Misplaced Pages

Talk:&c. (weblog)

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconWebsites: Computing
WikiProject iconThis redirect is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites
Taskforce icon
This redirect is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Requested move

I would like to see this article moved to &c., replacing the current disambiguation content. I do not think a disambiguation page is needed in this case, as "&c." is an archaic coding for Et cetera and cross-reference between the two articles is already in place. Could you please comment on this .. I don't want to start into the Misplaced Pages:How to rename (move) a page process required in this case without some sense of the opposition or support I would encounter if I were to do this. Thanks for your input. Courtland 04:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. --Quuxplusone 05:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Prior to this move request, the only meaning I knew for &c. was et cetera. I've never heard of this blog; I doubt it can be so much more common/important than et cetera that the disambiguation page be moved. I wouldn't mind seeing &c. redirect to Et cetera, with a disambig message at the top pointing to the blog. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:30, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose and I read TNR; the abbreviation is the primary meaning, to which the blog refers. Septentrionalis 22:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Can we assume then that the statement "archaic abbreviations include &c. and &/c." is not quite correct in the Et cetera article in that "archaic" is certainly not the right qualifier to use? It was this statement of being archaic that I based my original suggestion about the move. I really hadn't intended to take this to the move-forum until some input was gathered, but I don't fault User:Quuxplusone for being proactive and doing so. Courtland 00:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Courtland, I am not entirely sure of its current usage. I've only seen it used in older texts. But even if it is archaic, it may still be the dominant use. For instance, a very artificial example might be if someone made a web site or blog named "Thou"; even though the use of Thou as a second-person pronoun is archaic, it still would be the dominant usage, in my opinion. Nominating it on WP:RM was a good idea to solicit input, as it is unlikely this talk page would otherwise receive much traffic. I am a bit confused, though, by Quuxpluone's motivations. On the one hand he feels this article should replace the disambiguation page, but on the other, he's nominated it for deletion. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:06, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. Dragons flight 20:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

AfD result

Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on September 11, 2005. The result of the discussion was merge.

— JIP | Talk 19:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Categories: