Talk:Language Evolution (book synopsis)

Start Talk page

Start Talk page. Anthony.Sebastian 02:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Move

This is not an article, but a book synopsis, and thus arguably belongs as a subpage of the evolutionary linguistics article. It doesn't quite fit the existing subpage types, though, so I suggest creating a specific one, perhaps /Synopses. Also, with this article moved, we no longer need to have language evolution (disambiguation). John Stephenson 12:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you are correct on both counts. The subpages are great for grouping content like that, and since the only other article in the disambiguation list is redlinked that page would certainly be superfluous. David Finn 12:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I have written other standalone book synopses and plan many more as time permits. So have other CZ authors. I myself prefer to leave them as standalone articles, Title (book). I suspect those other authors who have written articles summarizing a book will feel the same way.

If someone wrote ten articles, each a synopsis of a science fiction book, each by a different author, they'd get lost in a "Book Synopsis" subpage of Science fiction. I should think they each need a Main Article page.

The article in question here was written as a book synopsis for a PLoS journal, and modified by me to make it suitable for CZ. I myself own numerous books on the evolution of language, many of which I hope to write a Title (book) Main article. I'd hate to see them buried in subpages under the Main article Language evolution.

May we discuss this further. We can at anytime turf the broader issue to the EC. Anthony.Sebastian 23:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I take your point about the many science fiction sysnopsii (probably it isn't synopsii but it sounds good and I have a lot to learn about spelling) - although in that case they could be grouped by author. Grouping by author might work in this case, rather than grouping by subject (i.e. making the synopsis a subpage of the author rather than evolutionary linguistics) but if you think it would be more useful as a standalone article I won't argue. David Finn 00:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Grouping by author could be done, but not in the readers' best interest. Let me go right to Looking Backward to see what it's all about. I may have heard about the book, but don't remember its author. It's an extra step to do a CZ search.

It seems we've already established the tradition: The Literature Workgroup, for example, has written dozens of standalone Main articles on individual books, the titles of the books used as the the titles of the articles, usually without a prenthetical 'book' or 'book synopsis' in the title. From Adventures of Huckleberry Finn to Looking Backward to Why Johnny Can't Read. And not just the Literature Workgroup. To pick from various Workroups:

Biology has its The Origin of Species; Chemistry, its Perry's Chemical Engineers' Handbook; Linguistics, its The Sound Pattern of English; Astronomy, its Copernican revolution (book); History, its The End of History and the Last Man; Geography, its World Factbook; Classics, its Aeneid. I'd keep things as they are, personally. Anthony.Sebastian 02:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that some books should have a main page if the article is actually about the book, e.g. its influence, fame, the historical reaction to it, etc. The Sound Pattern of English, for instance, is a highly-influential text that much phonological research since has been a response to. But synopses or reviews concern the content of the book and do not really go beyond the book's influence, so would be better as subpages. They will not become 'lost' as subpages since search engines will find them wherever they are, plus we can use redirects. John Stephenson 03:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

By why would a discussion of a book "be better as subpages"? In authoring a synopsis of a book, I prefer it as a Main article. Also, as a Main article, I can use the subpages to provide additional information, creatively. But that's not the only reason I prefer it as a Main article. There are many others, some of which I have already mentioned. Where do you see the harm to the project? Anthony.Sebastian 04:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

[unident] Articles that deal mainly with the content of a book, especially when it is not particularly well-known to non-specialist readers, should be placed on subpages, in my view, unless we want CZ to place specialist content on a par with regular articles, which are typically basic to intermediate introductions to subjects that are often quite broad. A synopsis is arguably specialist material, so would work better as a subpage. As main pages, there is a risk that they would sow confusion by having similar-sounding names to the main topics (e.g. there are lots of books called 'linguistics'...). I also think that synopses are more subjective than general articles. The introduction to this synopsis, for example, involves opinion.

In the case of 'language evolution', the term redirects to a disambiguation page because you have placed there links to synopses of works about that topic. We currently have a red link to a book called Adam's Tongue. That does not satisfy the purpose of disambiguation pages, which is to distinguish topics with the same or similar names. So you are redefining the use of disambiguation pages as well. And without the synopses links, the term would immediately redirect to evolutionary linguistics, which is probably what someone searching for the term would require, as they're likely to be looking for information on the topic of language evolution as a whole, not an article about one book. John Stephenson 09:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The Origin of Species is not exclusive to the Biology Workgroup. It is a text that has been discussed in the wider world for some time, it has cultural and historical impact. Our article on the Origin of Species is rather incomplete, but when completed it would be obvious from the content that it was a standalone article.

Perry's has been a source of chemical engineering knowledge for chemical engineers, and a wide variety of other engineers and scientists, through seven previous editions spanning more than seventy years.

The Sound Pattern of English is the most significant work to date in generative phonology.

The Copernican Revolution, Kuhn’s first book, is one of the best selling books ever written on the history of science.

The CIA Factbook is a widely appreciated text used by many around the world - it is not exclusive to geography in any way.

Language Evolution is a fairly recent book. This article itself suggests that it may not even be a very good book, that it is missing sections and that there are already several books in existence covering the same ground. Language Evolution does not then appear to exist in the same epoch-making class as the like of the Origin of Species.

We shouldn't put too much stock in CZ content regarding this - take a look at a more developed version of the same article. It should be obvious why the Origin of Species requires an article of its own - it has cultural impact felt far outside the subject.

i don't see then why this book needs a standalone article. I don't see why a book synopsis of any kind requires a standalone article. This is an encyclopedia, not a book review club. It seems unlikely that a reader would come to a general encyclopedia to look for a book synopsis for a book that is not widely known.

In this case the reader would be best catered to by grouping the content using the subpages system.

We should try to get away from the idea that subpages are a dead end or somehow inferior - subpages are the system CZ has chosen to use and it is only a lack of use that prevents them being as useful as they could be.

I have Googled for information regarding this book - am I missing something? Does this book have a cultural impact beyond its just being a book? If not it is a clear candidate for move to subpages. Citizendium, a general encyclopedia, cannot and should not be home to any standalone book synopsis but should only contain main articles that fully deal with their subject.

John is also correct about the use of disambiguation pages. David Finn 10:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)