Talk:Friendly amendment

Merge with Amendment

I think this article should merge into Amendment. Ronruser (talk) 04:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lacking any expertise in parliamentary procdure, I cannot make a strong statement. But the reason I prefer to keep this article is that the term "friendly amendment" is part of English lexicon. If anybody can find a culturally significant example of this phrase being used in such a way that it impacts people not involved with parliamentary procedure, then this should stand as an independent article, IMHO. See for example Gentleman's agreement. Wiktionary is for defining words, but whether we like it or not, there seems to be a trend towards using Wikipedia to describe commonly used phrases.

I stumbled into this article when I was writing v:Second_Journal_of_Science/Past_issues/Editorials. Not only would it be a conflict of interest for me to insert this example into Friendly amendment, but nobody else should either. Wikiversity should never serve as a source for a Wikipedia article, ever. --Guy vandegrift (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to keep them separate. Ronruser (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a merge would make sense, and provided there is a redirect - people could search for friendly amendment and find the definition easily inside of Amendment.

> If anybody can find a culturally significant example of this phrase being used in such a way that it impacts people not involved with parliamentary procedure, then this should stand as an independent article, IMHO.

I can't think of one, and even still it's much more closely associated to parlimentary procedure than anything else, and we can just mention it briefly in Amendment. 2605:A601:A0F8:6B00:0:0:0:C0 (talk) 13:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]