Jump to content

Talk:TPM

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

Talk

[edit]

What's the deal with "tpm: the disappearing article"?--Mike Schiraldi 23:51, 12 August 2005 (UTC) What is the deal with TPM: the nonexistent article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.164.123 (talk) 22:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technical protection measures

[edit]

User:Gyrofrog This is an unusual entry, in that it's a potential article alternative name that isn't in the article as bolded (so technically fails wording of WP:DABREDIR 1. 2.). It may be best described as a related word, and I've changed the target to a redirect to section/related. Per WP:DABREDIR it may fit best as having it's own definition and has potential to be made into its own entry (arguably the spirit of WP:DABREDIR 1. 2.). The letter of MOSDAB says it should be a WP:DABMENTION but as the redirect exists, and is the ambiguous term, I personally favour using that (WP:NOTBROKEN, ultimately RfD) and its own definition avoiding the article title link completely (as done). Widefox; talk 13:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Widefox: Honestly I can't remember why I made that edit when I did. If I had to guess, it was either a redlink, or it redirected to that article anyway and I changed it to a direct link. But I'm really not sure. No objections to your edit in any case. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thx for reply. Latter I think, which seems technically correct per MOSDAB. I think either way is good for readers, but anyone objecting should revert mine and discuss as not strict per MOSDAB. Widefox; talk 14:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Missing acronyms

[edit]

@Davey2116: Neither the Tea Party movement nor The Photographer's Mail are referred to by the acronym TPM in their respective articles, and so should not be included per MOS:DABACRO. What's the reason for restoring them? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]