Talk:Semiotics/Archives/2013

This is an archive of past discussions about Semiotics. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

downgrade to C-class, add essay template

Sorry, this essay/article has much, much unnecessary information in it. It argues at length over terminology that is not important to gaining an understanding of what semiotics is (who cares about the spelling), how it is studied, how it is used, etc. • Serviceable†Villain 13:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

- I agree. The section "Terminology and history" is way over the top. I nominate it for deletion. Something briefer and less POV would be more appropriate. The Tetrast (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC).

Still no criticism

Four and a half years ago the point was raised that the article did not have anything about the widespread criticism of semiology as a fad. All these years later, there is still not a criticism section. Or maybe there was, and its been deleted. I see that the astrology article does not have a criticism section either. 92.24.183.103 (talk) 11:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. Quite a few observers have pointed out that it is much ado about nothing, and adds absolutely nil to our actual knowledge about ourselves and the world. The utterly insipid photo and explanation of the hot and cold taps here is a case in point. That seems to be the best the makers of the page could come up with to point out some application, and it is vacuous. 186.188.176.63 (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)