Talk:ACAB

1. REDIRECT Template:Old XfD multi

Page should be deleted

There is no purpose in this article existing and it has no redeemable value as a Wikipedia page. It should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:B078:6C00:79EC:D472:3D1A:413D (talk) 14:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

No you should be deleted, all cops are massive bastards 2600:2B00:6A1D:5700:935:B893:B98B:5B6A (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 30 July 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. wbm1058 (talk) 23:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

---

A.C.A.B. → Template:No redirect – MOS:ACRO says that Wikipedia "generally avoids using full point in upper-case acronyms", and practically all graffiti of this message omits the punctuation. Lord Belbury (talk) 10:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Also consistent with most titles in Category:Acronyms, and with RS usage. Colin M (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support per above. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Does this need a formal discussion or can it be done boldly? It appears uncontroversial. czar 18:26, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support per OP. — Bilorv (talk) 16:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 12:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Criticism summary in the lead.

The lead contains this sentence: Template:Tq. The one cited source doesn't say anything of the sort - it's a single primary opinion piece whose only mention of the term is Template:Tq I can't find anything in the body supporting it, either. It appears to just be the opinion of an editor, or, at best, an editor's uncited opinion of what they think people say. If we're going to have it in the lead we should ideally find secondary sourcing saying that it's a common slogan; at the very least we would need more than one opinion piece saying the same thing in the body which we can then summarize in the lead, otherwise the best we can say is "Steve Lopez says X", which isn't leadworthy. But at the moment there's a more basic problem that the Lopez piece (which would already be undue to summarize as the sole source of criticism in the lead) doesn't even actually say what we're citing it for. I resisted the urge to reword it into something like "Template:Tq" because I assume better sources can be found, but that's what we'd have to do if we want to rely on it exclusively. --Aquillion (talk) 06:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

according to what sources or content in the article?

@Bilorv in the first sentence Geysirhead (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

For context: this is about this diff and the categories Category:Political slurs for people and Category:Pejorative terms for people. The first sentence of the article currently reads: Template:TqTemplate:PbThere is no mention of the word "slur", but for some strange reason our article on pejorative defines both "pejorative" and "slur" as just being terms that are negative. I would have expected "slur" to be more narrowly applicable to terms of discrimination e.g. a homophobic word is a slur, but the negative phrase "mindless bureaucrat" is not. But I've self-reverted as the category system we have doesn't seem to follow this. — Bilorv (talk) 14:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

include Fuck 12

the phrase "Fuck 12" should be included in this article as well. — jonas (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)