Talk:Page

Confusion

Talk:Pageis not to be confused withtalk pageas redirect page toMediaWiki,not to be confused withWikimedia,or not to be confused withWikimedia Foundation,MediaWikiorWikipedia 110.54.212.149(talk)14:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)14:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We need betterdisambiguationbetween thearticlepages regardinginterns&pages

hopiakuta; <nowiki> { [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e]] }; </nowiki>]]15:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KrixomNETDkakati(talk)14:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Charles George Page"?

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.JGHowes^talk-12:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Primary use

most times is a blank piece of paper or with words on it.ex: a book has pages in it.—Precedingunsignedcomment added by68.10.133.4(talk)21:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do u need to knowPaige Surtees(talk)22:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Testing

Is this even used anymore?90.197.112.28(talk)22:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of arequested 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 amove review.No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was:no move.--tariqabjotu04:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page→Page (disambiguation)
Page (paper)→Page

– 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:It will be decades or centuries beforeelectronic pagesmakepaper pagescompletely obsolete. But electronic pages will surpass paper pages by the end of this decade if they haven't already.Oicumayberight(talk)23:29, 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]

Opposethe use of a public-address system or apagerwould seem likely --76.65.128.222(talk)03:58, 7 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, thatPage (occupation)has been moved to~~Page boy~~Page-boy,and that there is a separate~~Page-boy~~Page boyfor the wedding attendant!PamD07:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)(Corrected 06:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]
- CommentI'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 tointernorgofer--76.65.128.222(talk)01:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is alsoPageboy,a kind of haircut named for thePage boy.bd2412 T 14:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support.Seems like theWP:PRIMARYTOPICto me. --Necrothesp(talk)11:54, 9 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,andpage (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 simpleGoogle searchshows 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. ExaminingWhat links heredoesn'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 ofPage (paper)and 19444 views ofPage (computer memory),17411 views ofPage, Arizona,63926 views ofpager(a special case perhaps, though certainly a common use of the term "page" ), and 14171 views ofPage boy.Although not listed on the disambiguation (though perhaps they should be), there were 4785 views forUnited States Senate Pageand 5064 views forUnited States House of Representatives Page.older≠wiser 14:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose.The paper page has already fallen from its throne, though not yet fallen into obscurity.—Sowlos11:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of arequested move.Please do not modify it.Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in amove review.No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2018

Thisedit requesthas been answered. Set the|answered=or|ans=parameter tonoto reactivate your request.

Hi there, just saw some of the bullet points not aligning. Do we want to straighten them up..?Wikitracer(talk)09:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@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

I’m called Paige and in this article there is nothing about it spelt with an ‘I’ in this why is that the case?Paige Surtees(talk)22:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's because you are looking at thewrong article?--87.150.0.237(talk)14:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3ric PagE

Silent Visionary2600:1015:B11C:E7F7:BC61:6464:6AB6:B996(talk)18:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 January 2023

The following is a closed discussion of arequested 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 amove reviewafter discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was:not movedArbitrarily0^(talk)14:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page→Page (disambiguation)
Page (paper)→Page

–Page (paper)is theWP:PRIMARYTOPICin this case.PhotographyEdits(talk)12:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OpposeI think the 2013 move request is still accurate and there is noWP:PRIMARYTOPIC.Page (paper)still trailsPage (servant)andPage (computer memory)in pageviews.[1]Nohomersryan(talk)17:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeperUser:Nohomersryan.162 etc.(talk)18:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SupportperWP:PRIMARYTOPIC.Rreagan007(talk)19:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose,no PRIMARY.--Ortizesp(talk)20:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose.I prefer to error on the view thatPage (paper),Page (computer memory),andPage (servant)are all approximately equal with respect tolong-term significance.Zzyzx11(talk)01:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You need to make an argument for the primary topic status, otherwise we have an issue similar to the one described atWP:SOURCESEXIST:) If we look by usage,https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Pageindicates a rather wide scattering of outgoing traffic, which indicates that there's likely no primary topic.Oppose--Joy(talk)09:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support.Definite primary topic. --Necrothesp(talk)13:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose.Page (paper)barely qualifies as an encyclopedic topic, IMHO, it's barely more than a stub and could probably be merged intoBook.Certainly it isn't the primary topic here, given actual topics with something useful to say such asPage (computer memory)andPage (servant).— Precedingunsignedcomment added byAmakuru(talk•contribs) 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Ambivalent.I think that the printing sense is likely themostsignificant 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.BD2412 T 02:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose.Barely gets 5% of usage (as shown by Wikinav), no indication of greater long-term significance. –Uanfala(talk)09:38, 6 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.