Talk:Sensation

Comments

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

In Our Time

The BBC programme In Our Time presented by Melvyn Bragg has an episode which may be about this subject (if not moving this note to the appropriate talk page earns cookies). You can add it to "External links" by pasting * {{In Our Time|Sensation|p005492t}}. Rich Farmbrough, 03:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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)[reply]

Sensation → Sensation (disambiguation) – Making way for sensation to become a redirect to the primary topic, sensation (psychology). – —Swpb^talk 15:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

What makes Sensation (psychology) a more important target than Sense? Dekimasuよ! 03:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dekimasu, "sense" would be the primary topic, not psychology. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. —Swpb^talk 17:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Oppose this odd primarytopic claim. Dicklyon (talk) 05:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.