Talk:&c. (weblog)

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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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

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)
- OK, &c. (weblog) is a two-sentence stub that is on WP:AFD. It certainly should not be at &c. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:34, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

Oppose as per Knowledge Seeker. Uppland 06:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

AfD result

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

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