![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per request. - GTBacchus( talk) 23:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
Add * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''' on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
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 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)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per request. - GTBacchus( talk) 23:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
Add * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''' on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
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 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)