Talk:Internal market (disambiguation)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Internal market (disambiguation) page.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

On 18 October 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Internal market. The result of the discussion was not moved.

POV?

"The Thatcher government also introduced an internal market into the National Health Service in 1990, which split the purchase (GP fundholders) and provision (NHS Trusts) of healthcare in the UK, in order to promote competition between providers and hence improved quality of service within the NHS."

Surely it's an opinion as to whether the quality of service got better in the NHS. Many may argue that it made quality and access worse. (Abelmore 14:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg

Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article really be a disambiguation page?

Having a brief look at articles which link to this page it looks like the editors meant to link to articles about the particular internal markets. As far as I can see an "internal market" is really just a label for a market which exists within something or a set, be that the NHS, the BBC, the EU or Yugoslavia. There's not an awful lot more you can say about it. I proposed to turn this page into a disambiguation page. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 19:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Internal Market which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Internal market which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 October 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lightoil (talk) 19:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Internal market (disambiguation) → Internal market – Per my talk page. Note previous RfD. Clyde _{[trout needed]} 16:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of proposal is this? Why would you refer readers to a cryptic conversation on your talk page? Please start again and write a coherent proposal that can be considered on its merits. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - a quick search on Google, both normal and books, shows almost entirely results relating to the EU internal market. That meaning of the term is certainly WP:PTOPIC by common usage, and it should remain a primary redirect, with other concepts staying on the dab page. — Amakuru (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No coherent case has been made for a change. As can be seen above, this same proposal was discussed and rejected relatively recently and no new evidence has been offered as to why it should even be proposed again, let alone discussed. WP:SNOW close. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, I think there's a misunderstanding here. The most recent discussion, linked in my nomination, concluded that there wasn't a primary topic? Clyde _{[trout needed]} 21:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is a misunderstanding and it is yours, of basic procedure. You have opened a Request to Move, giving no basis in that request for it. You refer to "the most recent discussion", omitting to mention that it involves two or three people on your own talk page. Seriously? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JMF: This is partly my fault - there was a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_August_13#Internal_market, which had very few participants and which I contested after the close, arguing that a requested move discussion of the sort we see here would be a better way to handle this, particularly given that prior RMs had concluded that there was a primary topic. Clyde kindly reverted the initial close and as part of that procedure opened the RM here; I assume that Clyde's own position on this is neutral, and the opening of the RM was intended to be procedural. CHeers — Amakuru (talk) 10:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose your talk page isn't the place to discuss these things—blindlynx 21:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fgnievinski and No such user: ping the users that supported this at RfD. Clyde _{[trout needed]} 22:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. As I suggested in RfD, "internal market" as a term for European market is basically obsolete, and likely to be used in other contexts. As an unlikely search term, it would better be directly pointing to the dab page. But we have wasted too much bytes already on a minor issue such as this. No such user (talk) 08:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.