Talk:Double Cross

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

The result of the move request was: Move Orlady (talk) 03:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Double cross (disambiguation) → Double cross — Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double cross, there seemed to be consensus for a merge over deletion. So I've merged the content of Double cross into the Betrayal article. We should now move this disambiguation page to the base title, as suggested in the AfD. That will necessitate a move of the current Double cross article to a new title, of course, in order to preserve the attribution history. Powers ^T 12:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Double cross → Double cross (betrayal)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

phrase over symbol

i dont like the weird dominance of stating this as a phrase or expression, and the much more obvious meeaning of it being a symbol is barely mentioned, and near to the bottom -- Aaa3-other | Talk | Contribs 00:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the information currently in our articles, the symbol is primarily known as the "double dagger or diesis". The term "double cross" isn't even mentioned in the Dagger (typography) article (currently). If you can find sources that support your belief (that the symbol meaning is more obvious or prevalent), and successfully add it to the Dagger (typography) article, then we would accordingly rewrite this disambiguation page. (Concisely: you're commenting in the wrong location). HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i meant the heraldic symbol on flags and church towers etc. you might be right about the wrong location thing however... --Aaa3-other | Talk | Contribs 17:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]