Talk:Canon (basic principle)
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 29 December 2021. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | It is requested that an image or photograph of Canon (basic principle) be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Aesthetic canon, artistic canon
[edit]Given that the article Aesthetic canon is really about artistic canons, I propose to move it to "Artistic canon" (the current title will remain as a redirect).
Full disclosure: until a few days ago, the article had other material not directly related to visual or plastic arts, but it consisted of uncited musings that forked the articles on physical attractiveness, makeup, fashion but without any specific focus on canonical frames of reference.
Please make any observations at talk:Aesthetic canon#Proposal to change name. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Redirect for discussion: Literary canon
[edit]For info, I see that there is a proposal at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 23 that Literary canon be changed to redirect here (rather than to Western canon, as at present). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Title?
[edit]The AfD closed as keep, and even though we haven't moved from square one with regard to the absence of sources, there's evidently a widely shared belief that this article is useful. I don't think anyone expressed any desire to narrow down the scope of the text to match the current title, so I guess we should change the title to match the text. That means moving to Canon (word), I guess? – Uanfala (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- The article is not about the word as such but the idea, concept or, yes, the basic principle. So definitely not "Canon (word)". I could accept Canon (concept) I suppose. Unenthusiastically. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Wait, which concept? The basic principle or the hallowed body of works? Given that the only thing that connects these two is the fact that they're referred to by the same polysemic English word, if article is going to cover both, then it can only be an article about the word. And if it's going to cover only the basic principle, then its content will need trimming. – Uanfala (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree. All the uses I see can be traced back to a reference standard. Obviously its use has broadened over time: compare with wiktionary:yardstick which has only just begun to be used more broadly than to measure cloth. --John Maynard Friedman (talk)
16:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)revised 17:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)- In that case, there must be sources out there – entries in reference works, papers, etc. – that treat those two things as the same topic, or at least as aspects of the same topic. Right? – Uanfala (talk) 13:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- No one is saying that they are the same topic, only that they all have in common the concept of a standard, a reference, a norm, even a best practice. In each case, there are sound citations for their usage. We don't say that any field relies on any other field to legitimise its use of the term (or even that they mean the same thing by it), so there is nothing to cite. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- So we don't need sources to justify treating those disparate topics together, Wikipedia can just mix and match? Either we're doing this rather obvious form of WP:OR, or we'll have to go back to where we started: the fact that this is just an article about a word. – Uanfala (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Or WP:The sky is blue. They are not disparate topics: they are unified by their common underlying meaning. Note that we also have canon (disambiguation) so it is not just open-ended, anything-goes, which is what you seem to be arguing.
- I wonder if we are arguing from different premises? I understand an article about a word 'as such' to be one about its etymology, its cognates, its antecedents, antonyms, homonyms, homophones, thesaurus material etc., which is why I don't see Canon (word) as appropriate. I understand this article to be about its use with the underlying meaning of a standard, a reference, a norm – hence Canon (concept) or indeed Canon (basic principle). This, I believe, is the logic that led to the current name being chosen for the article.
- That is really as much as I can say about the subject so I guess we need to wait for other editors to contribute for a consensus to emerge. Meanwhile, WP:STATUSQUO. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- So we don't need sources to justify treating those disparate topics together, Wikipedia can just mix and match? Either we're doing this rather obvious form of WP:OR, or we'll have to go back to where we started: the fact that this is just an article about a word. – Uanfala (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- No one is saying that they are the same topic, only that they all have in common the concept of a standard, a reference, a norm, even a best practice. In each case, there are sound citations for their usage. We don't say that any field relies on any other field to legitimise its use of the term (or even that they mean the same thing by it), so there is nothing to cite. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- In that case, there must be sources out there – entries in reference works, papers, etc. – that treat those two things as the same topic, or at least as aspects of the same topic. Right? – Uanfala (talk) 13:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree. All the uses I see can be traced back to a reference standard. Obviously its use has broadened over time: compare with wiktionary:yardstick which has only just begun to be used more broadly than to measure cloth. --John Maynard Friedman (talk)
- Wait, which concept? The basic principle or the hallowed body of works? Given that the only thing that connects these two is the fact that they're referred to by the same polysemic English word, if article is going to cover both, then it can only be an article about the word. And if it's going to cover only the basic principle, then its content will need trimming. – Uanfala (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)