Talk:Disambiguation (disambiguation)/Archive 1

the process of identifying the sense of a word in a sentence
While I'm not sure the word exists, I'm not sure this is a definition. Isn't this process rather to do with listing a word's various meanings? What does in a sentence mean here, or is it pseudo-academic padding? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pauldanon (talk • contribs) 22:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was sent to AfD. &mdash;harej (talk) (cool!) 00:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation (disambiguation) → Disambiguation &mdash; The current naming is redundant and unnecessary. Since there is no main article for "Disambiguation" (it is a redirect), then " (disambiguation)" is not needed in the article name. + m t  15:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, shouldn't this page be deleted entirely? With only two pages listed, hatnotes on both pages should suffice. TN X Man  16:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, this could work as well, however the "main" article is a redirect (Word sense disambiguation) and has a busy top-section where that hatnote would appear. It might be cleaner, less confusing and easier to maintain as a DAB page, to which a few redirects can be changed from Word sense disambiguation (I'm not convinced that this is anymore "main" than Disambiguation (audio)). + m t  20:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tnxman. The top section of Word sense disambiguation will not get any more cluttered by the removal of Disambiguation (disambiguation) and the addition of Disambiguation (audio). Jafeluv (talk) 07:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Since the redirect is not to this page, but to a primary topic, the "(disambiguation)" is not redundant. Moving this to the plain title would alter the navigational setup. Dekimasu よ! 09:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct. However, there's absolutely no use for a disambiguation page of two entries when one of the entries is primary topic. The disambiguation is better solved by adding a hatnote directly to the secondary topic. Jafeluv (talk) 13:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move, part 2

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was no consensus &mdash;harej (talk) (cool!) 00:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation (disambiguation) → Disambiguation &mdash; Since the AfD discussion, this page has become more legitimate as a disambiguation page. That being said, since "word-sense disambiguation" is fine at its current title, I think it is best for this page to be moved to "disambiguation". &mdash;harej (talk) (cool!) 04:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Primary topic is Word sense disambiguation, as reflected by that stable redirect. The number of possible targets is not a determining factor in the location of a dab page. If Word sense disambiguation is fine at its current title, then there is no reason for the primary topic redirect not to stay in place. Dekimasu よ! 04:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Actually, the number of page views of Memory disambiguation is consistently higher or at the same level as Word-sense disambiguation, and memory disambiguation is a plausible search target for the search term "disambiguation", leading me to believe that there's in fact no clear primary topic. Things changed when that article was added to the dab page. Jafeluv (talk) 06:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you check the results for Word sense disambiguation (the article) instead of Word-sense disambiguation (one of its redirects), the numbers are considerably higher there... about 8x as many hits as to Memory disambiguation. Those numbers are all independent of Disambiguation which was never altered to point to another title while getting 20x the hits of Memory disambiguation, implying that no one objected to that setup. Dekimasu よ! 06:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, you're right. Looks like it was misspelled on the dab page and I just copied the text assuming that it points to the right article. After checking the correct page views, it's clear that the redirect to word sense disambiguation should stay in place. Jafeluv (talk) 06:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Dekimasu. Jafeluv (talk) 06:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support: per my rational 9 days ago. + m t  07:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As before, since the redirect at the plain title is not to this page, moving this would change the navigational setup, and thus there is no question of redundancy. Dekimasu よ! 11:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. I don't see word sense disambiguation as a clear and obvious primary topic for disambiguation.  I'm not convinced that someone typing "disamibguation" for an Wikipedia title is going to most likely want that article.  I don't find the page view argument conclusive.  Better to provide a road sign than an incorrect destination.  It's not like a case of, e.g., someone probabbly wanting the president instead of the inventor. — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 19:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I'm 42, higher education, many hobbies and interests, well read on many topics - before I went to disambiguation (disambiguation) I'd never run across any of those before. Perhaps it's just me, I'm certainly always learning, but it seems hard to imagine any of those other uses being commonly known or used . They are all very technical specialists meanings, geek stuff :) Green Cardamom (talk) 05:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Word sense disambiguation is the primary topic. It is the only sense given in many dictionaries. The other uses described on the disambiguation page appear to be very technical (and limited) applications of derivative formulations of the concept. older ≠ wiser 20:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Because word sense disambiguation is the primary topic, disambiguation should get to that page in 1-click. It is "primarily" what people would expect to see, they should not have to go through a disambig page first. Green Cardamom (talk) 05:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Per page view statistics, Disambiguation appears to be the primary topic here, by several orders of magnitude.  --Una Smith (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Disambiguation is not an article and it's page view statistics are irrelevant for determining primary topic. older ≠ wiser 22:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Disambiguation (disambiguation)
What's with the repetition? Is it part of W'pedia's annoying tendency to give initial capitals to non-proper nouns? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pauldanon (talk • contribs) 22:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Titles of Articles are all proper nouns. Chrisrus (talk) 00:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 15 November 2015

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No move. We have consensus that per the governing content guideline of WP:PTOPIC, this is the primary topic. Hopefully the software issue will be resolved in another way. Cúchullain t/ c 16:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Disambiguation (disambiguation) → Disambiguation –

For background, see the discussion at Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 14. I'm proposing reversing the redirect. redirected there until [I boldly changed it yesterday]; that change has not been reverted (which is kind) but really RfD is the wrong forum, so with consensus that's been closed and I bring it here.a

The argument against my retargetting is that word-sense disambiguation is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "disambiguation". I can see only three possible conclusions from that proposition:
 * 1) It is true, so move word-sense disambiguation to disambiguation per WP:CONCISE.
 * 2) It is not true, in which case either:
 * 3) One of the other topics at disambiguation (disambiguation) is primary topic, so move that, or
 * 4) None of them is, so move disambiguation (disambiguation) per WP:CONCISE and WP:MALPLACED, keeping the redirect for use in hatnotes and so on.

I agree that "word-sense disambiguation" is a primary topic. It's just not the primary topic for "disambiguation", which doesn't really have one. It's the primary (and only) topic for, er, "word-sense disambiguation". Otherwise we would need "word-sense disambiguation (song)" (or whatever) or word-sense disambiguation (disambiguation). "Primary topic" is not "inherited" (transitive).

I'm not really that bothered which of disambiguation and disambiguation (disambiguation) is the DAB and which the redirect (although it's more usual to have the (disambiguation) as the R): what I am concerned about is first, the implication that primary topic is inherited; second, that editors in practice have been falsely assuming that would be a general article about disambiguation,here not a technical article on a specific kind of disambiguation studied in linguistics.

Si Trew (talk) 02:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose -- Solution in search of a problem. It's fine. It works. Possibly WP:SPIDEY or How many legs does a horse have?Disambiguation (disambiguation) looks funny but it is crystal clear and serviceable, particularly for those who are not familiar with Wikipedia's inside jokes and low-stakes wars. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It works if redirects to disambiguation (disambiguation) or vice versa. If not, it might not: it didn't work for these:
 * Places
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Call_signs_in_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=690560999
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kalyniv_%28airfield%29&diff=prev&oldid=690555475
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henley_Business_School&diff=prev&oldid=690555581
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henley_Business_School&diff=prev&oldid=690555669
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_New_York_City_Subway_stations&diff=prev&oldid=690558258
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Park_Street_District,_Columbus,_Ohio&diff=prev&oldid=690560842
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neighborhoods_in_Columbus,_Ohio&diff=prev&oldid=690559338
 * Science and technology
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tee-name&diff=prev&oldid=690560662
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_Standard_Name_Identifier&diff=prev&oldid=690560767
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Search_engine_technology&diff=prev&oldid=690559207
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theatrical_smoke_and_fog&diff=690559439&oldid=690148394
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haze_machine&diff=prev&oldid=690558805
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Centre_for_Text_Mining&diff=prev&oldid=690560038
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Relationship_extraction&diff=prev&oldid=690560377
 * People
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Karlsson&diff=prev&oldid=690558568
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_King_%28make-up_artist%29&diff=prev&oldid=690556586
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_King_%28make-up_artist%29&diff=690557038&oldid=690556586
 * I realise it is an editor's responsibility to check blue links. That doesn't mean we have to make a topic name deliberately obtuse just for an in-joke; these are in reader space, after all. Anyway, reversing the redirect won't spoil the in-joke. Si Trew (talk) 05:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Word-sense disambiguation is identifying which sense of a word (i.e. meaning) is used in a sentence. Wikipedia disambiguation is identifying which sense of a word or phrase is used in an article title (sort of). Perhaps Word-sense disambiguation is the "primary topic" in most other contexts, but with Wikipedia disambiguation having such a big presence here, there is no clear WP:primary topic. The examples above clearly demonstrate that. In such cases, we should err on the side of caution and force editors to disambiguate disambiguation, as clearly many new or casual editors will be confused about the nuances. We have systems in place to get this right, when we don't assume a primary topic. When we do assume a primary topic, issues like this can linger for years, until an editor like Si Trew notices and fixes the mistakes. – Wbm1058 (talk) 12:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If we had an article on WP disambiguation then it could be a potential rival to be selected as a PRIMARYTOPIC here. We don't. There may be something in the nom, but it's build on a fallacy, and is dogfooding "inheritance". Haven't worked out if barking up the wrong tree too, yet. Widefox ; talk 05:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If we had an article on WP disambiguation then it could be a potential rival to be selected as a PRIMARYTOPIC here. We don't. There may be something in the nom, but it's build on a fallacy, and is dogfooding "inheritance". Haven't worked out if barking up the wrong tree too, yet. Widefox ; talk 05:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support per nom and Wbm. There is no need for a parenthetical disambiguator when there exists a more WP:CONCISE title that loses no information. I agree with Si's point about an in-joke, and I hold that using WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for something that might be contentious is a risky idea, in which case using a basic disambiguation page should prevail by default. —&#8288;烏&#8288;Γ (kaw) │ 09:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That is not how primary topics are decided. It is a fallacy that redirects are never used for primary topics. Widefox ; talk 04:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose my confidence in this proposal started low..just to recap:
 * this was boldly changed already? trout
 * then at RfD "If word-sense disambiguation were WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, it would be at disambiguation itself. Patently it is not, so put the DAB there." - we use redirects for primary topics all the time, so that's a non-starter (that doesn't fill me with confidence) - a logical fallacy, and factually incorrect provable by listing any of numerous primary topic redirects.
 * now it's here, and it's a mess, proposal starts with "The argument against my retargetting". Any nom has to get consensus for change otherwise the status quo prevails. This is the least convincing PRIMARYTOPIC nom I've seen up until that point. I'd rather procedural close and start afresh with a clear nom that may convince - suggest nom checks some debates for convincing arguments (per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC).
 * in the mean-time the dab is messed up and needs cleanup ✅ Widefox ; talk 04:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * (User:Bkonrad - I added wikt "Ø" as I believe it means disambiguation (but yes it's covered by the see also link). Widefox ; talk 17:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Si Trew - can you put a note into the project next time pls? Ping User:Xezbeth, note done. Widefox ; talk 04:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by "put a note into the project". As for ärguments against", I think it is perfectly fine to argue by contradiction. Si Trew (talk) 05:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * NP, per the top ".. WikiProject Disambiguation" Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Widefox ; talk 05:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Si Trew (talk) 05:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. I started this thread of changes by spotting some surprising uses of disambiguation and (disambiguation) in articles, when the intention was to disambiguate a link. (disambiguation) was deleted as WP:G7 (I didn't nom it.) I boldly changed the target of disambiguation, as we are encouraged to be bold. On reflection, I thought there was more to it, so I listed it at WP:Redirects for discussion; at that time, it had not been reverted, this was the only deviation from WP:BRD in that there was no "R" bit; perhaps I should have reverted myself before discussing it.
 * At the RfD, I formed the view that it should actually be reversed with Disambiguation (disambiguation) rather than be a retarget to it, so this then became essentially a move request. I asked for the RfD to be closed (I didn't want boldly to do that myself), and opened this discussion, linking the two. At all times I acted in good faith and changed nothing that was WP:NOTBROKEN. I've made editors at RM and RfD, and users of the redirects themselves (via the RfD notices), aware of the ongoing discussions.
 * WP:PRIMARYTARGET is probably relevant, since "word-sense" is disambiguating "word-sense disambiguation" from other kinds of disambiguation (that's one purpose of adjectives). Si Trew (talk) 05:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec)Bold for uncontroversial yes. One wouldn't just change the primary topic of say USA, HP, or Danzig, would you? (all primary topic redirects, one in the guideline, one in WP:MOSDAB). For high profile dab pages such as this classic an RM seems appropriate for consensus per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Widefox ; talk 05:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: I restored (disambiguation) so its edit history could be examined as part of this discussion. I think that it's reasonable to keep that as a plausible search term for this page or WP:Disambiguation, and to aid in detection and correction of mistakes, if editors unintentionally link to that title. Wbm1058 (talk) 10:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Per the earlier RM, word-sense disambiguation is the clear primary topic for the term "disambiguation". &mdash;Xezbeth (talk) 07:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose the diffs above show a tiny number of instances where editors have got confused - in the case of Peter King (make-up artist), one confused editor in Feb. 2014 added some malformed links, and it's a pity that no-one had bothered to sort them out till now. I've gone part way by formatting the links properly and adding dn. I've also sorted out the link and hatnote needed at the two Park Street District articles. It looks as if Si Trew has fixed the other instances. So, that's the background out of the way and a bit of WP:SOFIXIT. I don't think these instances are common enough for us to worry about.


 * There's also the point, made above too, that it's perfectly OK for topic A to be the primary topic both of "A" and of "B", with B redirecting to A and dab pages "A (disambiguation) and/or "B (disambiguation)" also existing. Happens all the time.


 * So there is just one thing to consider:
 * "What is the Primary Topic for the word "Disambiguation" in English Wikipedia?" (It has been decided in the past that the Primary Topic is Word-sense disambiguation. I see no evidence here to say that it isn't.)
 * There are three possible outcomes:


 * 1) The Primary Topic is Word-sense disambiguation - the status quo, leave well alone
 * 2) The Primary Topic is something else - redirect "Disambiguation" to that article
 * 3) There is no Primary Topic - move the dab page to the base name.
 * Pam D  09:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Of the four uses in "Linguistics and computing", word-sense may be the most common, but I'm not convinced that it's so dominant over the other three to make it WP:primary. Even after disregarding the elephant in the back room (WP:Dab). Wbm1058 (talk) 10:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Xezbeth and PamD have detailed the conventional selection, which I agree with 100%. This may be a great idea, hindered by a bad nom. Really suggest fresh start with something convincing even if it's IAR based (rather than based on the inverted logic and fallacy above). The precedent of a former RM sets the bar high for any change to the status quo which AFAIK isn't addressed in the nom above. If the primary topic should be WP itself, then write the article first, as cross namespace is a no-no and accommodated fine as is. If we're going from dogs to elephants...the elephant is in another room, i.e. there is no elephant in the room. Widefox ; talk 16:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I said "the elephant in the back room" – the back room is "another" room. We don't all need to be Wiki-lawyers here, if this is a case where WP:IAR should be invoked, then why can't we just do it in this RM, rather than go through the procedural motions of closing this and opening a new RM. Isn't that what the spirit of IAR is all about? Wbm1058 (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I was agreeing with you about the elephant, just drawing the opposite conclusion. Anyhow, the nom doesn't convince me. Widefox ; talk 23:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I have this page on my watchlist and have been thinking about it during the past week. Ultimately I think if we go by WP:PTOPIC then it is reasonably clear that the primary topic of "disambiguation" is word-sense disambiguation. The argument under IAR to move this page so incorrect links are caught is a reasonable one, but I disagree with it. That links are only caught when the page being linked to is a dab page is a problem with Wikipedia software, not a problem with how this page is named. Hopefully one day the notifications feature to let you know when any page you create is linked to will be expanded to cover any page you want to add to a sort of 'links-watchlist' and the problem will be resolved. In the meantime, I don't think compromising our primary topic guideline is the right way to go. Plus I kinda love the current title, there's something so Wikipedia about it. Jenks24 (talk) 14:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.

Ambiguity
I'm surely not alone in thinking this page is very ambiguous. Can we get a disambiguation page, please? 2601:241:8501:B276:39F7:71CD:C829:B724 (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

No. E Super Maker (😲 shout) 00:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

"(disambiguation)" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the redirect (disambiguation) should be deleted, kept, or retargeted. It will be discussed at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 23 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

(disambiguation) an album by jan Misali
apparently the notability guidelines do not apply in a list. may this be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CamelCaseCo (talk • contribs) 05:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It may not be notable enough to be listed here, but the person who's requested this page be protected should probably spend at least five seconds googling the artist's name before baselessly accusing people of disruptive editing. 2601:243:C601:5960:8DA9:9A78:2F9F:39E9 (talk) 08:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If anybody writes the article, then they'll be more than welcome to add an entry for it here – if indeed there is enough coverage of either the album or the artist, then an article can be created. A disambiguation page should not have any entries that don't have links to Wikipedia articles. And whatever the intentions of the person, or people, because of whom this page got protected, their behaviour was indistinguishable from that of spammers. – Uanfala (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, amongst the community it has been discussed. Should not be spam-edited again, and if there is found to be sufficient coverage, a professional page will be created. CamelCaseCo (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Inconsistencies?
How come some disambiguation pages say "(disambiguation)" and others don't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.228.170 (talk) 19:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but it makes me think; as lovely and meta as this page is, we should probably just have "disambiguation" where this page is. Sorry! 🤷‍♀️ --StrexcorpEmployee (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Dammit!
We made a Droste Image in there! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slovenianperson (talk • contribs) 15:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move, part 3
Please move this page to ¨Disambiguation (disambiguation) (disambiguation) (disambiguation)¨, i spent four hours looking for this page, there are not enough disambiguations in the title. Lallint (talk) 13:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Title
This page's name is awesome. EthanGaming7640 (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm agree ~ Crefollet   (talk)  04:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

(disambiguation), an album by jan Misali
I'm not skilled enough to create a page for this nor know if it is popular enough to deserve a page but it is another thing that exists and has this name.

GiggyMantis (talk) 12:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's specifically listed in the page's comments as an entry we shouldn't add unless it has an article. The question is whether it passes WP:NMUSIC.  It probably doesn't, but I'm not a music expert. Certes (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe it can if we realllly want it to. small jars 12:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

A shining example of what a Wikipedia page should be
Can we just take a moment here to appreciate the existence of this page? I love this page. It may be the finest product of human civilization.

Seriously, this is a great page, and I love that it's here. I was hoping it would be, and lo, it is. Just wanted to register my satisfaction.

Cakedamber (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree! Mootros (talk) 14:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thirded. I now link to the awesomeness on my talkpage. --Cyber cobra (talk) 14:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha, ha, ha. Wow. Charvest (talk) 08:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Man's greatest disambiguation will always be this shining moment when disambiguation had a disambiguation page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.244.155.22 (talk) 05:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've only discovered it now, but this must be the most extraordinary article on wikipedia. universalcosmos | talk 09:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We need a WP:Featured disambiguation pages. ;P -- &oelig; &trade; 10:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * People seem to think that these are the "best disambiguation page(s)": Evolution (disambiguation), SQL Server, XP, Suffolk County. (The first item is probably not meant sarcastically... ;)
 * Personally, I smile when any of Aardvark, Banana, Book, Cake, Caper, Cellar door, Kiss, Meaning of life, Meow, Platypus, Shit happens, Snipe, This too shall pass, Wombat, and Yawn, appear in my watchlist, for a variety of unrelated reasons. And this one, of course. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed the best page name on wikipedia. TFighterPilot (talk) 22:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct. But we should encourage people to name their rock bands/books/whatever "Disambiguation (disambiguation)", so that one day we can create Disambiguation (disambiguation) (disambiguation). That would be perfection. --Tinz (talk) 22:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Right. Lists have already achieved that level of perfection with List of lists of lists. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Also check out all the disambiguation confusion at the top of Mother. ;) -- &oelig; &trade; 04:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hah! --Cyber cobra (talk) 07:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Exactly, I just came here, to the „Talk“ section, to express my appreciation for the very existence of Wiki disambiguation page about Disambiguation. Very glad to hear I'm not the only one :)
 * This is one of those pages which deserves its continuous survival, long after last human is gone :) EnragedDataFixer (talk) 02:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed! Chrisrus (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting for the self destruction of the earth because of this page. 69.113.231.176 (talk) 02:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this page should redirect to itself.--KarlB (talk) 13:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is simply a gorgeous page! 89.89.92.100 (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

This page is excellent Kyuuuubi (talk) 09:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

This is by far the best page on wikipedia SrApVd (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Agreed! Clayel (talk) 00:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I just stumbled upon this page, and I agree with the sense of agreement. A smart kitten (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Add me to the list Kevinishere15 (talk) 00:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The clarity! – AndyFielding (talk) 14:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)