Talk:Semantics

	; Archives (Index) ;
	2023/November; 2024/February; 2024/March; 2024/June; 2024/September; 2025/May; 2025/October;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Semantics article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives (index): 1: 3 months

Semantics has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: March 15, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Linguistics: Theoretical Linguistics / Philosophy of language Top‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Theoretical Linguistics Task Force.
	This article is supported by Philosophy of language task force.

Philosophy: Logic / Social and political / Language High‑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

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic
	Social and political philosophy
	Philosophy of language

Cognitive science (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cognitive science, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Cognitive scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Cognitive scienceTemplate:WikiProject Cognitive scienceCognitive science

Religion Top‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Semantics appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 4 April 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that in semantics, antonym is an antonym of synonym while synonym is not a synonym of antonym?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/April. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Semantics.

Wikipedia

merge proposal

i think semasiology should be merged with this page (again), with the content on that page just placed in a dedicated section for it, as there's not enough content on that page nor enough external usage of the term; it just seems like a subfield of semantics to me. LGaps (talk) 12:05, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LGaps and thanks for the suggestion. Semasiology is currently discussed in this article in the 2nd paragraph of the subsection "Lexical semantics". I think dedicating a full section to it might create problems with WP:PROPORTION. What we could do is replace the article Semasiology with a redirect to the subsection Semantics#Lexical semantics. The alternative would be to keep Semasiology as its own article. You are right that there is not much content there but it probably meets the minimal notability requirements and it contrasts with Onomasiology, which also has its own article. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we merge it to the page for Lexical semantics and redirect it to a section there? ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: if we decide that Semasiology should not be a separate article then Lexical semantics would be the better merge target. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:15, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]