Draft talk:Original research/Compositions across disciplines

Rename
There are many definitions for a Composition. This usage isn't mentioned. Please rename. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 23:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the interest and comment! I've looked at the disambiguation article Composition and Chemical composition. The actual usage intended in the broad sense follows that of the Wiktionary definitions I've just included. Rocks for example are often described by the percentages or ratios of oxides present like Al2O3 50 % and K2O 50 % where there may be several minerals present combining to be these oxide compositions. These same rocks may also be described by those mineral percentages or ratios. Although I haven't included it yet other objects can be "composed" of several or many components in various ratios or percentages. The Wikipedia disambiguation seems to fall short of the mark on some of the scientific compositions used. There's no need to rename. We also have a resource Composition which deals with writing compositions. I hope this helps. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 00:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I would rename it for you, but I don't know what name you want. At a minimum, this page needs to be a disambiguation page that addresses typical usage of the term as well as this less common usage. I suspect the current page would be better as a subpage of Rocks or Minerals. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 01:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, it's actually a bit more complex. Materials for example are often described by their component compositions. A fiber-matrix composite may have a graphite-based fiber interlaced with a plastic or pressed wood. The ratio of composition would be say 50 % fiber and 50 % pressed wood. Types of steel used to make a bridge may be several varieties: the cables would be braided high-strength steel whereas the plates supporting the roadway would be more durable to downward stresses from the weight of the vehicles passing over. Liquids might follow molar percents, volume ratios, etc. Petroleum is really complex. Asphalt has both solids and liquids by volume percents or ratios. Stars are composed at least the photospheres primarily of gas. The objective of the project is to present each of these compositions and more. Plasmas have atomic or molecular ratios combined with particles such as ions, electrons, protons, etc. But, again the central theme is as defined by the Wiktionary definitions. A disambiguation page is not needed as we can always refer to Composition in part. Radiation is another example that can be addressed by ratio of components: particles, waves, larger units of matter. We're also not supposed to be Wikipedia. This is a learning resource. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a learning resource. But it is a learning resource about a subject that has common usage not addressed by this learning resource. Please rename this resource so we can identify what this usage refers to. If you would prefer, we can create a main page about compositions and make the current page a subpage of that, but it will still need a name. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 02:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * According to Roget's International Thesaurus (conceptual edition), 58. Composition is a section of D. Wholeness which in turn is a part of III. Quantity. These are Abstract Relations. Yes, they are sometimes applied to music, art, literature, finance, computers, etc. It would be easier perhaps to have separate subpages for each including any that may be "common usage" or less familiar to others. What do you think? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think subpages were already suggested. But I still don't know what name to apply to this one. Please select a name to describe this usage. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 02:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, the most common usage of the word "composition" or "compositions" is as a special abstract relation referring quantity (or ratios) to wholeness. That's why I chose that title. I happened to start off with minerals and rocks because I was creating resource projects for the School:Geology; however, this resource is about the abstract relation. This relation is in turn applied to many fields and subjects. Per more modern usage, "compositions" may have shifted from "Abstract relations" to something else, but I would have to find a source for that change. Searching on Google scholar starts off with "Local compositions in thermodynamic excess functions for liquid mixtures" of some 3,300,000 results. The next is "Computer Program for Calculation of Complex Chemical Equilibrium Compositions, Rocket Performance, Incident and Reflected Shocks, and Chapman-Jouguet …", and the third is "Compositions of halo clusters and the formation of the galactic halo". The fourth is "Plate tectonics and sandstone compositions". On the whole web the first entry is a definition of the abstract relation of some 83,900,000 results. Perhaps I should ask, What would you like to have in this first page? I've always enjoyed collaborations. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 03:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As a custodian, my concern for a page is that it be open and accessible to everyone, and would accommodate their needs. Because there are many uses of the term "Compositions" that have nothing to do with minerals or theories, and because neither Composition nor Composition mention minerals, theories, or abstract as part of their long lists of usages for this term, the usage in the current page is exclusive and limiting, rather than inclusive and accommodating. While using scholarly resources is admirable, ignoring the work of our sister projects that, by definition, describe common understanding and usage of concepts for our audience, is not an approach that encourages the use of Wikiversity. From an educational perspective, content must have a connection to what someone already understands in order for them to be able to apply it. What I would like to have in this first page is a common understanding of compositions, which recognizes writing compositions, musical compositions, visual arts compositions, as well as scientific or chemical compositions. I continue to believe a disambiguation page is the correct approach for this, but if you would prefer to have Abstract Compositions as a subpage of a study of Compositions in general, that would at least recognize and accommodate other users, for whom the term has a very different usage. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Once again that which has been composed is a composition. The abstraction of composing allows each of your suggestions for inclusion in this resource as a parent of more specialized compositions. I'll be happy to add each of your suggestions. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 15:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, this is not a common understanding of the term. To approach it from the abstract and work backwards is not relatable. To help others understand composition in the abstract, they must first see it from their perspective with practical applications. That neither Wikipedia nor Wiktionary recognize this approach to compositions is a clear indication that they should be separate pages. A composition of compositions about compositions will have limited value to anyone but the author. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 15:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are writing. Here's an example that I will prepare and put in the resource: a newspaper feature article (a written composition) is composed of the following:
 * a lead,
 * body, and an
 * ending. There is also what's called a "news-peg" or "hook", something that will interest a reader, usually the first sentence or the title. There are also the following elements (not chemical): What, When, Where, Why, Who, and How. Nearly all of these elements must appear somewhere in the story. There are some more details but this is the composition of a newspaper feature article (or online equivalent). A resource on "compositions" is different from "How to write a feature article." Now, I can put these in just as you read them here approximately or I can take a feature article from one of my news sources (unfortunately most are science) but Yahoo! may be helpful (for non-science) and decompose the article based on these components. There are also approximate ratios for an arbitrary story length. What do you think? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 22:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Just a proposal
What do you think of "[The] concept of composition" as a title ? --Thierry613 (discuss • contribs) 09:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I feel like I'm fighting a loosing battle here that has already been fought before by the most recent editor of Roget's International Thesaurus. The most popular, conventional meaning of "composition", or "compositions", is the abstract relation embodied in this "Thesaurus" (conceptual edition) and how the title of this resource came to be named. That definition is included already.
 * On Wikipedia, the word "Compositions" redirects to the title of an album Compositions (Anita Baker album). "Composition" redirects to a disambiguation page which lists by subject: "Arts", "Computer science", "Linguistics/Language", "Mathematics", "Law", "History", "Other", and "Entertainment". Wikipedia may not have a clue what the most popular, conventional meaning of "compositions" actually is but does cater to its audience, which BTW is steadily shrinking and does not cater to women (the actual majority in the US) or minorities. The word "concept" is a synonym for idea in its most popular and conventional form. According to this same thesaurus, "concept", or "idea", is a function of the mind, a part of intellect, not an abstract relation.
 * My apology for putting you in this position. I was actually interested in tapping your musical knowledge regarding the application of the definition of "composition" or "compositions" to music, particularly classical symphonies. But, I'm working on that.
 * By Wikipedia we have Composition (visual arts), the plan, placement or arrangement of the elements of art in a work, Dance composition, the practice and teaching of choreography, Musical composition, an original piece of music and its creation, Function composition (computer science), an act or mechanism to combine simple functions to build more complicated ones, Object composition, combining simpler data types into more complex data types, or function calls into calling functions, Composition (language), in literature and rhetoric, producing a work in spoken tradition and written discourse, to include visuals and digital space, Composition (combinatorics), a way of writing a positive integer as a sum of positive integers, Function composition, an operation that takes functions and gives a single function as the result, Relation composition, an operation that takes relations and gives a single relation as the result, Composition (fine), a fine accepted by compounding instead of being prosecuted, and Chemical composition, the relative amounts of elements that constitute a substance.
 * For all of the above Wikipedia articles mentioned we can have here "the relative amounts of elements that constitute a" visual arts composition, a dance composition, a musical composition, a function composition (I believe it's called a composite function), an object composition, a language composition, a combinatorics composition, a relation composition, a fine composition, and a chemical composition, among others that Wikipedia seems to have missed.
 * Sorry for perhaps belaboring the point!
 * Wikipedia also uses another disambiguation page to redirect the reader from "composing" to some of the above mentioned pages. Wikipedians are generally not supposed to create pages with "ing" in the title word. "Composing" is a process. The result of this process is a "composition". To get around this minor annoyance, Wikipedians use the noun (composition) rather than the infinitive (composing). So in all of these redirects replace "composition" with "composing" and everything should become clear, except Chemical composition which is true to the meaning. But we don't have that problem here. Here we can use words appropriately. I hope all this helps! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 21:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We're now 10,000+ characters into defending a position that others don't see. If this was a common usage, it would already appear in other Wikimedia projects. No matter what I think about something, if there's no one else in the Wiki world who has ever described it that way, and there are multiple other examples of how they do describe that thing, I accept that my position is unique. Please rename this page so you can move on with your research of this unique perspective on abstract compositions. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 22:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The definition I'm using is from Wiktionary. "Compositions" as I'm using it here appears on p. 426 of Roget's International Thesaurus, 7th Edition. Here's a summary "A classic reference book that has been used by millions all over the world, Roget’s International Thesaurus is the product of more than a century and a half of continual expansion, reorganization, and improvement. Today this book is not only the most time-tested and bestselling thesaurus ever, but, newly revised, it is also the most up-to-date and comprehensive reflection of the English language as it is currently used."
 * Perhaps Roget's Thesaurus will help. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 01:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Two dedicated contributors have asked you to rename this resource. If the name isn't working for us based on our experience, it's not going to work for new users who are just visiting and wanting to see their understanding of Compositions represented. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 01:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Let me ask you two a question. Who is the educator and who is the student, the one who is "just visiting and wanting to see their understanding of Compositions represented" or the one who presents "the most up-to-date and comprehensive reflection of the English language as it is currently used"?
 * If they're "wanting to see their understanding of Compositions represented", they are learning nothing, just having their understanding reinforced, so they must be the Educator. Or, are they being someone else? Perhaps someone invited to critique?
 * We experienced a similar problem with intergalactic medium. An elementary school teacher (probably, based on the source of the IP being an elementary school) was "just visiting and wanting to see their understanding of [intergalactic medium] represented". Maybe they wanted to use the resource for their students since Wikipedia didn't have one. Rather than opening his/her mind to alternate possibilities they deleted and were uncivil. Here, we're dealing with that potentiality repeated. We're dealing with "the most up-to-date and comprehensive reflection of the English language as it is currently used". The category "Abstract relations" of which "compositions" is a member comes from Aristotle and was incorporated by Roget. It's a category reflecting an organization of thought not a meta-level of abstract reasoning being applied to "compositions", for example. Yes, many people associate the art or process of composing, writing, or creating with the word composition but they are categorically different. To me this is the best reason of all to keep the title of this resource as is. "Intergalactic medium", for example, had a relatively large readership because it wasn't on Wikipedia. "Compositions" should do as well for the same reason. And we're here to educate, not reinforce what they already know. Right? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 03:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You can't educate someone you haven't engaged. If I am turned off by what I see, I won't read far enough to learn whatever is is you are trying to teach. If it were named Abstract Composition(s) or Theoretical Composition(s), or Composition Across Disciplines, you have truth in advertising, and the reader may go far enough to learn what you are trying to share. If I am looking for compositions to learn about music or the arts and find a picture of a rock and a bunch of theory, I'm done. The content for this page is not representative of the title in common usage, and having the content with this title prevents someone else from creating content that is reflective of the title. The example with intergalactic medium is exactly the type of situation and user reaction I want to avoid here. When legitimate users are so offended by content that they believe deleting it will improve it, the content needs a different approach. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 04:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * How about: "In every composition of every type, there are elements, notations, quantities, and their relations." Or followed by "Once you know what the composition of a particular work is, you are one step closer to creating such a piece." For a title, "Compositions across disciplines" is closer to what it is. But someone looking for "compositions to learn about music or the arts" might be more easily engaged by seeing music or arts in the title. If they see perhaps a list of subpages after the introductory sentence then they can choose that specific set of constituents by clicking on the subpage. That's all I have for now. I've added these to the resource. What do you think? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 06:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

"Compositions across disciplines" (or even "Composition across disciplines", at the singular) seems well to me. --Thierry613 (discuss • contribs) 07:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with renaming to "Composition across disciplines" or similar. Once the page is renamed, a short introduction / disambiguation page may be created that links to various compositions pages, including this one. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 12:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Musical composition
While reflecting about music composition, I thought to myself that what one calls composition can be either :


 * just the components list ;
 * components proportions ;
 * the ways of balancing, managing, organizing the different components.

or the three ones together.

What is your opinion ? --Thierry613 (discuss • contribs) 09:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The first two are true to the meaning of "compositions", or "composition". The last is the process of "composing" usually following forms or structures. Probably the easiest thing to do is have say Compositions/Music/Composing, for example. This resource would balance, manage, and organize the different components of music per some prescribed form or structure or could be formless or structureless depending on the musical work being composed. What do you think? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 22:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. I found other ideas :
 * time proportions in a music piece
 * structure (eg ABA, AABA, song strucuture (alternance of verses and choruses), etc.)
 * did you talk somewhere about golden ratio ? Thierry613 (discuss • contribs) 07:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)