This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Philosophy: Ethics / Social and political Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Ethics Social and political philosophy Sociology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I think Markus Kuhn's move was ok, but perhaps we should have discussed that previously. And I guess the talk page should have been moved too. Velho 04:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why this is here, but mathematical notation, if not followed correctly, will result in a different answer. This is less of a societal norm than it is a fundamental principle of mathematics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.71.72.50 (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, 'correctly' does indeed have a 'flow' definition that crosses cultures with or in a kind to with language and within and across specializations. This is to disagree with your statement that it shouldn't be here.Julzes (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the Panama Canal as inter-continental divider. But to contemplate its need or formalization at here is the matter. There are bi-lateral convention issues on it. This is in kind with Is Australia a continent or just a huge island?Julzes (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

whales are prehistoric animals that should be treated with as much respect as our elders, if not more so. they were here first and narwhales are whales....... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:4601:7034:CDFD:1A57:FAA8:D07E (talk) 01:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article Evaluation

Firstly, this page was flagged by Wikipedia for needing citations. The reader is cautioned that the page may be unreliable. The first sentence uses the word "norm" for an explanation of the concept of "norm" which is confusing and not helpful. Within the section "General" the tone is awkward and reads like a persuasive essay. The section about Buddha, while technically related, seems slightly off topic and not truly connected to the main point of the page. Additionally, the section about social norms is quite focused around greetings and business norms, which is not entirely what sociological norms are about. Indeed, sociologist would also include feminine and masculine behaviors within social norms, so i think that section of the article needs to be tuned up. As mentioned before, citations are needed for a few of the facts cited. Also, there are not very many citations even within the general paragraphs, which seems suspicious because the author of his article did not create any of these concepts or terms.

The ordering of the paragraphs does not appear to have a real flow or sense of continuity. They are somewhat ordered, but it is not very helpful. It would be helpful to separate the definitions of "convention" by subject more clearly, such as social sciences, hard sciences, cultural meanings etc. I am also not sure about the title of the article, as a "convention" is actually different than a "social norm" and so I think the title should be changed to simply "convention" with a mention or link to social norms.

The sources are abysmal. One of the sources is an encyclopedia, but the order is a Vox article with no available sources or credentials to test whether the author is reliable. The references are also half MLA and half APA which makes them a little hard to read.

The talk page is also very confusing. Most of the comments are about mathematic al conventions and small edits about the syntax of the article. However, there is also a comment about whales and the importance of narwhals, which is completely unrelated. Additionally, there are comments about the Panama Canal which i believe are about International Law and conventions, but it is very unclear.

Jadenmb (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are a billion typos in this thing, too, and a lot of them are unclear and some say "always" or "most places," etc. when it only applies to certain areas or groups of people; there are some that are legal restrictions, like "Not drinking uder [sic] 21s [sic]" in the United States, but mentioning laws seems to contradict the definition in the lead that a convention is "unwritten" and "unspoken." Somebody should go through and fix some of these things... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C44:237F:ACCB:141B:936:3367:311A (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Venga un gerente tecnico acreditador de lo que sucede el incidente que pasa Gracias Plaza ignacio ugarte numero 1 pbj C 88.29.46.136 (talk) 14:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

English por favor. Editor2020 (talk) 01:36, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Customary (liturgy) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is mentioned in this talk page from years ago. Can I cut some of the example and the list of U.S. laws that supposedly come from convention? Seananony (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]