Talk:Convention

Two distinct articles?

Should we separate the two meanings into two distinct articles? I think so. Oldsoul 10:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why? The article's much easier to navigate when all you have to do is scroll down to reach the other meaning rather than hop back and forth between distinct pages, and it's not long enough to require subdivision at this point. This article's tenuously avoiding being attacked for being too dictionary-esque by maintaining a good enough length and level of detail; dividing the article could sacrifice that position. If you have any good information to add here, expand it first, and worry about subdividing when it grows long enough to merit it. In particular, I'm wondering why this article doesn't address artistic conventions; I came to this article hoping to get information on conventions in the sense of traditional cultural symbols to represent specific things, like the convention in ancient Greek art of using "nude" to represent a male and "clothed" to represent a female. If there's an article for that somewhere on Wikipedia, it should at least be linked to. -Silence 11:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there should be two articles. The two meanings of "convention" aren't even significantly related, in spite of etymology. Velho 12:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose there should be a disambiguation page and two articles, named "Convention (meeting)" and "Convention (philosophy)" (or perhaps just "Convention", since the meeting meaning has less to say...). We should delete the title "Convention as shared rule or custom", since it is pov. Good old Quine and Ruth Millikan, for instance, wouldn't agree with that definition. Velho 02:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I came looking at the Talk page just for this reason, 2 pretty different pieces in 1 article doesn't make sense, at least on first thought. I personally don't think individual article size or the easier-to-navigate thing are good enough reasons to leave it as 1 article. Well, that's my two pence worth. Retodon8 13:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Consummatum est. Velho 04:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How to disambiguate

Velho, in view of your partial reversion, please insert a couple of words in the article next to the entry for "convention (philosophy and social sciences)" to provide some inkling to people that what they may be looking for is a convention as a widely accepted practice or procedure. They may well get there by following the existing link, but let's make it a dead certainty that they do. Obey 05:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, ok... The problem is that it is difficult to say something without a pov... But I'll think of something... Velho 05:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How did you like it? Velho 05:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying so constructively and promptly! Looks good to me. Now, I don't really understand why the kind of references you have reverted constitutes POV, and I would like to learn more. If the current text explains this, its not really clear, so could you also please expand upon these issues in the convention (p & ss) article itself? If this is dealt with elsewhere (noting your references above), then the article should have the appropriate references and links. Obey 05:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll certainly do it as soon as a certain set of conditions obtains... ;-) Velho 05:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses Convention

Jehovah's Witnesses Convention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.188.117.91 (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

heya blud ya ok —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.203.3.8 (talk) 11:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]