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)