Misplaced Pages

Talk:Tankie: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:43, 30 January 2013 editCerejota (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers15,178 edits →as per AfD, #REDIRECT to Communist_Party_of_Great_Britain#Tankie: new section← Previous edit Revision as of 18:13, 4 September 2019 edit undoGlades12 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users16,335 edits Added WikiProject Socialism bannerTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile editNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
{{oldafdfull| date = 3 January 2013 (UTC) | result = '''merge to ]''' | page = Tankie }} {{oldafdfull| date = 3 January 2013 (UTC) | result = '''merge to ]''' | page = Tankie }}
{{WikiProject Socialism}}

{{WP UK Politics|class=|importance=}} {{WP UK Politics|class=|importance=}}
Talk Tankie: Talk Tankie:
there is an alternative definition - and an honourable one! I refer to menbers of the world's first Tank formation; the Royal Tank Regiment. This is the successor to the Royal Tank Corps, which itself was succeeded by the Royal Armoured Corps incorporating the old - and obsolete - Cavalry regiments. But THOSE are NOT TANKIES: who of course, RULE! Not that I myself could be accused of being in the the slightest prejudiced in any way...! there is an alternative definition - and an honourable one! I refer to menbers of the world's first Tank formation; the Royal Tank Regiment. This is the successor to the Royal Tank Corps, which itself was succeeded by the Royal Armoured Corps incorporating the old - and obsolete - Cavalry regiments. But THOSE are NOT TANKIES: who of course, RULE! Not that I myself could be accused of being in the the slightest prejudiced in any way...!
:Not really relevant, I don't think. I've added sources about the use of the term ] ] 01:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC) :Not really relevant, I don't think. I've added sources about the use of the term ] ] 01:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

==Sources, deletion, etc== ==Sources, deletion, etc==
I've added sources and so on. I think the ''topic'' is worth a mention - it's one of those phrases that get used in political culture in the UK. Whether it deserves a separate page, or merging, is another matter. ] ] 01:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC) I've added sources and so on. I think the ''topic'' is worth a mention - it's one of those phrases that get used in political culture in the UK. Whether it deserves a separate page, or merging, is another matter. ] ] 01:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:13, 4 September 2019

Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 3 January 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge to Communist Party of Great Britain.
WikiProject iconSocialism Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics of the United Kingdom Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Talk Tankie: there is an alternative definition - and an honourable one! I refer to menbers of the world's first Tank formation; the Royal Tank Regiment. This is the successor to the Royal Tank Corps, which itself was succeeded by the Royal Armoured Corps incorporating the old - and obsolete - Cavalry regiments. But THOSE are NOT TANKIES: who of course, RULE! Not that I myself could be accused of being in the the slightest prejudiced in any way...!

Not really relevant, I don't think. I've added sources about the use of the term Jim Killock (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Sources, deletion, etc

I've added sources and so on. I think the topic is worth a mention - it's one of those phrases that get used in political culture in the UK. Whether it deserves a separate page, or merging, is another matter. Jim Killock (talk) 01:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it belongs in wikitionary, not wikipedia.--Cerejota (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Also, the further sections seem like original research - precisely one of the reasons this belongs in wikitionary.--Cerejota (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps, but it's also the name of a faction, and reflective of the story of the perception of a current in British politics. There's more here than would get into Wiktionary. I've removed the two citation needed tags, and replaced with the Campbell reference. The way the term is used by Blair and Campbell indicates its currency, they drop it into conversation. Hope that is ok.

as per AfD, #REDIRECT to Communist_Party_of_Great_Britain#Tankie

I have completed it.--Cerejota (talk) 19:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:Tankie: Difference between revisions Add topic