Talk:Passing off

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Clackmannanshireman 01:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree Catobonus (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]