Wiktionary talk:Requests for moves, mergers and splits
We need some procedure for archiving this page. -- Prince Kassad 10:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- IMO when a discussion's over, or some time thereafter, archive using
{{archived}}(or a specialized template (not yet created AFAIK) à la rfc-archived, rfd-archived, rfv-archived, and feedback-archived, if desired) to the talkpage of one of the pages being discussed, with a link to that archive from the talkpage of each of the other pages being discussed. Thoughts?—msh210℠ (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC){{rfm-archived}}(smile). Mglovesfun (talk) 15:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
If this page is to exist, a consistent name would be Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup/other. I still don't think it is necessary though. Conrad.Irwin 21:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup/other would indicate that it would be for cleanup, rather than just for moves, merges and splits, and would also indicate that RFC would only be for entries and this page would only be for special pages. Not a very helpful title, IMO. --Yair rand 22:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- I quite like this title and we already have a few redirects pointing her. I don't know about "necessary", but I'd rather have page move discussion here. Previously, pages like the ones above were nominated for deletion, even when the nominator didn't want the article to be deleted! Mglovesfun (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
"Requests for moves, mergers and splits" is the current name of the current page. I find it too long. Wiktionary:Requests for manipulation seems a better title, because here we list requests for placement of existing pages, either by renaming, splitting or merging — a list of actions that is already explained at the introduction — rather than deleting or adding contents. --Daniel. 20:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- As pointed out by others, manipulation is much too vague. I'd like someone to manipulate my spine, but that's another story. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Here, the "manipulation" would be related to Wiktionary pages, of course. By the way, the titles "Beer parlour", "Grease pit" and even "Requests for verification" are not 100% accurate without their introductions and some more context. In addition, I'd like very much to place Transwiki requests at WT:RFM. --Daniel. 04:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
No consensus, striking. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Also WT:MOVE now redirs here. Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 17:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Is the procedure supposed to be the same, leave for a month to resolve, tag and wait for a week, then cut and paste discussion to the respective talk page? —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 01:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Old resolved discussions edit
There are a few old discussions I have come across here (for example zero width character and willfulness wilfulness that seem to be completely resolved, but the headings haven't been struckthrough. In such cases should I strikethrough the headings, or leave that to admins? - excarnateSojourner (talk|contrib) 06:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- If you see this, you should definitely feel free to strike them through. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- Great, thanks. - excarnateSojourner (talk|contrib) 20:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)