Talk:Semantics/Archives/2024/March

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Hilst talk 20:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that according to Roger Bacon's semantic theory, things get names similar to how people get names through a kind of baptism? Source:
  • ALT1: ... that semantics was already studied in antiquity but only became an independent discipline in the 19th century? Source:
  • ALT2: ... that in semantics, antonym is an antonym of synonym while synonym is not a synonym of antonym? Source:
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Al-Rushati
  • Comment: ALT2 could be a candidate for WP:QUIRKY.

Citations

References

Sources

• Meier-Oeser, Stephan (2019). "8. Meaning in Pre-19th Century Thought". Foundations, History, and Methods. De Gruyter Mouton. ISBN 978-3-11-037373-8.
• Kretzmann, Norman (2006). "Semantics, History of". In Borchert, Donald M. (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 8: Price - Sextus Empiricus (2. ed.). Thomson Gale, Macmillan Reference. ISBN 978-0-02-865788-2.
• Heffer, Simon (8 May 2014). Simply English: An A-Z of Avoidable Errors. Random House. ISBN 978-1-4464-7380-1.
• Nerlich, Brigitte (1992). Semantic Theories in Europe, 1830–1930: From Etymology to Contextuality. John Benjamins Publishing. ISBN 978-90-272-7726-8. Archived from the original on 2024-02-23. Retrieved 2024-02-23.
• Yule, George (2010). The Study of Language (4 ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-76527-5.
• Saeed, John I. (2009). Semantics (3 ed.). Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-4051-5639-4.

Improved to Good Article status by Phlsph7 (talk). Self-nominated at 10:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Semantics; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• I will get to this in a moment. Pleasure to be talking to you for the first time; I've always appreciated your efforts to bring these core articles up to standard. ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 08:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: QPQ done. Thorough GAN review here suggests great care was taken in writing this; concur. Sourcing is great, and it is pretty neutral/encompasses several perspectives (e.g. coverage of "History" section). Reviewer did spotchecks of offline sources, so I take it in good faith there was no plagiarism, OR, or issues with source-text integrity. Prefer ALT2 although I note the fact itself is not explicitly mentioned in the hook. Second preference for ALT0. Really good nomination; just have a really minor concern. ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 08:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello Elias and thanks for doing this review. In relation to ALT2, I assume you mean that the fact in the hook is not explicitly mentioned in the article. That's correct, it is indirectly covered in the 2nd paragraph of the subsection "Others" by how the terms are defined but this may not be sufficient. I added a footnote now to cover this explicitly. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response, @Phlsph7. All good to me. ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 11:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)