Talk:Formulaic communication

proposed merge
I have retitled this to a less proprietary title, and proposed a merge of the simultaneously introduced and very similar page Formulaic Communication in the 21st Century. The two will then need to be rewritten to be an encyclopedia  article, not essays, and to represent more than one particular person's jargon.

There is an alternative solution I seriously considered: deleting both and starting over. If the merge is objected to, I shall do just that.  DGG ( talk ) 02:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would strongly support this. The article, especially the referencing, desperately needs some intelligent working over. Bjenks (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Bjenks, which is it you prefer--a merge or deletion? If a merge, go ahead--I think using the more general title--I'm fairly sure that is a lot of material available. I'd suggest more real linguistics, and less pop sociology & the coverage should go back before the 19th century.  I'm not sure thee is any useful material in the 21st century article, but it will be easier to call it a merge than a redirect. And take a look also at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Four Tests Formulaic Communication Passes in Economics; I doubt any of that is worth merging.    DGG ( talk ) 16:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * On further reflection and consideration of the other pages, I believe there are no third-party sources for the concepts presented and that the material fits entirely into the soapbox category. It is obvious that no systematic attempt has been made to define and order the subject in a manner that intersects with readers' demand for a succinct explanation. The lack of independent sources confirms that the subject matter is no more than the content of a recent book which will require time and an inquiry process to establish notability for WP's purposes. Perhaps like a typical reader, I looked up the article in quest of some enlightenment on the old-fashioned concept of formulaic composition and repetition as used, eg, by bards of the oral tradition in cultures like the Maori, Serbian, Celtic, etc, to facilitate continuity of performance. Familiar notions of this kind should certainly be covered in an article on "formulaic recitation/composition/writing/ even acting/performing/singing, etc" but "communication" is surely too broad a referent, and I would be happier for the subject not to appear at all, i.e. for these related articles to be deleted. Bjenks (talk) 09:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Clear English
I declined a speedy for "it is all very nicely written, with good markup, but it never says what it is about". I felt great sympathy with the tagger. I have a good knowledge of the English language, and I find it difficult to understand this article. I presume someone out there does, and I would appeal to them to make it a bit easier to comprehend. Give us a bit of communication, even. Please? Peridon (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is that it is not really a thing, but an abstract concept is motivational "business books" being given bit of credibility. The page view statistics give an idea of how important this article is. Jamesx12345 (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)