Talk:Percept (disambiguation)

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Moving this incomplete dab[edit]

This incomplete dab should be moved to either Percept (currently a redirect) or Percept (disambiguation). However, I see that Percept was formerly an article which was then redirect in March. I can't find any discussion about this, and since I do not know the subject matter it is difficult to judge how to proceed. Perhaps someone who is more informed might be able to answer. Is Percept a valid concept for an article (perhaps as a WP:CONCEPTDAB?) or is the information appropriately covered by Perception? If Percept is not a valid subject for an article, is Perception still the primary topic? In this case, Percept would remain a redirect and the dab would be located at Percept (disambiguation). Thoughts much appreciated, France3470 (talk) 16:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard the word at all before, so I am doubtful that it has a primary meaning. bd2412 T 04:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One list, one read, one click[edit]

The tendency of a user [citation needed] after a quick definition from a disambiguation page is to ignore any blurb (too much reading) and look directly in the list for the best match, which they will then click. It may be that they have to come back to the page, having failed to find what they wanted, only to find the right link not in the list but in what looked like skippable introductory text. I can attest to that, having just done it. ;-) I've taken that outside text and incorporated it into the list and added one-liner definitions for the other two items. This is a pragmatic edit intended to make the page more efficient. I hope that nobody reverts it for the sake of some "purity" or other academic reason. 78.147.52.31 (talk) 12:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]