31:
488:
many will be regifting their loot this year. According to
Knowledge Regifting is the act of taking a gift that has been received and giving it to somebody else, sometimes in the guise of a new gift. There is even a website regiftable.com to help give you ideas or share your regifting stories. Will you regift anything that you've received this week, and why? Or have you ever regifted anything in the past? If so, share your stories with us.
548:
discussion page I've introduced this topic. I believe there's plenty of latitude to include here an extension of the regifting concept in relation to the concepts of reuse, recycle, and the recent developments of online gift economies but living on it's own just doesn't seem to provide any benefits
487:
Talk of the Day. December 25, 2008. (St. Louis Post-Dispatch) -- It's
Christmas Day, the fifth day of Hanukkah, and the day before Kwanzaa. You probably received your gifts already, or soon will. There's talk on various television news shows, talk shows and other media that because of the economy,
337:
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
475:
has specific social implications that have little to do with re-use and there are many articles available discussing the act of re-gifting
Christmas presents since it's popularity in 1995. The fact that in the Seinfeld episode in 1995, the word had negative social implications and a decade later
397:
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
411:
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
282:
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.
592:"regifting" or "regiving" are among the more appalling Americanisms. Can anyone suggest an alternative that isn't so misleading? To openly dispose of an "unwanted gift" - no gentleman would sell a gift - is certainly not a form of gifting. It is mercenary and ungrateful.
451:
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. --
301:
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).
437:
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.
425:
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.
523:
but noticed that it says "Regiving ... also known as
Regifting". There seems no difference between the concepts discussed in the two articles, so they should be merged, with redirects from unused titles.
274:
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 (
467:
merging. If you look through the published sources (I'm just going through some newspapers via Nexus at the moment, it shows me that there are 91 current published articles with
265:
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. --
210:
611:"Regifting has recently become more acceptable when it was adopted by environmentally and budgetary conscience people that encourage the Green Gifting concept."
593:
116:
550:
398:
prematurely, which will distract from others weighing in on the topic. Would you consider re-instating the banner on this page, please?
203:
339:
630:
383:
page. Discussion is ongoing (slowly) and consensus has not (yet) been reached. The tag was removed from this page by
476:
there are many articles which make it a positive act due to the influence of the recycling ethos is worth capturing.
38:
235:
I'm not sure the MSN money article qualifies as peer reviewed primary or secondary source for the statment given
597:
112:
554:
412:
that's usually due to a lack of follow-up on the part of the editor who proposed the merge to begin with. --
108:
219:
194:
167:
144:
88:
618:
104:
622:
495:
626:
577:
453:
413:
408:
266:
247:. Perhaps you could say, more weakly, "MSN Money's MP Dunleavey claims...". Comments? --
132:
572:
I'd encourage you to go ahead with the merge and then turn regiving into a redirect. --
299:
529:
83:
47:
17:
358:
162:
520:
491:
332:
The following is an interesting addition if we can find a reliable second source...?
573:
439:
427:
399:
388:
361:
344:
315:
303:
284:
275:
257:
254:
248:
240:
159:
614:
Is there a study that shows this is true? Ed Gris 18:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
244:
236:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
601:
581:
558:
533:
499:
483:
Out of interest you will note a recent press reference to this
Knowledge page:
456:
442:
430:
416:
402:
391:
364:
347:
318:
306:
287:
269:
260:
222:
197:
170:
147:
311:
525:
376:
279:
190:
125:
447:
Again, regifting doesn't fit at all with what can currently be read in the
193:, shouldn't the redirect from Mathom to this article be removed as well? --
545:
516:
509:
154:
338:
lovely scarf"). Then Jane will either accept it or instantly regift it.
207:
71:
448:
380:
131:
never stated that the word "mathom" was uttered or refered to in
471:
in the headline and 992 with it mentioned in the body) the word
384:
97:
93:
25:
278:) on etiquette regarding regifting. If you go to the main
253:
Are this source's sources, (the today show, Moselt Pierce
186:
179:
92:
novels which were originally published in the years
379:was proposed to be merged into a section of the
335:
256:, others?), experts on popular ettiquette? --
8:
387:. I have added it back here for discussion.
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
7:
353:articles on regifting for discussion
78:The term Mathom was in use prior to
230:reference for regifting etiquette?
24:
29:
1:
602:07:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
582:00:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
500:10:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
559:20:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
534:12:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
82:using it. It is metioned by
607:Support for this assertion?
649:
365:04:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
348:03:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
319:04:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
307:04:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
288:23:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
270:13:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
261:03:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
223:19:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
198:14:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
171:14:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
148:14:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
314:reports on same survery.
457:15:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
443:05:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
431:05:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
417:15:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
403:05:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
392:05:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
182:when any mentioning of
119:) 15:19, 25 August 2006
342:
327:a patent on regifting?
89:The Lord of the Rings
42:of past discussions.
635:
621:comment added by
544:Actually, on the
298:Did find a review
225:
173:
121:
107:comment added by
67:
66:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
640:
634:
615:
371:Merge into Reuse
217:
187:has been removed
165:
120:
101:
63:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
648:
647:
643:
642:
641:
639:
638:
637:
616:
609:
513:
373:
355:
329:
232:
152:Definitions of
139:that mentioned
102:
76:
59:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
646:
644:
608:
605:
594:124.197.15.138
591:
589:
588:
587:
586:
585:
584:
565:
564:
563:
562:
549:to Knowledge (
515:I came across
512:
506:
505:
504:
503:
502:
484:
478:
477:
461:
460:
459:
434:
433:
422:
421:
420:
419:
372:
369:
368:
367:
354:
351:
334:
333:
328:
325:
324:
323:
322:
321:
295:
294:
293:
292:
291:
290:
263:
231:
228:
227:
226:
177:
176:
175:
174:
158:from Tolkien:
109:151.193.220.29
84:J.R.R. Tolkien
75:
68:
65:
64:
52:
51:
34:
23:
18:Talk:Regifting
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
645:
636:
632:
628:
624:
620:
612:
606:
604:
603:
599:
595:
583:
579:
575:
571:
570:
569:
568:
567:
566:
560:
556:
552:
551:76.254.61.221
547:
543:
540:
539:
538:
537:
536:
535:
531:
527:
522:
518:
511:
507:
501:
497:
493:
489:
485:
482:
481:
480:
479:
474:
470:
466:
463:I'm strongly
462:
458:
455:
450:
446:
445:
444:
441:
436:
435:
432:
429:
424:
423:
418:
415:
410:
406:
405:
404:
401:
396:
395:
394:
393:
390:
386:
382:
378:
375:This article
370:
366:
363:
360:
357:
356:
352:
350:
349:
346:
341:
340:
331:
330:
326:
320:
317:
313:
310:
309:
308:
305:
300:
297:
296:
289:
286:
281:
277:
273:
272:
271:
268:
264:
262:
259:
255:
252:
251:
250:
246:
242:
238:
234:
233:
229:
224:
221:
220:83.253.36.136
215:
214:
209:
205:
202:
201:
200:
199:
196:
195:83.253.36.136
192:
188:
185:
181:
172:
169:
168:83.253.36.136
163:
160:
157:
156:
151:
150:
149:
146:
145:83.253.36.136
142:
138:
136:
130:
128:
124:
123:
122:
118:
114:
110:
106:
99:
95:
91:
90:
85:
81:
74:
73:
69:
62:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
617:— Preceding
613:
610:
590:
541:
521:Stub-sorting
514:
486:
472:
468:
464:
407:Here's what
374:
343:
336:
312:This article
212:
191:this article
183:
178:
153:
140:
134:
126:
87:
79:
77:
70:
60:
43:
37:
508:Merge from
103:—Preceding
36:This is an
454:MisterHand
414:MisterHand
385:MisterHand
267:MisterHand
211:closed as
377:Regifting
280:etiquette
141:regifting
61:Archive 1
631:contribs
619:unsigned
546:regiving
542:I agree.
517:Regiving
510:Regiving
492:Ashleyvh
409:WP:MERGE
135:Seinfeld
117:contribs
105:unsigned
80:Seinfeld
623:Ed Gris
574:Horkana
465:against
440:Jethero
428:Jethero
400:Jethero
389:Jethero
362:Jethero
345:Jethero
316:Jethero
304:Jethero
285:Jethero
258:Jethero
249:Jethero
137:episode
129:article
86:in his
39:archive
519:while
473:regift
469:regift
213:Delete
208:Mathom
184:mathom
155:mathom
72:Mathom
449:Reuse
381:reuse
359:Here.
276:WP:RS
241:WP:RS
189:from
16:<
627:talk
598:talk
578:talk
555:talk
530:talk
526:PamD
496:talk
245:WP:A
237:WP:V
206:for
161:and
143:. --
133:the
127:This
113:talk
98:1955
96:and
94:1954
204:RfD
180:Now
633:)
629:•
600:)
580:)
557:)
532:)
498:)
218:--
216:.
166:--
164:.
115:•
100:.
625:(
596:(
576:(
561:)
553:(
528:(
494:(
490:—
243:/
239:/
111:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.