Talk:Relation

message: The significance of relation goes all the way back to the middle ages. 
Medieval Theories of Relations:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relations-medieval/
As one can see, it was a discourse that went on for centuries.
To summarize, there are two dynamics of relations.  They called them
reducible and non-reducible types.   Reducible types are relatively 
more or relatively less.  Non-reducible types are exclusively about 
the connection.  What is not clear is the term used that composes a
relation.  Relations are never composed of a single entity.  It is 
my opinion that this entity should be called a subject.  Other terms 
such as object or unit don't work with people.  So if it is subjects
that compose a relation, and a relation can itself be a subject, a
closed system exists.
--JHuber 18:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

message: We really need an article on philosophical relation.  As far as I can tell, none exists. Drunken Pirate 03:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophical Relation 

message: IMO it must be turned into Wikipedia:CONCEPTDAB Staszek Lem (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like it already exists. I agree and have made page move requests below. —Ost (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broad-concept article? 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the pages at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 18:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
I forgot about this request and should have responded, but I disagree that relation (philosophy) is the same as  relation (history of concept); it's more a portion of that history, as are international relations, relation (mathematics), and relation (database). The latter two concepts are already in the article, and were before the nomination. I wasn't proposing to lose the navigational aid, but rather just moving that aid to a page containing "disambiguation" in the title. —Ost (talk) 13:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 12 April 2018 

message: A new WP:User "Logicalperson12" posted the following:
:Origin of the word relationship:The word “relationship” first appeared in 1744, but was not applied “specifically of romantic or sexual relationships” until 1944.
:Before plane and cars and all other technology existed we were only able to have relation with other country true sailing ship thus the name relationship .
The speculations were removed as unsuitable, and note taken that it was a probe to see if this page is watched. — Rgdboer (talk) 02:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Test 

message: A discussion is taking place as to whether the redirect Relation (disamiguation) should be deleted, kept, or retargeted. It will be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 23#Relation (disamiguation) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.  1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Relation (disamiguation)" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]