great, and it is pretty neutral/encompasses several perspectives (e.g. coverage of "History" section). Reviewer did spotchecks of offline sources, so I take it in good faith there was no plagiarism, OR, or issues with source-text integrity. Prefer ALT2 although I note the fact itself is not explicitly mentioned in the hook. Second preference for ALT0. Really good nomination; just have a really minor concern. ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 08:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Elias and thanks for doing this review. In relation to ALT2, I assume you mean that the fact in the hook is not explicitly mentioned in the article. That's correct, it is indirectly covered in the 2nd paragraph of the subsection "Others" by how the terms are defined but this may not be sufficient. I added a footnote now to cover this explicitly. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your prompt response, @Phlsph7. All good to me. ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 11:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Categories