Talk:Sign

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Disambiguation Page, Or Not? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Good point. I might see about getting SIGN movied. Sockatume 03:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: On disambig

message: 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)
thread_title:  nature of signs section 

message: 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)
thread_title: Natural and conventional signs

message: can some one improve on that?  I will, if y'all don't, but there are people who must be better at that than me?  
But seriously "an entity thatanother entity" - what on earth does that mean?  90.197.125.137 (talk) 01:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  opening statement 

message: I have gone ahead and redirected this to the disambiguation page.  It was completely unreferenced, and mainly a list of homonyms anyway.   It was also heavily redundant to Signage, Signboard, and Sign (display device). Sithman  VIII !! 19:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted to the article. This could be merged to signage, but there is a primary topic (either this one or signage). -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Well, but the word means so many things that it his hardly feasible to try to describe them all in a single article. Sithman  VIII !! 01:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm probably going to redisambiguate this if there are no objections in a couple of days;  Right now we're stuck in stasis. Sithman  VIII !! 04:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: The sign, whether natural or cultural, is simply whatever you see at first sight. For instance, so far is the very sign, by which you have to live so far. The thing indeed is that the thing in itself or Ding an sich is unreachable, as Kant noted long ago. Thus the sign is all we have to do with, good or evil, right or wrong. We just make sense or interpretation of it. Perhaps no more! 
Then the sign is the first and foremost, if not the last. (Then this page should never ever degenerate into a mere disambiguation page! We have to wonder why some people would insist on the degeneration of such a vital concept.) Then what should be taken seriously here above all? 
To live is, first of all, to interpret or understand the signs we recognize from the surroundings, that is, information we live by. Information is simply signing and understanding. No life without information as well as matter and energy. Trees understand indeed! How sensitive they are created or evolved! How meaningless the universe would be with God but without life! 
--KYPark (talk) 10:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sign as everything after all 

message: Horia Popa este un foarte mare fan de Mickel Jackson si de XXXTentation. A resuit sa faca mersul lui Mickel Jackson.
Este un prieten foarte bun de al meu. Invata la scoala europeana din Laeken si este in S1 Roa.
Este foarte bun la gimnastica.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolmanpop (talk • contribs) 18:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horia Popa 

message: Reading the lead of this article, it seems this page is about signs in the broad, semiotics sense, so why do we also have a page for sign (semiotics? Please let me know if I'm missing some distinction, otherwise the pages should probably be merged.  talk 05:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: As the article refers for example to "sign" in religion, in this case Christianity, the semiotics article is a specific use of the concept of "sign" in philosophy, and in the particular branch of it that deals with signs, i.e. semiotics. So, semiotics is the paricular branch of philosophy that deals specifically with signs. This article could point there, as it already points to philosophy, but the two articles should be kept separate and distinct as they are now, in my view. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 16:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguating with [[Sign (semiotics)]] 

message: Are not signs and symptoms different things? Signs are what a medic sees whereas symptoms are what a patient experiences. To say a symptom is a sign of disease may cause confusion. Fenlandier (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signs and Symptoms