Talk:Context

Multidisciplinary theory

The text under Multidisciplinary theory is nonsensical.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.18.42 (talk) 00:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

So it was. It appears to have been written by the scholar whom it cites, Teun A. Van Dijk, who was also the first contributor to this article. How upsetting an article of such poor quality, containing so conspicuous a conflict of interest, survived with minimal improvements for fully ten years. This content is now deleted, and I hope to fully rewrite the article soon. Dan 09:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Propose page move to "Context (communication)"

May I propose that this page be moved to the title "Context (communication)", which would allow for the topic to be treated in terms of the more general perspective of communication, rather than the narrower perspective of language-mediated communication. Dan 04:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 2 March 2025

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Favonian (talk) 10:00, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

---

• Context (linguistics) → Context
• Context → Context (disambiguation)

– The current title fails to precisely define the scope of the article. As the first sentence states, this article is about context in the (ahem) context of semiotics, linguistics, sociology and anthropology, whereas the current "(linguistics)" disambiguator suggests that this article is limited to the linguistics context only. Also, the broad concept of "context" is the WP:PTOPIC for "context" by long-term significance, as it is the parent topic of other topics named "context" listed on the Context disambiguation page and is an increasingly sought-after topic. Moreover, as stated in WP:BCA, if the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing it, and not a disambiguation page. feminist🩸 (talk) 09:21, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support. This is exactly the case for a broad concept article. All of the ambiguous senses that are not variations on the general concept (e.g., the festival, the rapper) are obscure. BD2412 T 03:02, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support: obviously primary topic. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 21:32, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Seems obvious. Steel1943 (talk) 00:06, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.