Talk:Passing off
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Move request
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. 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 debate was PAGE MOVED per request. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Requested move
[edit]Passing off (legal term) → Passing off — Put article back where it came from. Article was moved because someone thought that it needed to make way for a disambig page. It later turned out that the other terms were not 'Passing off' but 'Passing', so if the current disambig page was cleaned strictly according to MoS:DP, it would meet WP:SPEEDY. AliceJMarkham 07:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Survey
[edit]Add * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''' on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
- Support reason given in request says it all. --AliceJMarkham 07:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Clackmannanshireman 01:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Abstain: This is one of those many occasions where the move should just be done. No need for a vote. Paul Beardsell 03:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]Add any additional comments: I agree with Paul, but was uncertain whether there might be any controversy. I would otherwise have put it into 'uncontroversial moves'. I believe that we can declare consensus. --AliceJMarkham 05:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.
Worldwide view
[edit]"The examples and perspective in this article discusses law in the United Kingdom may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. (February 2014)"
Two comments: 1) Although the article references UK law, the bulk of the discussion covers common law in general, and reference is also made to other jurisdictions (NZ, Australia)
2) A high proportion of the legal articles in Wikipedia cover their subject almost exclusively from the basis of US law; but are not given this marking.
Would whoever anonymously made the marking care to justify it? 146.198.220.104 (talk) 12:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- I agree Catobonus (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- Start-Class Australia articles
- Mid-importance Australia articles
- WikiProject Australia articles
- Start-Class Brands articles
- Mid-importance Brands articles
- WikiProject Brands articles
- Start-Class WikiProject Business articles
- Mid-importance WikiProject Business articles
- WikiProject Business articles
- Start-Class Invention articles
- Mid-importance Invention articles
- WikiProject Invention articles
- Start-Class law articles
- Low-importance law articles
- WikiProject Law articles
- Start-Class New Zealand articles
- Mid-importance New Zealand articles
- WikiProject New Zealand articles
- Start-Class United Kingdom articles
- Mid-importance United Kingdom articles
- WikiProject United Kingdom articles