Talk:Legal rights

message: I've reverted this talk page back to the last version before the above-discussed merger (after which point all talk has occurred at Talk:Natural and legal rights) because User:Blue-Haired Lawyer (hereafter "BHL", if you will) recently split this article out again from Natural and legal rights, to which it had been merged.
As you can see in the above discussion, the reason for the merger was the very small amount of content here. Most of it was redundant with Rights in general; with that article in existence, the subject of this article must be about rights only inasmuch as they are of a legal nature. The content added here by BHL is more substantiative than what was here before, but I have my doubts about how much more there is to add on the subject of rights qua their legality alone.
I would suggest that instead of splitting this article out now, the content BHL has added be used to flesh out the legal-rights side of Natural and legal rights (which is in sore need of it, because of how little content there was here to merge there), and if that article gets too big, then two articles on "Natural rights" and "Legal rights" be split out again.
In any case, if a split does occur, then Natural and legal rights should become Natural rights again. It wouldn't make any sense, for comparison, to have an article on Negative and positive rights and then a separate article on Positive rights.
Also, in case the articles are split again / this stays split out, the proper title should be Legal rights, not Legal right. All rights-related articles are currently in the plural (see the discussion which lead to that), so we shouldn't have just one of them break that consistency.
--Pfhorrest (talk) 04:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest a split. I don't think everyone who looks up legal right on Wikipedia wishes to have an article comparing them to natural right, even if this article never expands beyond two paragraphs. As far as using the plural is concerned, I fine with it if that's the convention. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 10:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split again? 

message: The only person who ever agreed with the deletion was you!? — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 00:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The only person who ever posts on this talk page is you. All other discussion has happened on the talk page of the merged article. Please take the discussion there if you want to get a proper audience of interested parties. --Pfhorrest (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

text: In fact upon examination this page only exists here because of another editor wrongly singularizing all the "rights" articles across the wiki. This page used to be Talk:Legal rights and had no comments since its creation until my merge proposal at the top, five years ago; and then no further comments until you began your intermittent crusade to fork the article three years after that. If there were to be an article on legal rights separate from the one on natural rights, it would belong at Legal rights anyway. This talk page shouldn't be here. --Pfhorrest (talk) 01:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no merged article. Just this one which you keep deleting! — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 09:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus??