Wikipedia talk:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Law

message: deleted "federal navigation servitude", as this topic is covered by navigable servitude 137.161.244.253 (talk)
deleted "restitution (legal definition)" from list of concepts, as there is already a pretty solid article on restitution and a separate one on unjust enrichment.  Further duplication probably unwelcome. Legis 11:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1 

message: Many of the Legal Terms would be nothing more than definitions, which don't really belong here do they?  --Doug.(talk • contribs) 06:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, many of these can be fleshed out by examples.  Some plainly can be just redirects.  Bearian 23:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Doug that a lot of these terms belong in the Wiktionary.  For example, a search in Wiktionary for the term "Errors and omissions" correctly finds a link to E&O insurance.  As for examples, such as case law or statutes, they always help the definition.  But the entry itself is still only a definition, and does not justify an entry in Wikipedia. Broadcaster101 (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal Terms or Definitions? 

message: Someone has proposed an article on the Performance Rights Act, http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h4789/show .  This is a bill that was introduced in the 110th Congress, and then died when that Congress ended with the bill unenacted.  I suggest that it does not meet notability standards.  We should probably have a guideline to address the notability of bills that are introduced, but not yet enacted.   The vast majority of such bills die without becoming law.  They're usually newsworthy. not not particularly notable, as that therm is used in Wikipedia.  I recognize that some proposed legislation may be notable regardless of whether it becomes law.  For example, as constitutional amendments, the Bricker Amendment and Equal Rights Amendment were each notable; and the Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937 was notable, even though it never passed.  but I would suggest that only a handful of such legislation is proposed in a century; most proposed statutes are not notable until enacted. TJRC (talk) 00:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: More discussion on this issue here--I would be interested in hearing your thoughts. Cheers, Stephen (talk) 01:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Performance Rights Act 

message: Could I request feedback on this article and help with clean up? Many thanks.  Martlayton 22:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Sara Kruzan

message: This is not a legal concept.
The OED gives: "With reference to (esp. central) European universities: the action or process of recognizing foreign degrees."
Otherthinker (talk) 10:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted nostrification (of diplomas/academic degrees) 

message: I am about to begin rough sketch for article at my userspace User:Mahitgar/legal awareness  on subject 'legal literacy' and/or 'legal awareness'.Requesting openion What is preferable  primary article name legal literacy or legal awareness ;personally I prefer term 'legal awareness' being broader term. You are well come to contribute and improve proposed article  legal awareness.
Mahitgar (talk) 03:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: legal literacy and/or legal awareness

message: Can some seasoned WP Writer draft an article on US v Rehlander?  ( I just added it here yesterday ), and I just son't know much about writing on Wikipedia, but this was a very recent case which changed a recent law implimented after other recent events.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.78.157.115 (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Squeaky Wheel on US v Rehlander 

message: There was a request listed for an article on the "Frankovitch case". I suspect the requester meant Francovich v Italy, as it seems this case is occasionally referred to (incorrectly) as Francovitch and Bonifaci v Italy. I have deleted the request on this basis, being unable to find any other case of note called Frankovitch. -NyshaTikva (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Frankovitch

message: can you please clarify how the mechanics of the administration of justice works and all aspects associated both written, physical, spiritual and mental if appropriate. frances lawless  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.15.5 (talk) 14:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  administration of justice in conection to due process  

message: (I think I got the name right. When it comes to legal matters I am an excellent electrical engineer...)
This case has been getting a lot of press. Google [ Nvidia GTX 970 lawsuit ] to see some of the coverage. Is there any chance that someone could create a Wikipedia page on the case? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nvidia GTX 970 Graphics Chip Litigation 

message: I've redirected this to Asset freezing, though even in that article, there is scope to develop the facts and law of the case. LexLife (talk) 12:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mareva Compania Naviera SA v. International Bulkcarriers SA 

message: I've redirected this to Anton Piller order, though even in that article, there is scope to develop the facts and law of the case. LexLife (talk) 12:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anton Piller KG v Manufacturing Processes Limited 

message: I've redirected this to Lex specialis. LexLife (talk) 12:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lex specialis derogat generali 

message: What are your thoughts about using Wikidata items in Wikipedia articles on law?  
Wikidata seems to me to be quite useful in that I can create a Wikidata item for a source I want, e.g., Judge .  Then each time I want to cite that source, it's as easy as finding it in Wikidata and using Template:Cite Q, as, e.g., .  
Creating a Wikidata item is more work than creating a single citation.  However, if I cite that source in more than one article, I think I get a better, more complete and more easily maintained references by using Wikidata.  This is particularly true with link rot:  If one web link is no longer valid, only the Wikidata entry needs to be changed to correct all the references that use that Wikidata entry.  Without that, the link would have to be fixed separately in every article that cites that source.    
I'm currently working to improve the Wikipedia article on Fish v. Kobach.  This case had two appeals (that I know of).  It occurs to me that it might be good to have one Wikidata entry for the case in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas and one more for each appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit plus separate Wikidata entries for each document that someone wants to cite separately.  
I've asked about this on Wikidata:Wikidata:Project chat#legal case with multiple appeals, but I felt a need to also ask about it here.  
Comments?  Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 05:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikidata