Talk:Classic

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Philosophy: Aesthetics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Aesthetics Religion Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I think this article could be re-ordered along the lines of the article classical. To give more of an overview and more meaningful groupings of uses. Yaris678 (talk) 12:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested categories:

• Similar to classical
• Golden age
• To indicate something longstanding
• Retronym
• Brand image

The other issue is whether to distinguish between use as a noun and as an adjective. Possibly best not to as in some cases it isn't clear. Is iPod the noun or the adjective?

Yaris678 (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we also need to say how a classic is often considered worthy of respect or immitation.Yaris678 (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A distinct lack of references here, and fundamental misunderstanding of the word. Hence minor rewrite of intro.ProfDEH (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is currently just a disambiguation page so it is quite dependent on how the word is used in the titles of various articles. Are you suggesting an etymology section as with the article on Classical? Yaris678 (talk) 22:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't actually make any changes yet. This doesn't look like a disambiguation page, it looks like illustrations of what the word means. The words classic and classical are frequently confused and this article as it stands doesn't help to clarify the difference. ProfDEH (talk) 08:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add something to clarify the difference. I don't think it would be controversial. Yaris678 (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure about that. What is this page is trying to do? It's not really disambiguation because the various things listed are not particularly likely to be confused with each other. It doesn't really succeed in defining the word by giving examples either. The statement "Something that is classical is a classic" seems to me completely wrong and misleading, a bad start to the article. Is there anytthing to support it? ProfDEH (talk) 10:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on this to get a better balance, see User:ProfDEH/Classic. ProfDEH (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right to distinguish between classical and classic. I must confess that it was me that wrote the other text and I got confused because they have the same Latin root word.

I'm not sure how much detail to go into. Especially in the lead. I think classic is an interesting word about which to write an article, but I don't know what is best put in Wikipedia and what should be kept for Wiktionary.

Yaris678 (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'll carry on. Really I'm more interested in Classical architecture which is what led me here. I'm hoping you know something about that subject. ProfDEH (talk)

It's interesting you should mention classical architecture. The article is pretty awful and I said as much on the talk page a while ago. Since then I have improved the lead but not changed much else. I'm not an expert on classical architecture, but I do think the article should be more about architecture and less about ethnic identity. Yaris678 (talk) 10:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issue I have with the recent changes is that disam pages SHOULD be basically list pages. They are not meant to be "regular" type pages. They are meant to be pages where you can quickly see which link you want. So the recent changes are ok but if kept, then this isn't really a disam page anymore and shouldn't be listed as one. Just my 2 cents. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 09:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right, I've removed the tag. If this was disambiguation the article would be just an endless list. Not sure what categories are appropriate, I've gone for Culture and Popular culture, tentatively - something else might be more appropriate though. ProfDEH (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would help if I gave some background.

This page was a disambiguation page.[1]

I noted that the way the links were grouped didn’t seem to make much sense, so I re-grouped the links and added some text at the start of each group.[2]

ProfDEH didn’t like the text I added and decided to write his own and remove some of the links.[3]

Of course, that doesn’t necessarily tell us what to do now. I think there are two options.

• Create a disambiguation page a bit like the one I created, but perhaps with some of the explanatory words corrected and/or cut down.
• Create an article about the word classic, that contains some of the stuff in the current article.

Perhaps we should create two articles - Classic (word) and Classic (disambiguation). Well, one of them would probably just be called Classic but I’m pretty neutral on which one that would be.

Yaris678 (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I didn't like the text, it didn't go far enough to make the scope of the article clear. The problem with disambiguation is that there are hundreds of articles with classic in the title, nearly all of them sporting events (I assume that wouldn't include lists of things that might be considered classic). It's not a bad idea but a lot of work. ProfDEH (talk) 08:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]