Talk:Murphy's laws of combat

Old AFD[edit]

This article was nominated for deletion on 12/18/2006. The result of the discussion was No consensus..

Proposed Merge with Murphy's Law[edit]

Links: Murphy's Law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Discussion on proposed merge[edit]

I suggest that this article, instead of being deleted, be merged into Murphy's Law. Pumeleon^T 23:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make any sense. This is like having a list of dumb blonde jokes. Pascal.Tesson 23:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of uncentralized talk from Talk:Murphy's law

I know the proposed article is large, but taking notable examples from it (Such as "Friendly fire isn't friendly") and discussing it in context with Murphy's law canon would not make the article too large. Pumeleon^T 23:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against it. While Murphy's Laws of Combat share a name, they're really a completely different thing.Alternator 15:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment— Murphy's Laws of Combat are well know in military circles, but this is not encyclopedaic treatement. Some aren't correct. "No plan survives contact with the enemy" has been around forever. Possibly Napoleon. // FrankB

If the statement doesn't follow the format "Whatever can go wrong, will", then it really shouldn't be added to Murphy's Law. The adage "No plan survives contact with the enemy" does not equate to a "Murphy's Law" type statement because the plan could go much BETTER than anticipated (as in 1991's Operation Desert Storm). Fadamor 13:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC -5)

Support We could select particular examples of it, whichever follow the format of Murphys Law and merge it with the main article. I don't have much knowledge of the military, but I've still heard of some of these. I do not support removing them outright, but a selection of them would be good. xCentaur | ☎ 09:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poll on Mergeto[edit]

Strong Oppose This doesn't belong in ML, which can at least trace it's historic origins and the eponym that generated the phrase. A read of Spark's book, all but shouts, John Stapp coined the phrase, and if not he, his staff, and he certainly popularized it. So apples and oranges don't mix. // FrankB 05:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]