Talk:Regift

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Seinfeld WikiProject, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Seinfeld-related articles. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page and add your name to the members list.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Mathom

The term Mathom was in use prior to Seinfeld using it. It is metioned by J.R.R. Tolkien in his The Lord of the Rings novels which were originally published in the years 1954 and 1955. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.193.220.29 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 25 August 2006

This article never stated that the word "mathom" was uttered or refered to in the Seinfeld episode that mentioned regifting. --83.253.36.136 14:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Definitions of mathom from Tolkien: [1] and [2]. --83.253.36.136 14:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Now when any mentioning of mathom has been removed from this article, shouldn't the redirect from Mathom to this article be removed as well? --83.253.36.136 14:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

RfD for Mathom closed as Delete. --83.253.36.136 19:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reference for regifting etiquette?

  • I'm not sure the MSN money article qualifies as peer reviewed primary or secondary source for the statment given WP:V/WP:RS/WP:A. Perhaps you could say, more weakly, "MSN Money's MP Dunleavey claims...". Comments? -- Jethero
    • Are this source's sources, (the today show, Moselt Pierce[3], others?), experts on popular ettiquette? -- JetheroTalk 03:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I like the current wording "Several rules of etiquette are proposed in popular media regarding regifting". That seems to accurately represent what we're seeing at the source. -- MisterHand 13:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks, I did just recently change it from a more direct statement of 'what the etiquette is' to 'what a piece of popular media says the etiquette is'. I'd still like a more authoritative source (WP:RS) on etiquette regarding regifting. If you go to the main etiquette page, it is itself very poorly sourced in many cases. It seems to me we are making our own judgement as to what is or is not etiquette regarding regifting by choosing which popular media articles to include or not. I still doubt that MSN-Money is an authoritative source for etiquette. JetheroTalk 23:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Did find a review[4] of a survey that claims more than 1/2 of people surveyed regift because the gift will be appreciated and more than 1/2 don't find it rude (a.k.a. decietful?). Also, significant number (1/3) do so to save money (a.k.a. resources). JetheroTalk 04:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] a patent on regifting?

  • The following is an interesting addition if we can find a reliable second source...?

Last year, one William Dodd obtained a patent on a new regifting technology that lets you regift something before you've even received it. (I'm not making this up!) Soon, that scarf you bought online for Jane could be virtually regifted via e-mail. ("Happy Holidays, Jane -- Vera has sent you this lovely scarf"). Then Jane will either accept it or instantly regift it.[5]

JetheroTalk 03:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] articles on regifting for discussion

[edit] Merge into Reuse

This article Regifting was proposed to be merged into a section of the reuse page. Discussion is ongoing (slowly) and consensus has not (yet) been reached. The tag was removed from this page by MisterHand. I have added it back here for discussion. JetheroTalk 05:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


  • MisterHand, I'm not very familiar with ettiquette regarding mergers. Is a two week limit on discussion typical and/or recommended? I've seen merger banners up for much longer, so I am surprised. Also, May 6 will be two weeks from the last comments I made. I feel this banner has been pulled down prematurely, which will distract from others weighing in on the topic. Would you consider re-instating the banner on this page, please? JetheroTalk 05:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Here's what WP:MERGE has to say: "If there is clear agreement with the proposal by consensus (at least 5 days) or silence (at least 10 days), proceed with the merger." I couldn't find anything that gave a time limit on when to take a merge tag down. There are a lot of merge tags that linger for months or years, but that's usually due to a lack of follow-up on the part of the editor who proposed the merge to begin with. -- MisterHand 15:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Although there was not consensus, many points I tried to raise in the proposal were not addressed, and I beleive the discussion rebuttals were made to the two opposing views and have not yet been answered. JetheroTalk 05:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • In the discussion it became clear that regifting was related to both reuse and 'gift'. If I reword the proposal to indicate a mention in both of these pages, I beleive that might satisfy the two opposing claims. JetheroTalk 05:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Again, regifting doesn't fit at all with what can currently be read in the Reuse article. That article is about environmental issues, this article is cultural in nature. There are more aspects to regifting than merely reuse. Also, I would argue that, typically, a "regifted" item has never been "used" in the first place. -- MisterHand 15:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)