Talk:Recursive

Alright, whose sick joke is it to redirect Recursive to Recursive? 128.175.112.225
 * Fixed... but it's a bit of an in-joke hehe Dysprosia 03:54, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Well, check out the latest change to Recursion... I transfered the joke there in a nonannoying way. 128.175.112.225

What the...? It's a dabpage that doesn't actually disambiguate. If there's no article that actually bears the title "recursive" (which is proper since it's an adjective), there's no need for a dabpage.

Peter Isotalo 18:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of the "for other uses, see recursive (disambiguation)" joke. It should stay. -kslays (talk • contribs) 05:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

good one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.79.48 (talk) 04:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Redirecting to Recursion
Peter Isotalo is right: this page does not disambiguate anything, and should not merely list titles that contain "recursive". If a valid article titled Recursive is created in future (for example, a book or album of that name), this page can be turned back into a disambiguation page again, but until then, it should redirect to Recursion.

Relevant policy:


 * WP:PTM
 * A disambiguation page is not a search index. Do not add a link that merely contains part of the page title, or a link that includes the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion.


 * WP:NOUN
 * Adjective and verb forms should redirect to articles titled with the corresponding noun.

--Piet Delport (talk) 03:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The main problem is that "recursive" also means "computable", but if someone searches for "recursive" in an effort to find that out, the redirect to recursion is not going to help them. Note the "risk of confusion" line in the quote from PTM, and the rest of that section in the linked guideline. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 10:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)