Talk:Defence in depth (non-military)
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Unfocused
[edit]What is this article about? Is it a collection or list of subject domains that happen to use this term in some manner? Is that why the lead is so short and inadequate, because it's difficult to pin down what this page is? Sounds like maybe it should be a disambiguation page instead. Mathglot (talk) 00:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- I've created Defence in depth (disambiguation), and imho this article, Defence in depth (non-military), no longer has any reason to exist. It should be deleted. Mathglot (talk) 06:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Article title with negative parenthetical
[edit]The use of the negative (non-military) for parenthetical disambiguation in the title seems to violate general standards for article titles, as well as WP:NCDAB and WP:PARENDIS, as well as the list of parenthetical disambig distribution findings. Mathglot (talk) 00:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: I have opened a discussion that may bear on this topic; see
Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Negative parentheticals. Mathglot (talk) 01:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- There are good comments there. This article may possibly be "either a broken disambiguation or broad-concept page. I'm currently leaning towards moving Defence in depth to Defence in depth (military) and renaming this page to remove the parenthetical and take over primary article position as a broad concept article. Thoughts? Mathglot (talk) 16:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)