Talk:Semantics/Archives/2024/February

Changes to the article
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 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)
 * 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 &#124; contribs) 17:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 &#124; contribs) 18:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I've archived everything older than the split discussion. Should I archive it as well? — Remsense  诉  18:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 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 &#124; contribs) 19:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no objection, though I think the task will be harder than you're anticipating. Botterweg14  (talk)  19:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)