Talk:Importance (disambiguation)

Untitled
So Wikipedia knows what important means, but doesn't know what important is? 74.196.16.43 (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that's about it. Civ4guy (talk) 04:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

An important issue
This is an improvement of merely sending the user to the dictionary.

However, ideally, there would be an article here summarizing the published facts and theories of philosophy and science about this referent per se: the concept of importance.

Unfortunately, however, it seems there are none.

If that's true, then there's nothing we can do beyond this disambiguation page with a dictionary redirect, except maybe complain to for example the philosophy department of our local universities to fix this gaping lacuna in human knowledge and understanding by publishing something on it as soon as possible so we'd have something to cite for an article here.

It's hard to believe, however, that neither Plato nor Hume nor Marx nor Nietzsche nor Aristotle nor anyone else like that has ever talked about it.

You'd think that science, maybe neurology, should have a paper or two published by now, given the known fact that some autistic people that don't have the concept.

For example, There's a case of an otherwise healthy and intelligent man who spends all his time riding his bike to different places on the map and crossing them off. When asked why he does this, he doesn't seem to understand the question. He says "So that I will have ridden my bike to all the places on my map." This is not unusual with autism and other disorders. This shows that importance is a place or system or something in the brain in addition to whatever else it may be.

It also shows that not everyone already knows what importance is so such an article would help them.

But if it's not true that there are no WP:RSes on this topic per se, then we should use them to cite an article here in this space in addition to these links and redirect.

I've tried to find them with my own research skills and tools, but have failed. Chrisrus (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Style of page
I reverted you again. I don't think it makes sense to try to strictly apply Disambiguation grouping criteria intended for pages where there's 10 good links and 3 stretches for a page where the most important link is actually the Wiktionary box. Just sorting by pageviews is probably the best we can do here. While I see what you're getting at that on another page, these might be "related terms" and thus fit only for a See also, there aren't any "normal" disambiguation entries here (e.g. Importance (botany), so stuff like Notability is in fact the most relevant possible link. As noted in the edit summary, the record company has 10 pageviews a day, so really shouldn't be the first entry as a mere partial title match.  The most classic form of disambig style is to rank by likely reader relevance in a normal list, which is what I've fallen back to in my edit.  SnowFire (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Bkonrad: You've already stated you don't feel this should be a page at all . I don't see what you're trying to get at here, as multiple editors have reverted you as you did things like pull the disambig tag.  It's a petty issue, but it's also one where your versions are obviously incorrect IMO, which is why I'm continuing to edit against - the resulting page you're creating is strange, unexpected, and reader-unhelpful.  Just have this be a normal list of synonyms ranked by liklihood of being used, just like everywhere else.  I don't understand your response on why the Fate/Destiny argument is unrelated - it's exactly the same situation, there are articles on this topic but only under different but somewhat synonymous terms.  For another random example, note that the first link on the Vengeance disambiguation page is the article Revenge.  This form of a disambig page, with synonym(s) linked prominently first, is quite common.  SnowFire (talk) 00:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I guess I'm just talking to myself here. You've violated 3RR, and I don't want to violate 3RR myself.  But repeating something doesn't make it true.  You keep saying "Related terms."  They're not.  Are you willing to defer to a third opinion (e.g. from the people who participated in the AFD, or other editors, or WP:3O at worst), or are you determined to revert no matter what and can't be convinced otherwise?  SnowFire (talk) 01:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)