Talk:Relevance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Applied Linguistics Task Force.

Philosophy: Logic Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

Wikipedia guidelines[edit]

I was wondering whether there were any guidelines for what is relevant to put in a Wikipedia article? I see nothing with regards to \

Can anyone explain to me how relevance % is calculated on Wikipedia? e.g., when i search for Social Laws i get different articles that have different relevancy ratings. Can someone advise. Thanks

Institutional relevance[edit]

There is a particular form of relevance known as institutional relevance that comes up when discussing the relationship between social institutions and the people in society. For instance, this notion specifically comes up when talking about the social and cultural trust that people may or may not give to the Roman Catholic Church. The ongoing question that arose from Gaudium et Spes is : how can the Church be relevant in a secular world ? ADM (talk) 09:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by PVN:

This is fine. I am beginning to study this topic formally (so far I have some general idea of relevance and I think that relevance of A to B is a subset of relation of A and B (which I hold is the principle of pairing a member of B with a member of B but not a sub-set of Cartesian Product of A and B). If that is accepted, then it does not matter if the subset of A Rel B is positive or negative or supports or opposes. So in the case of the Church and Secular World, Church is relevant to Secular World in that Church opposes the principles of Secular World (which is symmetrical, that is, Secular World opposes the principles of Church). One is relevant to the other broadly.

25 JAN 14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.206.32.8 (talk) 06:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]