Talk:Why

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

Weien 04:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

fun for trivia. too lazy to find real ref :P http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_General_(The_Prisoner) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.105.117 (talk) 07:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent cleanup tagging

Since I keep an eye on this page, I would appreciate some input on what requires cleaning up.--ShelfSkewed Talk 03:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Also, I think songs may need subsections if they must not be removed. --Gh87 (talk) 04:06, 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?--ShelfSkewed Talk 04:13, 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.--ShelfSkewed Talk 22:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have another idea: separate them by decades. What do you think? --Gh87 (talk) 09:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. I suggest using the semicolon header--i.e. ;1950s--rather than editable headers.--ShelfSkewed Talk 16:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok

Aceventz (talk) 10:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

no 174.46.14.160 (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re-arranging Songs

I already re-arranged songs by correct decades, unless I must have done something wrong. --Gh87 (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I moved one song that got misplaced in the shuffle, but otherwise it looks great. Nice work.--ShelfSkewed Talk 21:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please tell what show Why? is?

What show is Why since it's a cartoon show? 2A02:C7C:CB5B:8200:C46E:F9B3:DBFF:BADD (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]