Talk:Symbolic language (art)

This page provides clarification of 'symbolic logic', specifically its use and meaning in the context of art. A concern was raised that "no evidence that this is a specific subject in art, apart from the general use of the term symbolic language. No source for definition of it as a subject in art. Likely original research." A request was made to improve the article by finding additional references from literature – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR. The proposer may be able to address concerns of original research and I'll add additional information from the recommended links in the provided notice.Cypherquest (talk) 18:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Even the categories for 'symbolic logic' are different depending on the discipline and context. This should be further discussed in the main article in the context of both art and literature.Cypherquest (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Is music a form of art? Symbolic language in music could be covered here as well.Cypherquest (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The problem is that you are creating a bunch of stub articles that could be put into a single article of symbolic language. If you do searches then you will find something about symbolic language in myths, religions, philosophy, astrology, etc. There is nothing to indicate that they warrant their own articles, and they are likely to stay as stubs. If articles are likely to stay a stub, then they should not be created. Furthermore it seems that you are conducting your own original research and just putting in random things to create articles. It is likely that they will be merged into a single article or be deleted. Hzh (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Symbolic language in programming is very different than symbolic language in engineering, is very different from symbolic language in art and literature. The phrase is very commonly used in Wikipedia for for purposes of internal linking is way too broad to have all those uses point to a single page. There is no 'original research' in any of these in that none of these are related to any work I have published. In your review request, Wikipedia guidelines themselves suggest we use JSTOR, scholar, books, and news to identify external, independent sources that refer to these topics, and that is exactly what has been done. Merging symbolic language into a single article that covers engineering, programming, art, literature, and more would be very complex and not helpful to most Wikipedia readers.Cypherquest (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The number of internal and external links between this article and others provide assistance to readers that are only interested in the development of symbolic language in art. It also serves to support the notability and helpfulness of this article (and served as the motivation for spending volunteer hours to create these articles to clarify and assist readers encountering this widely-used term that means very different things). As mentioned before, even choosing the required categories for 'symbolic language' is impossible until the context is understood. The article serves to help non-expert readers find additional content such as semiotics, a field I was not even aware of until working on this article. I'm a good representation of a non-expert in this field, and find the article to a helpful link to many concepts that are of interest to those specifically interested in art or music. Combining all these articles when most readers are only interested in one area (e.g., computing) would unnecessarily complicate the experience for readers. As I work to expand the article at your request, I'm fining more and more notable scholarly activity just in this area - it has nothing to do with symbolic language in computing, or symbolic language in science, engineering, and math. The symbolic language of music also opens a broad and very different world. Art and literature could have been combined, but because of the entry into the scholarship of these very different worlds, I think we'll find it would be best to leave them separate as well.Cypherquest (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Where have you shown, for example, that "symbolic language" is a thing in engineering? How would it have been different if you titled it "Symbol (engineering)" or what is already in the article Engineering drawing abbreviations and symbols? You added a source for symbolic language in math using a reference for one used in computing, also what turned up in a search on engineering are largely about computing. What you have done is essentially original research, and you may be blocked from editing if you keep doing that. Hzh (talk) 14:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Symbolic language is an important thing in engineering. It's critical to be able to communicate a great deal of information concisely. That's a fundamental truth that doesn't require footnotes (like the Wikipedia example that Paris is the capital of France). The articles began when I turned to Wikipedia for something related to computing or engineering and I found many, many articles that discuss 'symbolic language' that had nothing to do with what I needed. We use disambiguation articles to assist with this, but in this case, the disambiguation alone is a jumping off spot into large independent scholarly areas. Take a look at the Wikidictionary definition of symbolic logic linked in the article - it doesn't address symbolic language in art or in music. The categories and "See also" links (which are extensive for each article) are completely different depending on the context. Each context article is complex - it links to many other Wikipedia articles to help readers understand the topic in the context in which they are interested. In turn, it provides an internal and appropriate link when this common term in used throughout Wikipedia. There are many JSTOR and other references as well as extensive, art-specific, links to related internal and external useful, notable, scholarly works are provided. I believe in good faith that all issues have been addressed, that it warrants an article, and that combining all these areas into one would be more likely to confuse than support readers (as evidenced by the very different categories selected for each different article). "Symbolic language" just means very different things depending on the discipline. Thus, I have removed the original research question and replaced it with a more formal definition. I have removed the notability as this topic is covered in notable sources specific to the field of art and visual imagery. Again, the articles are in response to my own attempt to use Wikipedia to find information that was not yet provided. There is no original research in any of these, except that the article itself didn't exist yet (which is why it was written). Writing a useful, well-connected Wikipedia article is not original research. I'm quite sure any active editor can be blocked. I believe Wikipedia is one of the greatest resources available and one of the most important, collaborative undertakings ever done by humanity. We don't all agree, but I'm grateful for every person who takes time to participate. The article is better for your suggestions.Cypherquest (talk) 14:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't give our own definition, we only give definition according to what the sources says. You have not given any sources that give such definition for engineering, and the source you gave for art is a random description in a book which talks about imaginations in Dante's Paradise. No proper sources for such definitions as used in these fields means that you are either making the definitions up yourself or using sources inappropriate for the definitions in the articles concerned, and therefore are original research. Hzh (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)