Timeline for Why don't we call migrate just migrate?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 20, 2014 at 12:10 | comment | added | Requist | Maybe I should have asked "Why don't we remove the migration option and use move to Meta instead?" However my question was not so much about the option itself but about confusion which the two descriptions could give seen within the same list. For experienced users no problem, they know the options and inexperienced users will just walk into a dead end and probably find the "Not Ubuntu" close option when the other did not work out. But nevertheless it looks confusing to me. | |
| Dec 19, 2014 at 23:49 | comment | added | Virusboy | @seth and me did discuss this in depth. Although the conclusion come to write a commented moderator flag. | |
| Dec 18, 2014 at 9:45 | comment | added | Rodislav Moldovan | Technically a migration seems to work like this: 1. make sure the user have an account on the requested site 2. copy the question to new site 3. close/delete question from here and don't forget maybe the question is written correctly !? this is a quite complex mechanism, I think is easier to do it manually by the user :) | |
| Dec 17, 2014 at 22:17 | comment | added | muru | We had a few migration paths open, but they got closed. So now the only open path is to [meta]. | |
| Dec 17, 2014 at 20:19 | history | edited | SethMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 character in body; edited tags
|
| Dec 17, 2014 at 20:19 | comment | added | Seth Mod | I think they used "belongs on another site in the SE network" so users wouldn't be confused with the word "migrate". I can't tell you, but I'm pretty sure it was just a plain "migrate" before the new close reasons were put in place.. | |
| Dec 17, 2014 at 20:16 | history | asked | Requist | CC BY-SA 3.0 |