CZ Talk:Core Articles/Social Sciences: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>John Stephenson (→Additions & Changes (linguistics): Suggested two more to add and two to delete; backed 'autosegmental phonology' but not LSA) |
imported>John Stephenson (strikethroughs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Which to boot out? (Linguistics)== | ==Which to boot out? (Linguistics)== | ||
Struck through = done [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] | |||
As you can see, as of 27th October there are 5 too many in the linguistics lists. Which should be rejected? I think that individual languages and language families are less important, unless for some reason they are notable. I propose removing: | As you can see, as of 27th October there are 5 too many in the linguistics lists. Which should be rejected? I think that individual languages and language families are less important, unless for some reason they are notable. I propose removing: | ||
*[[Austro-Asiatic languages]] (1) | *<s>[[Austro-Asiatic languages]] (1) | ||
*[[Austronesian languages]] (1) | *[[Austronesian languages]] (1) | ||
*[[Niger-Congo languages]] (1) | *[[Niger-Congo languages]] (1) | ||
*[[Nilo-Saharan languages]] (1) | *[[Nilo-Saharan languages]] (1) | ||
*[[Trans-New Guinea languages]] (1) | *[[Trans-New Guinea languages]] (1)</s> | ||
What do you think? Individual languages that I added I did so because they are widely spoken (e.g. Bengali and Javanese). [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 08:16, 27 October 2007 (CDT) | What do you think? Individual languages that I added I did so because they are widely spoken (e.g. Bengali and Javanese). [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 08:16, 27 October 2007 (CDT) | ||
| Line 34: | Line 36: | ||
'''POSSIBLE DELETIONS''' | '''POSSIBLE DELETIONS''' | ||
*Sanskrit (seems more associated with history, literature, even though traditional grammarians did work with it) [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] | *[[Sanskrit]] (seems more associated with history, literature, even though traditional grammarians did work with it) [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] | ||
*Cryptanalysis (seems to be more to do with codebreaking) [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] | *[[Cryptanalysis]] (seems to be more to do with codebreaking) [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] | ||
*(please add) | *(please add) | ||
Revision as of 01:53, 31 October 2007
Which to boot out? (Linguistics)
Struck through = done John Stephenson
As you can see, as of 27th October there are 5 too many in the linguistics lists. Which should be rejected? I think that individual languages and language families are less important, unless for some reason they are notable. I propose removing:
Austro-Asiatic languages (1)- Austronesian languages (1)
- Niger-Congo languages (1)
- Nilo-Saharan languages (1)
Trans-New Guinea languages (1)
What do you think? Individual languages that I added I did so because they are widely spoken (e.g. Bengali and Javanese). John Stephenson 08:16, 27 October 2007 (CDT)
- Yeah, I added the language families using size as a criterion (i.e., number of languages in family), but I agree that a lot of them should go. Good call. I'm really glad that we've got a full list now! Joshua M. Jensen 09:37, 27 October 2007 (CDT)
- By the way, I just changed Linguistics to Stage 3. There's no question in my mind that it meets the definition of "most or all". Joshua M. Jensen 09:39, 27 October 2007 (CDT)
- I have removed the above links. Unless others wish to get involved - I'll put a last call out - it would be okay for Chris Day to consider locking the page.
- I'm sure we've missed things out, though, or could argue forever about the 99... John Stephenson 00:04, 29 October 2007 (CDT)
- John, i don't think we can ever get to a perfect list. It's a pretty subjective task. We can always create another list when we have finished our first 99 :) As far as locking the page, I can't do that other wise the other subjects canot edit, but we can always undo future changes. Chris Day (talk) 00:21, 29 October 2007 (CDT)
- Whoops - sorry, I know you don't lock the pages. I should have added 'in' to conform with stages of development - i.e. you 'lock in' the list. John Stephenson 02:25, 31 October 2007 (CDT)
- John, i don't think we can ever get to a perfect list. It's a pretty subjective task. We can always create another list when we have finished our first 99 :) As far as locking the page, I can't do that other wise the other subjects canot edit, but we can always undo future changes. Chris Day (talk) 00:21, 29 October 2007 (CDT)
- I'm sure we've missed things out, though, or could argue forever about the 99... John Stephenson 00:04, 29 October 2007 (CDT)
Additions & Changes (linguistics)
Before we close the door to changes on the list, can we gather a few more ideas here? I've given it a start. Joshua M. Jensen 12:47, 29 October 2007 (CDT)
Struck through = done John Stephenson 02:52, 31 October 2007 (CDT)
POSSIBLE ADDITIONS
- Autosegmental phonology (Joshua, John Stephenson)
- Linguistic Society of America (Joshua)
- Metrical phonology (John Stephenson)
- Mutual intelligibility (John Stephenson)
POSSIBLE DELETIONS
- Sanskrit (seems more associated with history, literature, even though traditional grammarians did work with it) John Stephenson
- Cryptanalysis (seems to be more to do with codebreaking) John Stephenson
- (please add)
POSSIBLE POINTS CHANGES
1 point for Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, 2 points for Linguistic relativity
- More phonology I can go with. :-) LSA, though... I know it's a big association, but it might imply we should also add articles on e.g. the Linguistics Association of Great Britain. I'd prefer to go with subjects. Certainly S-W and relativity will be changed, as editor Richard Senghas has indicated. There are a lot of pragmatics ones which seem to cover quite technical subjects. Maybe lose one or two? John Stephenson 02:52, 31 October 2007 (CDT)