USA PATRIOT Act, Title III
3 articles
- Main contribuitor: Ta bu shi da yu
Subtitle C does not have its own article. Nergaal ( talk) 15:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Should Subtitle C have its own article?
Gary King (
talk)
17:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- To me it doesn't seem to be broad enough.
Nergaal (
talk)
17:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
That's not the point Gary was making. Your statement is "Subtitle C does not have its own article", this isn't what you meant to say because clearly subtitle III does have its own article. I believe that you probably meant to write "Subtitle C should not have its own article". If that's the case, then I'm afraid I must respectfully disagree, and suggest that you should have taken this to AFD. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)- I swear, I am SUCH an idiot. Forgive me, Nergaal. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 08:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- To me it doesn't seem to be broad enough.
Nergaal (
talk)
17:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral - I was going to ask the same thing. Ta bu shi da yu retired on 16 November 2007, having got the articles to their current statuses in 2006, so it's not like he got 3/4 of the way through this project but then retired before he could create the Section C article. He doesn't have any rough drafts of a Section C article amongst his many subpages, either. But I am still not convinced that it can't merit its own article, so as a result I shall vote neutral.
- I wish we had him here, because then he could explain to us why it is/isn't notable. This is why, where possible, topic contributors should be notified of nominations -
rst20xx (
talk)
20:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't looks like the notability is the main issue, but the length of the subtitle; it has about 1/3 to 1/2 of the number of sections compared to the other two.
Nergaal (
talk)
23:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- So you're saying that notability has nothing to do with why the section C article doesn't exist?!? Do you in fact think it's notable enough to exist, then?
rst20xx (
talk)
00:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Nope. I am saying that since the subtitle C is significantly shorter than the other ones, all that is needed to be said about it is said in the main article. On the other hand, the other sections have more to be said about them so they go into more detail than C. Nergaal ( talk) 00:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Also, this
User:Ta bu shi da yu/Focus article, might be relevant.
Nergaal (
talk)
00:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Subtitle C has more subsections than Subtitle A on the Title III main article. That seems to suggest that it could be enough for a separate article —
Goodtimber (
walk/
talk)
01:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Nope. Assuming that
wikisource is right, there are 20/16/7 sections per subtitle.
Nergaal (
talk)
02:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- I meant Wikipedia-type subsections. But, knowing what you just said, I think that is more important. — Goodtimber ( walk/ talk) 03:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Nope. Assuming that
wikisource is right, there are 20/16/7 sections per subtitle.
Nergaal (
talk)
02:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Subtitle C has more subsections than Subtitle A on the Title III main article. That seems to suggest that it could be enough for a separate article —
Goodtimber (
walk/
talk)
01:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- So you're saying that notability has nothing to do with why the section C article doesn't exist?!? Do you in fact think it's notable enough to exist, then?
rst20xx (
talk)
00:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't looks like the notability is the main issue, but the length of the subtitle; it has about 1/3 to 1/2 of the number of sections compared to the other two.
Nergaal (
talk)
23:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support. I think the topic is complete. I could only speculate why the original editors did not create a separate article for Subtitle C, but I've looked at the articles and the text of the statute, and I don't really see much of a need for one. It looks to me like Subtitle C is a fairly straightforward criminal statute, and it is adequately covered in the main article. Rreagan007 ( talk) 03:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support I think that this meets the criteria. WE do not need an artilce on every section of every law in every county. Z gin der 2009-01-22T16:20Z ( UTC)
- Support - although a separate article for subsection C could have been of good use, I don't think its necessary to have all sections as articles. -- TRU CO 01:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- Am I misreading the
featured topic criteria 3.(a)(i) when I interpret it as requiring at least two featured items per featured topic? This only appears to have one. As an additional point, Ta bu shi da yu has actually returned to Wikipedia in the form of
User:Tbsdy lives, so those of you who were wishing he was still around might consider directing your questions there-wards.
Sarcasticidealist (
talk)
07:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- This is a good, not featured, topic nomination - rst20xx ( talk) 10:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- This is why it would be good to have split the GTC and FTC to separate pages.-- TRU CO 15:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- I wrote this. It's good material, but the more I look at it, the less I think it should be featured. -
Tbsdy lives (formerly
Ta bu shi da yu)
talk
13:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- First time I've ever seen featured topics, I thought that this was FARC! Silly me. In that case, I don't really see the problem, and also if the one submitting the article doesn't believe the Title III should have its own article, I must first strenuously disagree, and secondly urge them to take it to the correct area of Wikipedia, which is WP:AFD. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Close with consensus to promote - despite some confusion about whether section C deserves its own article, I think that
Tbsdy lives believes it shouldn't -
rst20xx (
talk)
14:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Not true. I said that I didn't think the quality was high enough, not that it doesn't deserve its own article. I got confused as to what I was debating. Sorry for any confusion. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 08:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
USA PATRIOT Act, Title III
3 articles
- Main contribuitor: Ta bu shi da yu
Subtitle C does not have its own article. Nergaal ( talk) 15:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Should Subtitle C have its own article?
Gary King (
talk)
17:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- To me it doesn't seem to be broad enough.
Nergaal (
talk)
17:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
That's not the point Gary was making. Your statement is "Subtitle C does not have its own article", this isn't what you meant to say because clearly subtitle III does have its own article. I believe that you probably meant to write "Subtitle C should not have its own article". If that's the case, then I'm afraid I must respectfully disagree, and suggest that you should have taken this to AFD. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)- I swear, I am SUCH an idiot. Forgive me, Nergaal. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 08:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- To me it doesn't seem to be broad enough.
Nergaal (
talk)
17:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral - I was going to ask the same thing. Ta bu shi da yu retired on 16 November 2007, having got the articles to their current statuses in 2006, so it's not like he got 3/4 of the way through this project but then retired before he could create the Section C article. He doesn't have any rough drafts of a Section C article amongst his many subpages, either. But I am still not convinced that it can't merit its own article, so as a result I shall vote neutral.
- I wish we had him here, because then he could explain to us why it is/isn't notable. This is why, where possible, topic contributors should be notified of nominations -
rst20xx (
talk)
20:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't looks like the notability is the main issue, but the length of the subtitle; it has about 1/3 to 1/2 of the number of sections compared to the other two.
Nergaal (
talk)
23:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- So you're saying that notability has nothing to do with why the section C article doesn't exist?!? Do you in fact think it's notable enough to exist, then?
rst20xx (
talk)
00:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Nope. I am saying that since the subtitle C is significantly shorter than the other ones, all that is needed to be said about it is said in the main article. On the other hand, the other sections have more to be said about them so they go into more detail than C. Nergaal ( talk) 00:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Also, this
User:Ta bu shi da yu/Focus article, might be relevant.
Nergaal (
talk)
00:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Subtitle C has more subsections than Subtitle A on the Title III main article. That seems to suggest that it could be enough for a separate article —
Goodtimber (
walk/
talk)
01:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Nope. Assuming that
wikisource is right, there are 20/16/7 sections per subtitle.
Nergaal (
talk)
02:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- I meant Wikipedia-type subsections. But, knowing what you just said, I think that is more important. — Goodtimber ( walk/ talk) 03:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Nope. Assuming that
wikisource is right, there are 20/16/7 sections per subtitle.
Nergaal (
talk)
02:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Subtitle C has more subsections than Subtitle A on the Title III main article. That seems to suggest that it could be enough for a separate article —
Goodtimber (
walk/
talk)
01:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- So you're saying that notability has nothing to do with why the section C article doesn't exist?!? Do you in fact think it's notable enough to exist, then?
rst20xx (
talk)
00:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't looks like the notability is the main issue, but the length of the subtitle; it has about 1/3 to 1/2 of the number of sections compared to the other two.
Nergaal (
talk)
23:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support. I think the topic is complete. I could only speculate why the original editors did not create a separate article for Subtitle C, but I've looked at the articles and the text of the statute, and I don't really see much of a need for one. It looks to me like Subtitle C is a fairly straightforward criminal statute, and it is adequately covered in the main article. Rreagan007 ( talk) 03:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support I think that this meets the criteria. WE do not need an artilce on every section of every law in every county. Z gin der 2009-01-22T16:20Z ( UTC)
- Support - although a separate article for subsection C could have been of good use, I don't think its necessary to have all sections as articles. -- TRU CO 01:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- Am I misreading the
featured topic criteria 3.(a)(i) when I interpret it as requiring at least two featured items per featured topic? This only appears to have one. As an additional point, Ta bu shi da yu has actually returned to Wikipedia in the form of
User:Tbsdy lives, so those of you who were wishing he was still around might consider directing your questions there-wards.
Sarcasticidealist (
talk)
07:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- This is a good, not featured, topic nomination - rst20xx ( talk) 10:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- This is why it would be good to have split the GTC and FTC to separate pages.-- TRU CO 15:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- I wrote this. It's good material, but the more I look at it, the less I think it should be featured. -
Tbsdy lives (formerly
Ta bu shi da yu)
talk
13:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- First time I've ever seen featured topics, I thought that this was FARC! Silly me. In that case, I don't really see the problem, and also if the one submitting the article doesn't believe the Title III should have its own article, I must first strenuously disagree, and secondly urge them to take it to the correct area of Wikipedia, which is WP:AFD. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Close with consensus to promote - despite some confusion about whether section C deserves its own article, I think that
Tbsdy lives believes it shouldn't -
rst20xx (
talk)
14:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Not true. I said that I didn't think the quality was high enough, not that it doesn't deserve its own article. I got confused as to what I was debating. Sorry for any confusion. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 08:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)