Talk:TPM

Talk
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)

Technical protection measures
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Missing acronyms
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)
 * Sorry. I meant to restore only the film The Phantom Menace (see AOTC, ROTS, ANH, TESB, ROTJ, TFA, and TLJ). Apologies again. Davey2116 (talk) 23:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure any of those examples are justified either. None of the Star Wars films listed on those pages are referred to by their respective initialisms. According to the guideline, they should probably all go, but since this specific kind of entry seems common, I've asked for more input at WikiProject Disambiguation. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)