Talk:Sensation

Comments
WWF WrestleMania 2000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.18.170.121 (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

In Our Time
Rich Farmbrough, 03:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC).

Requested move 26 November 2014

 * The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 20:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Sensation → Sensation (disambiguation) – Making way for sensation to become a redirect to the primary topic, sensation (psychology). – —Swpbtalk 15:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe I am missing something here, but if you think that sensation (psychology) is the primary topic wouldn't it make more sense to request that sensation (psychology) be moved to Sensation?--69.157.253.160 (talk) 02:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * What makes Sensation (psychology) a more important target than Sense? Dekimasu よ! 03:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Dekimasu, "sense" would be the primary topic, not psychology. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Support a sensation is a sensation. a sense is a sense. a spade is a spade.  let's give proper discriptions to articles as per WP:AT Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  15:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sensation is not only psychological. Physiological sensation (e.g. non-psychological response of the sensory system to a stimulus) is covered at Sense. Dekimasu よ! 07:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Support as requester. There are a number of incorrect links to this dab page, all of which are intended to point to the psychological or physiological use – either sense or sensation (psychology), which cover nearly identical topics. Redirect "sensation" to one (I don't care which), and leave a hatnote pointing to the other. This is a textbook case – absurd that this would even be considered controversial. —Swpbtalk 17:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There are 10 total ambiguous (not incorrect) links to Sensation in the article namespace. That's not at all unusual for a disambiguation page, and not in and of itself any indication that there is a primary topic. As long as you don't see which of Sense and Sensation (psychology) is the primary topic, that's another indication that there isn't a primary topic. If they are really identical, they should be merged, but I don't think that's the case. At this point, oppose. Dekimasu よ! 07:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. At first glance the rationale seemed possible, but a look at the article at sensation (psychology) quickly showed otherwise. The topic of that article is a very esoteric use of the word. There is no possibility that it would be the primary topic by either criterion, in my opinion. Andrewa (talk) 20:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose this odd primarytopic claim. Dicklyon (talk) 05:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.