Talk:Page is not to be confused with talk page as redirect page to MediaWiki, not to be confused with Wikimedia, or not to be confused with Wikimedia Foundation
This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
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
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I've removed this as an apparently bogus entry. There's no reference anywhere to this person, other than mirrors to this site, and the EL given looks like a spoof. JGHowestalk - 12:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Primary use
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 13 years ago11 comments10 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
– I may be an old codger/curmudgeon, but I expect to see a paper page when I search for "page", and I'm pretty sure nearly all older people would agree. When books become obsolete, that'll change, but we aren't at that stage yet. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Oppose. Page (occupation) is a more substantial topic than one side of a leaf of paper, and older, and more likely to be a subject of specific interest. Given the very large number of uses of "page", it is best to have the undisambiguated link go to the disambiguation page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Oppose: too many important uses, no primary topic (to Clarityfiend: I agree that to most of us "page" still means firstly a part of a book or newspaper, but how likely are you to be searching for it as an encyclopedia topic in that sense? Not very likely, I suggest, so it doesn't make it as primary topic). Note, to complicate matters, that Page (occupation) has been moved to Page boyPage-boy, and that there is a separate Page-boyPage boy for the wedding attendant! PamD07:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC) (Corrected 06:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC))Reply
Comment I've suggested Page-boy be split in two, since congressional pages are frequently women, and page-boy does not describe the modern day occupation that is more akin to intern or gofer -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 01:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Oppose. I see no criterion by which this would be the primary topic. While a case can be made for long-term significance for the paper sense, the prominence and enduring use of the historical sense of a servant contests this (e.g., Congressional pages, NBC page, and page (weddings) are all well-known continuances of this sense). None of the suggested means to help determine a primary topic support any single sense of the term. A simple Google search shows results all over the page (so to speak). Even looking at only Books or Scholar doesn't give any strong indication of a primary topic. Examining What links here doesn't reveal any significant trend. Page view traffic stats as well offer pretty clear indication that the paper sense is not the primary topic. Over the past 90 days, there were 32346 views of the disambiguation page. In the same time period, there were 4720 views of Page (paper) and 19444 views of Page (computer memory), 17411 views of Page, Arizona, 63926 views of pager (a special case perhaps, though certainly a common use of the term "page"), and 14171 views of Page boy. Although not listed on the disambiguation (though perhaps they should be), there were 4785 views for United States Senate Page and 5064 views for United States House of Representatives Page. older ≠ wiser14:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2018
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
@Wikitracer: That all looks deliberate to me. The ones that don't line up are articles that fall under the topic of the bullet immediately above them. Are there specific bullet(s) you see that you think should be lined up differently? ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 10:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
Hi, no that makes sense when I look at it again. Not fully sure as how to do this by protocol, the comments and signing them but I hope it end well : ) Wikitracer (talk) 12:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
The name
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 3 years ago11 comments11 people in discussion
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.
Oppose. Page (paper) barely qualifies as an encyclopedic topic, IMHO, it's barely more than a stub and could probably be merged into Book. Certainly it isn't the primary topic here, given actual topics with something useful to say such as Page (computer memory) and Page (servant). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amakuru (talk • contribs) 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Ambivalent. I think that the printing sense is likely the most significant sense, but I am not convinced that it is primary over all other senses combined, which clearly includes some topics of interest and historical significance. BD2412T02:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
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.
Content Disclaimer
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.
The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.