Meta:Proposed page moves/Archives/2006

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2006, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Moved

2006-03-28

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)

How to Destroy WikipediaMeta:Historical/How to Destroy Wikipedia

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)

Logo historyMeta:Historical/Logo history

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)
    • Eloquence agreed to the move after discussion, stating, "That makes sense (nice chart - dig the gradients ;-). As long as the distinctions shown above are preserved, I agree with the move." // Pathoschild (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
      • Unclear. The page mentions "This project seeks to collect all pages that are no longer relevant, but kept for historical interest.". I think the page is still relevant. Unless I am not understanding well... Anthere
        • The historical pages are kept for historical interest, the informative pages (such as this one) are kept to provide information and context. For example, see this proposed navigation chart:
          Meta Historical.gif
          // Pathoschild (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Moved. // Pathoschild (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Moving commentary out of WikipediaMeta:Historical/Moving commentary out of Wikipedia

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)

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)

2006-04-08

Ethics vs. MoralsMeta:Historical/Ethics vs. Morals

I propose we integrate these into the Historical project, where they'll be documented in depth and thoroughly cross-referenced with {{header}}. // Pathoschild (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. -- mzlla 22:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

2006-04-04

MediaWiki FAQMW:FAQ

I propose we move the MediaWiki FAQ to the MediaWiki wiki. This page is relevant to local installations of MediaWiki, not Wikimedia Foundation wikis. // Pathoschild (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


Looks like that move went ahead. I support it, but lets try not to lose lots of valuable information. See my comment here. Did you move/merge, or just delete?? -- Harry Wood 12:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The page on MediaWiki is licensed under the public domain, so it is not possible to simply move/merge content from meta. A lot of the early work was done by mw:User talk:RobChurch so you may want to ask him what his approach was - he may be able to give you an idea about how much information was lost. The short answer though is have a look and see if anything is missing, and if so write it! You are not allowed to simply copy content from meta though due to incompatible licences.
It occurs to me that the Help namespace is ultimately designed to be included in distributions of MW as help for users. With this in mind, installation/config/coding issues are not really relevant in mw:Help:FAQ, so perhaps we need a new page for this kind of thing (mw:Manual:FAQ or would that be too confusing?). If so, it should be in the Manual: namespace, and will be under GFDL, so direct copying from meta would be allowed. --HappyDog 20:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah the above comments were written back in July 06 and are now out-of-date for two reasons.

Firstly the move which went ahead, was since undone (which doesn't surprise me since it seems it involved throwing away a lot of information!)

Secondly some people were confused about the license status of MediaWiki.org back then. This has since been clarified. Most content on mediawiki org is licensed GFDL (same as here). This includes mw:Manual:FAQ and everything under the 'Manual' namespace there. There is one relatively small area of that wiki which is realeased as Public Domain (and thus not compatible with the license here), but legally speaking there is nothing to stop us doing a wholesale move of everything from this FAQ onto mw:Manual:FAQ. This has since been made a lot more clear, with a different background design for the small public domain area of mediawiki.org, so hopefully there's no more confusion about licenses.

With the question of what we can do cleared up... there's still a question of what we should do, to rationalise this documentation situation. As I said before I am actually in favour of moving this page over the MediaWiki.org eventually. But it would be nice to give it a re-write and/or split out into seperate pages without losing any chunks of information. This is a tricky job. And what with all the interlinking, this isn't really the easiest place to start in our Meta:MetaProject to transfer content to MediaWiki.org

-- Harry Wood 10:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Kept

Don't be a dickDon't be a jerk

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

  • 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)
    • It was already bowdlerised from "Don't be a fuckhead". Also, is it traditional on meta to count someone's contributions, or were these [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] just a special case? 'Cos User:Boombox appears to have been created for this one discussion - David Gerard 16:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree that such changes should be decided by established users. However, that wouldn't invalidate this discussion, it would simply mean that Boombox wouldn't recieve a vote. Are there guidelines for this weighted voting system? If not, we should create them. // Pathoschild (talk) 21:48, 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)
  • Oppose - despite what the words really mean, "dick and "jerk" have come to bascially mean the same thing in English. --Khoikhoi 06:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Not according to wiktionary or dictionary.com. // Pathoschild (talk) 07:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm talking about common usage, not the original meaning of the word. --Khoikhoi 02:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Common usage is termed slang, which is covered by both sources I cited. // Pathoschild (talk) 03:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - move instead to Don't bowdlerise Meta. We've had this discussion repeatedly - David Gerard 15:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Because it is 'vulgar' (in the original sense) 'associated with the great masses of people'. 'Don't be a Dick' also communicates effectively in the vernacular the enthusiasm associated with Wikiwork. If we are striving for political correctness, let's go with "Don't be a Shmuck" ... it's got the laissez-faire needed for Wikiwork (but we lose the robust connotation). Ziggles Metropolitan 16:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    • "Schmuck" is in US common usage, not other forms of English - David Gerard 19:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
      • "Shmuck" (an approved variant form) is in common US usage, but is from the Yiddish 'shmok' for penis (or fool)[6]. I suspect most Indo-European English-speaking WikiUsers have a passing familiarity with Yiddish.Ziggles Metropolitan 00:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support -- When people look up things in the dictionary and encyclopedia, I think they'd be rather offended to find entries with such strong language, and so being vulgar like this could alienate common users of the Net. 69.107.123.129 19:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think anyone wants to alienate users, but this reference is not likely to be perused by "casual" users ... it's buried a bit deeply in WikiSpace. A casual user is generally not editing content. Remember, "Be Bold." Ziggles Metropolitan 00:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, if we just keep refining things to be "PC" it just makes everything seem generic and meaningless. I think the slightly harsh nature of saying "don't be a dick" helps this stand out, in a situation where it is a bit like a virtual slap (but not a slap of insult, more like when you slap someone who is in hysterics or just out of it). This is one of the few cases were I believe it's appropriate for the Don't be a dick to have a bit of attitude to help it be effective. Such as a humbling effect, if that makes any sense. I know we usually avoid these kinds of things, but like I said, I think this is a case where it would be much wiser to make an exception, instead of just trying to be PC and sounding like a generic message. -- Ned Scott 07:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support We shouldn't have a vulgar title for the Wikimedia page. 64.12.117.10 21:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per Ned Scott. We don't need to censore such things just to "PC" -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 22:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, if for no other reason than this is a slippery slope. Alfred Centauri 03:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Value systemsMeta:Historical/Value systems

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

Not moved. // Pathoschild (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Move queue

2006-03-31

Closing date: 2006-04-14

Simple View of Ethics and MoralsMeta:Historical/Simple View of Ethics and Morals

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)

Yes check.svg Done. -- mzlla 22:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

logo pages → Meta:Historical/International logo contest

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)