Talk:Semeiotic

Semeiotic redirect here, why?
Semeiotics refer to studies about sign and symptoms in medical sciences.

Notes & Queries
Jon Awbrey 14:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Semiotics?
Should this article be merged with Sign Relations or Semiotics? I see the need to distinguish Pierce from say, Sassure, but this article is rather lacking on its own. --Mabisa 13:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Or maybe limit it to a "vocabulary" notice. All points related to Peirce's Semeiotics are explained elsewhere. -- Typewritten 07:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Semeiotics is just another way of spelling semiotics, and Peirce was a co-founder of the science (however you want to spell it). I agree with you two, they ought to be merged. I think the intention here is to distinguish between Peirce's work and the general theory, but the proper place to make that distinction is not in an article with a slightly different spelling for the same science. A search for semeiotics should redirect to the semiotics page, or vice versa. Any of Peirce's work which would not now be considered as belonging to the science of semiotics surely belongs in the Charles Sanders Peirce article. Peirce's work which would be regarded as belonging to the science of semiotics surely belongs to the general semiotics article. -- Plotinus 19:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge to Semiotics? Rename? Rewrite?
It strikes me as utterly ridiculous to have an article on the rather fringe-y topic of whether C.S. Peirce's spelling is significant (if you'll excuse the pun). I very nearly merged this to a section of Semiotics — indeed, I started to do so but reversed myself to seek consensus & see if such a move is controversial.

What say you? Should this be a section of Semiotics? Or is it notable enough to stand as an article in its own right? If so, should it be called something else? Or does it just need a clearer lead section? Cnilep (talk) 08:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the explanation and history of this spelling variant is notable and deserves its own article. A clearer lead section would be good. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Most of the article is not about its own lemma. The question to what extent Peirce's theory of signs is different from other theories of signs does not rest on some preferred spelling, and the given quotations from Short and Deely are accordingly concerned with different questions. All that remains is the fact that there are different spellings, and that a particular one can be picked out to mean a particular theory, which is not enough for a separate article. My suggestion is to merge the relevant sentences into Semiotics. The rest of the article with its topic of Peirce's theory of signs (however termed) could still go somewhere else but should not be taken to be about matters of spelling. Kind regards, 㓟 (talk) 10:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support the suggested merge - The theoretical differences between Peirce and the other Latin thinkers in the Saussurean/Derrida tradition can be spelled out in Peirce own separate entry. But as regards the spelling of the discipline, 'Semitocs' or 'Semeiotic' I support the suggested merge, with a separate section in 'Semiotics' for the different spelling suggested by Peirce. warshy¥¥ 14:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I basically agree with 㓟 above. I am just suggesting the "rest of the article with its topic of Peirce's theory of signs (however termed) could still go" in Peirce's own page/entry. warshy¥¥  14:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Merge it. Pearce's work is a sub-set of Semiologicical theory. (Evan 08:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.254.200.2 (talk)

✅ (more or less). I've copied most of the content to Semiotics, and copied part of two paragraphs to Charles Sanders Peirce. The former article, in particular, needs considerable help, for its pre-existing POV problems ("Peirce scholars (epigones, in this matter)...") and the partial duplication caused by my copying and pasting. Cnilep (talk) 01:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)