Talk:minority government
Latest comment: 13 years ago by DAVilla
The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
minority government[edit]
Delete. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 12:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Strong keep - I didn't know what a minority government before I came across it and looked up a definition. I thought it might be a government of minorities (you know, a government made of chinks, yids, fags, niggaz, pakis, johnny foreigners etc.) or government run by a minority party (e.g. a Lib Dem government). But it's not. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 12:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Is it necessary to use derogatory words in your comments? Whether or not intended as humor, I find them offensive and I think you should apologize.Facts707 10:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Strong keep - I didn't know what a minority government before I came across it and looked up a definition. I thought it might be a government of minorities (you know, a government made of chinks, yids, fags, niggaz, pakis, johnny foreigners etc.) or government run by a minority party (e.g. a Lib Dem government). But it's not. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 12:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- As I said on your user page, that means we need a
{{politics}}definition for minority, which I've now added:- (politics, used attributively of a party, government, &c.) Empowered by or representing a minority (usually a plurality) of votes cast, legislative seats, &c., rather than an outright majority thereof.
- Do you now see that (deprecated template usage) minority government is nothing but the sum of its parts? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 13:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- As I said on your user page, that means we need a
- Keep IMO. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Having the sense at minority doesn't automatically make this a deletion candidate. Even if it is sum of parts, it can still be idiomatic, and I'd say this is. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep IMO. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Strong keep, the reason being is that the term implies a particular meaning of (deprecated template usage) minority, which would not be clear to someone reasonably fluent in English and who knows the meanings of "minority" and (deprecated template usage) government but had not heard of "minority government" before. Facts707 10:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- But it's not idiomatic, in that the meaning is made up of some combination of the meaning of the component words, not an entirely different meaning. Facts707 10:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Strong keep. The meaning of minority is not obvious, even if it is one of the definitions of the work. Compare with "minority rule" where the minority meaning is totally different.--Dmol 00:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)