This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all
disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the
project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the
discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles
Moved from the main page: This page previously, incorrectly redirected to
causality but, since the content of
causality doesn't have a single use of the word "why" nor does the topic of causality ontologiclly include the discussion of "why" or, by extention, "intent", the link to that topic has been broken. Causality is strictly a discussion of the "how" of events.
This page serves as a stub until someone can generate a good discussion on the ontological implications of asking "why" and the intent thereby implied to exist. No information is better than misinformation. — 65.28.6.146 & 67.52.217.51
"Why?" as a philosophical question
Before, the link for "Why?" as a philosophical question linked to
Why?, the Artist. I changed it to link to the
Five Ws for now, but was unsure if it should be linked there or to the Wiktionary entry of
why?can also stand for whatever
I don't know; however, the page may look less clean to me, unless I'm wrong, because of too many songs and red links. Maybe television programs need a section, and books need a section, I think. --
Gh87 (
talk)
04:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Generally it's considered a bad idea to create too many small sections, but I can see splitting out an "Other media" category from the "Other uses". That makes sense. What kind of sorting did you have in mind for the songs?--
ShelfSkewedTalk04:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Maybe songs that first appeared in musicals and television may need their own sub-headings; the others that were first heard in radio, singles, and albums may need their own sub-headings. --
Gh87 (
talk)
21:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure I see the utility of such fine sorting. It's really not an unmanageably long list, and all but 4 of the entries are already ordered alphabetically by performer (with articled songs ahead of secondary-linked entries), which seems like it would be users' primary means of finding the particular song they want. Users may not know in what format or medium a song first appeared, but they are likely to know who performed the version they are interested in. But if you want have a go at sorting them your way, maybe I'd change my mind when I saw the result.--
ShelfSkewedTalk22:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)reply