Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ihcoyc (talk | contribs) at 14:50, 28 March 2008 (→More Anti-pattern: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Moving pages

Hi - Please read WP:MOVE before moving any more pages. If you have any questions, leave a note on my talk page. Thanks! -SCEhardT 22:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't moved any pages today. Perhaps you mean WP:REDIRECT? Colonel Warden (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. That was rather cryptic. I was referring to the move of the contents of Feature creep. Although you didn't do it all at once, the end result was a copy/paste move, which causes the page history to be lost. Instead, please use the 'move' button. -SCEhardT 22:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not possible to move/overwrite an existing page unless you are an admin. I was performing a manual merge. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If the sole content (and history) of the destination page is a redirect, you should be able to move the page yourself. If not, you can make a request at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves. Regardless, the actions you performed result in a loss of page history (page history is required for compliance with the GFDL). If page B is empty, do not copy and paste content from page A to page B and then turn page A into a redirect. Use the move function instead, or request that an admin make the move. -SCEhardT 23:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

In this case we have multiple existing pages witn similar titles Feature creep, Featuritis, Scope creep, Functionality creep and who knows how many more. In this case, it seems best to keep the talk for each of these with the page it originated with rather than shuffling them about and confusing matters further. I see that you have moved Featuritis talk page to the talk page of Feature creep. What happened to the talk page for the latter? What if someone wanted to revert?

Anyway, little of either article survives - this is effectively a reset as I rebuilt from fresh sources. If there is some technical difficulty with my action, then, in future cases of this sort, I will retain nothing of the originals. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I see that Talk:Functionality creep has lots of chatter even though that was redirected after an AFD. Since that must have done by an admin, I'm confused. In your view, should that now be added to the talk for Feature creep or what? Since it is mostly bickering, it seems like a big waste of time. :) Colonel Warden (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I see now. I thought the content at Feature creep was a shortened version of what had previously been Featuritis. I didn't realize it was a collection of several articles. In this case, I think noting the names of the articles where the content came from (in the edit summary) is sufficient to track history for GFDL purposes. (Though if a majority of the content came from one article, it still wouldn't hurt to move it to the new name)

I think you are correct about the talk page. I put it back. There was no existing talk page for Feature creep, so it is blank now.

Phew - Hopefully this is all cleared up now :-) -SCEhardT 01:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Thanks for the barnstar! Much appreciated.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

More moves...

Hi,

I reverted your move of Anti-pattern to bad habit; the term "anti-pattern" is well established in CS literature, and not a neologism. Feel free to expand bad habit to discuss other relevant non-CS topics; but antipatterns are a sufficiently notable and relevant topic to deserve their own article. If you want to discuss this further, please do so at Talk:Anti-pattern. --EngineerScotty (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

More Anti-pattern

Actually, the non-list portions of the article read reasonably well. It seems to have been subjected to some copy editing.

It may well be a non-notable neologism; it does seem to be the sort of process management cruft I instinctively dislike. The instant page also seems to be an original synthesis. Apparently professional computer programmers react with some surprise when they discover that human foibles that have plagued every other sort of enterprise also are found within their own, so they concoct a new label. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)