Talk:Sign
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Disambiguation page
The word sign is by nature extremely polysemic, and so the article Sign will ever remain a disambiguation page. It is recommended that editors place significant content at the appropriate disambiguated pages, as someone will eventaully have to do that anyway. Jon Awbrey 12:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Could anyone contribute to the different branches of Semiotics such as Zoosemiotics, Cognitive Semiotics and so on?
Isn't this really a bit of a disambiguation page, where the larger fragements (e.g. semiotics) deserve their one page? Jfdwolff 20:27, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Someone merged "Symbol" and "sign" pages. They overlap in some senses but are NOT synonyms! No one would say that cough is a "symbol" of influenza, or that the cross atop a church is a "sign" of Christianism.Jorge Stolfi 12:17, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Hmm. In what ways are signs and symbols different? I believe coughing does symbolize influenza, and a cross on a church is a sign of Christiantity.
Gecko 17:03, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
What about road-side signs, besides stop, yield, et al.? -- user:zanimum
- Those seem to be covered by Information sign and traffic sign. But I don't see anything here that would cover marquees or signage on retail stores. Am I missing something? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:45, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Disambiguation Page, Or Not?
JA: As I understand it, this is a disambiguation page, and should consist of nothing more than redirections to more specific pages. I am seeking input as to whether other editors and interested parties want to keep it that way, or else try to convert it into some sort of generic article. Thanks, Jon Awbrey 18:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- There is enough to be said on the general topic of signs as such that it might be worth letting this grow. - Jmabel | Talk 04:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] On disambig
Why is the disambig the block-caps version of the same word? Shouldn't this page be renamed Sign (entity and this page made into the disambig? Sockatume 04:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- No, though possibly the disambiguation page should be Sign (disambiguation). This is the overwhelmingly important use of the word, so it is appropriate that Sign takes you directly here. In some ways, this page is, itself, something of a glorified disambiguation page: it's just that all of these uses are so closely related that it makes sense to write the basics in one place. - Jmabel | Talk 03:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Good point. I might see about getting SIGN movied. Sockatume 03:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] nature of signs section
I believe this section included by anonymous 83.etc adds value to this article, but the source of this theory (this particular way of breaking down nature vs convention) should be cited. There are a number of other theories of signs (the most prominent that comes to mind is de Saussure) that are not included here so this section needs more material. Zeusnoos 16:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Natural and conventional signs
The following confuses together natural and conventional signs: The range of uses of signs are varied. They might include: the indication or mark of something, a display of a message, a signal to draw attention, evidence of an underlying cause (for instance, the symptoms of a disease are signs of the disease), a character for a mathematical operation, a body gesture, etc.
--Ristcl 14:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Para 1 begin “A sign, also known as a signifier, both stands for and points to that which is signified.” but Para 2 begins “In the strict sense, a sign points to another entity (real or abstract), while a symbol stands for another thing functioning as its representative”
I suggest “A sign is an entity which signifies another entity (cf symbol)
--Ristcl 14:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
