Jump to content
Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Meta:Proposed page moves

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
This is an archived version of this page, as edited by Ryan Norton (talk | contribs) at 06:06, 2 April 2006 (→[[Don't be a dick]] → [[Don't be a jerk]]: support). It may differ significantly from the current version .

This is the page to propose page moves that might be controversion. These should be listed for seven days and implemented if there is no opposition. Any language may be used on this page, although English is the most common. Users who wish to use this place should place {{move}} on the page in question to alert other users, which adds the page to Category:proposed page moves.

The following are usually renamed without delay:

  • Spelling mistakes
  • Background changes (renaming an archive page)

Current requests

Please note: If you disagree with moving pages to meta:Historical in the first place, please discuss at Meta talk:Historical; these moves will not be implemented until a fortnight hence to allow discussion.

2006年03月31日

Dick is a vulgarity and so shouldn't be used in the title. Boombox 15:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Support, but not because it's vulgar. A dick is a "highly contemptible person", according to Wiktionary, whereas a jerk is a "person, usually a male, who is unwelcome due to exhibited unlikable qualities and behavior, often mean, foolish or disagreeable." Thus, jerk fits the spirit of the page much better. However, don't be a dick is a traditional phrase and is unlikely to be changed. I wouldn't be surprised if I'm the only supporting vote. ;) // Pathoschild (talk ) 00:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support for all the reasons raised here plus the implications of the current one in non-english languages/cultures Just another star in the night T | @ | C 06:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I propose we integrate these into the Historical project, where it'll be documented in depth and thoroughly cross-referenced with {{header}}. // Pathoschild (talk ) 02:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I propose we integrate these into the Historical project, where they'll be documented in depth and thoroughly cross-referenced with {{header}}. // Pathoschild (talk ) 09:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

2001 logo contest pages → Meta:Historical/Logo suggestions

I propose we integrate these into the Historical project, where they'll be documented in depth and thoroughly cross-referenced with {{header}}. // Pathoschild (talk ) 09:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

2006年03月28日

24 & 142 contributions pages → subpages of Meta:Historical

I propose we integrate these into the Historical project, where they'll be documented in depth and thoroughly cross-referenced with {{header}}. // Pathoschild (talk ) 23:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I propose we integrate these into the Historical project, where it'll be documented in depth and thoroughly cross-referenced with {{header}}. // Pathoschild (talk ) 23:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I propose we integrate these into the Historical project, where it'll be documented in depth and thoroughly cross-referenced with {{header}}. // Pathoschild (talk ) 23:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • See my comments at Meta talk:Historical.--Eloquence 09:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I disagree. Logo history could be updated upon time. It is not a historical page, it is a page about history. This is different. Anthere
    • The historical project isn't meant to be an archive, it's meant to be a museum of sorts; if need be, historical pages could be distinguished using {{historical}}. I think the Historical project definitely benefits from explanatory pages, especially since they act as de facto portals to the historical pages. Since the redirects remain behind, the pages about history would still be just as accessible. // Pathoschild (talk ) 10:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I propose we integrate these into the Historical project, where it'll be documented in depth and thoroughly cross-referenced with {{header}}. // Pathoschild (talk ) 23:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

if this survives its RFD, I propose we integrate these into the Historical project, where it'll be documented in depth and thoroughly cross-referenced with {{header}}. // Pathoschild (talk ) 23:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. This page is a center to several pages which are not at all historical pages, but still valid and ongoing ones, which analyse the project. It would make no sense to have one page of a collection in history and the others still active. This is not because a page is old that it is historical. Anthere

Move queue

Pages in this section are ready to be moved.

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /