 | This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past. |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Requested move
edit- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Page moved to Re: (band). Vegaswikian (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Re: → Re: (music project) — The common usage of "re:" is in email, this title should redirect to RE (e-mail). 65.94.45.160 (talk) 12:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Survey
edit- Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with
*'''Support'''or*'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
- Support: Seems like a reasonable assumption that most people will be looking for information about the email notation. –CWenger (^ • @) 20:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. A more consistent name for the article would be Re: (band). The (band) is a long held disambiguator for article names. I'll support a move to Re: (band). Argolin (talk) 23:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Re: (band) is fine by me. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 07:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Support Re: (band), if it is a band.--Kotniski (talk) 12:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Support Sensible. Move to Re: (band). Chubbles (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Support Chaosdruid (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Discussion
edit- Any additional comments:
- Would modifying the hatnote on this article to include a direct link to RE (e-mail) be a workable compromise? Powers T 14:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Not really, since the music thing is not the topic that should reside at this name, the email topic is, moving the email article here would be ok though. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 07:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Not really as "re:" is used in communications such as letters - you know, using a pen/printer and paper? for all of you under the age of 25, the common usage of re; is not emails as they are not the only form of written communications.
- I would love to see someone try and prove that though, imagine counting all the letters and emails sent all over the world in the last year that had re: in them just to show that there were more in emails...cu in 5yrs sukr lol Chaosdruid (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Either way, it's not this music thing. Do we have an article on memos using "re:"? 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Not really, since the music thing is not the topic that should reside at this name, the email topic is, moving the email article here would be ok though. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 07:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.