Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law

This article about a patent law firm was nominated for deletion in 2005 and survived. It has barely been touched in the 21 years since. Can someone fix the issues tagged, or nominate it again? Bearian (talk) 02:10, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Some issues have been resolved. Still needs some reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

What is the consensus on section headings? I've seen the background sections be titled "Background" or "Factual background" or "Facts" and I've seen the court's decision as "Decision," "Judgment," "Opinion," "Supreme Court" etc. In some I see the dissent in a separate section and in some it is just under a sub-heading. Some have a separate section for procedural posture/"Lower court"/"procedural history" and some don't. Is there a consensus on what they should be, especially for Supreme Court cases? Bairdsparrow (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

We haven't created a WikiProject style guide. As for the headings you've identified, I'll give you the lawyer's answer: it depends. RE "Decision" vs. "Judgment" vs. "Opinion", I think it depends on the common usage of the jurisdiction (e.g., a SCOTUS writing is generally referred to as an "opinion") and how much due weight should be afforded to an aspect of a case (for example, if the legal literature discusses the parties' arguments, a section on that might be appropriate). voorts (talk/contributions) 01:27, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I prefer the facts-issue-holding-reasoning format. Bearian (talk) 00:37, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this ever passed, or was ever notable. What do you think? Bearian (talk) 20:57, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

If you can, please add reliable sources. Thank you in advance. Bearian (talk) 20:59, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I see some plausible contemporary sources on an initial glance, but I don't think this is the way to go. Versions of this bill were introduced multiple times from at least 2008 to 2013. It doesn't look like any of these free-standing bills passed; unclear if some of the objectives may have been accomplished in other ways. Would suggest that a single article at Open Fuel Standard (or Open Fuel Standard Act) would make more sense. Any salvageable content from Open Fuel Standard Coalition could go there too. Not in position to do this just now, though. -- Visviva (talk) 04:09, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Could somebody with knowledge of Oregon courts please add reliable sources? Thanks in advance. Bearian (talk) 22:58, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey all! I mostly edit in academic philosophy, but have just created an article that falls under the scope of this project. I'd appreciate it if folks would take a look in case it needs cleaning up (or worse!). I hope to be contributing more law-related stuff and so welcome feedback, will read edit descriptions, et cetera. Cheers, Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Q&As published by law schools aren't really reliable sources, and news articles aren't great for law either since journalists really aren't great at writing about the law. I'd prefer to see law review/journal articles discussing the concept. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:42, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, Amar is not the only person to have written about this and I think it's grown beyond his original concept. I think this should be a WP:BCA voorts (talk/contributions) 21:45, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Voorts, thanks for your comments! The Q&A is with Amar and published in a Law Review, so I assume it's been worked over by law students in the same way as any any other manuscript.

I share your general view on mainstream reporting on legal matters, but Adam Liptak is also an attorney. The reason I created the article is that this idea from a 40-year-old Law Review is suddenly being discussed as a possible political remedy in the mainstream media. So I think it's important to mention/demonstrate this in the article.

As the emphasis on Amar, that is probably just a reflection of my own limited knowledge. I would be happy to have someone else come in with some more sources to develop the article in the direction of a BCA.

Cheers, Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I've identified these three "Top" rated articles to improve:

1. Statute
2. Tax law
3. Venue (law).

They are all assessed as start-class. Could you please discuss as to which one we should improve first? Bearian (talk) 00:26, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Please add reliable sources. Thanks in advance. Bearian (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

@Ncmvocalist: The year-long backlog of requested assessments is  Done. Bearian (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Good article nominations | June 2026 Backlog Drive
June 2026 Backlog Drive: Do you want to become more experienced in the GA process? On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles reviewed. Mentors are available, and new reviewers (<6 reviews) get bonus points! Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talk page.
You're receiving this message because you have participated in a good article review this year or participated in the previous backlog drive.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Could someone please review this article and its citations? Thanks in advance. Bearian (talk) 02:49, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm far from an expert on this subject. Could someone please add more sources and rate its importance? Thanks in advance. Bearian (talk) 02:50, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Please add reliable sources to this article. It affects ordinary people, perhaps even your clients. Thank you in advance. Bearian (talk) 03:27, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Pardon the pun, but does anyone else want to take a shot at this? Bearian (talk) 03:33, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

What a disaster. Does anyone want to work on this? Bearian (talk) 13:10, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Please add reliable sources. I'm not familiar enough with Australian sources to know. Thank you in advance. Bearian (talk) 23:39, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

A merger was proposed over a decade ago and died. Can someone please do something with this? Bearian (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello editors! My name's Sara and I work for the ACLU. If anybody is interested, I have an open COI edit request on the Deborah Archer article. If you have any questions, I'll see you over on the Talk page. Thanks ACLUSara (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

On the Talk page for Law on the Succession of Ukraine, I have started a discussion proposing that the article be moved to (renamed) Law on the Secession of Ukraine. -- Frans Fowler (talk) 11:32, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm just telling you all that this has been proposed for deletion. I'm not asking you for help, nor canvassing. I'm just the messenger. Bearian (talk) 00:36, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Again, I'm just the messenger that this was proposed for deletion. Bearian (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

This is a third that had been proposed for deletion. Once more, I'm just the messenger. Bearian (talk) 00:44, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Just another message about proposed deletion. Bearian (talk) 01:03, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Finally, a last message today about a proposed deletion. Bearian (talk) 01:05, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Is this law firm notable? Please discuss. Bearian (talk) 15:27, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Notice is given about a proposed deletion. Bearian (talk) 15:25, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

These PRODs, and a number of others, are an attempt to systematically delete the entire transport law of the Australian state of Victoria, even though that body of law clearly satisfies GNG. The PROD concerns openly admit that the nominator has made no attempt to find sources with a search engine or otherwise (WP:BEFORE, WP:NPOSSIBLE). The Transport (Compliance and Miscellaneous) Act 1983 and the Transport Integration Act 2010 satisfy GNG and should not have been nominated. The remaining nominations violate WP:ATD because the pages should have been redirected with selective merger. In some cases, the nominator does not appear to have even read the references in the article. For example, the nominator claimed that Transport Integration Act 2010 cited no secondary sources at all, when in reality the page already cited this periodical article from Planning News. James500 (talk) 01:56, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for that information. Bearian (talk) 03:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

United States v. Alvarez has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:56, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Also Illinois v. McArthur, Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Ass'n, and Abramski v. United States. If you're interested in working on these articles, the GAR rules allow you to request that some of the nominations be put on hold. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Could somebody with knowledge of British law or competition law, please update thus article and add more citations? Thank you for your help. Bearian (talk) 03:29, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello everyone! Next week we're launching the Crime and Law July 2026 initiative of the Women in Red project. You're more than welcome to take part and help expand the list of women from the legal and criminal worlds, which is much needed! Cheers. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:17, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Can somebody with expertise in this area add more sources? Thanks for helping. Bearian (talk) 22:41, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Expulsion of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians#Requested move 29 May 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 07:39, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:California Senate Bill 27 (2019)#Requested move 24 September 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Qwerty123M (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Does anyone want to rescue or userfy this probably LLM-generated legal article ? Bearian (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Here's another probable LLM-generated legal article. Please consider rescuing it or Draftifying. Bearian (talk) 01:28, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

The article United States v. Rehlander has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged for notability concerns for 9 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. Poorly sourced stub about a Second Amendment case, which appears to be only good for messing around with a 1L.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Bearian (talk) 01:52, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Some time around December 2024 or January 2025 (determined via looking in the Wayback Machine), links to UK Supreme Court judgements starting with `https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/` ceased to work and redirect to the search page at https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases. For example, https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0001-judgment.pdf no longer works.

A working link to the webpage for such a case can be formed (in at least the handful of cases I've checked) by removing `/docs` and the `-judgement.pdf` suffix from the URL. For instance, https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2019-0001 is a working link for the case above. Linking directly to the judgement PDFs themselves is trickier; the names of the PDF files seem to now seem to have random hex suffixes, so the only way to determine them is to check the hyperlink on the HTML page. (For instance, the judgement I used as an example above is now https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2019_0001_judgment_12d990b85b.pdf.)

I'd like to bulk fix the 143 broken links of this type, easily findable via a wikitext search: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=500&fulltext=1&ns0=1&profile=advanced&search=insource%3A%22https%3A%2F%2Fwww.supremecourt.uk%2Fcases%2Fdocs%2F%22&title=Special%3ASearch

Since there are only 143, no need for a script, I think - I can just take 15 minutes to do it manually.

But before doing so I wanted to check if anyone has any views about whether we should update these links to point to the new PDF location (like https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2019_0001_judgment_12d990b85b.pdf) or to the webpage for the judgement that includes a summary and links to the judgement and the press summary (like https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2019-0001), or whether the choice between these two options should depend upon the context (e.g. maybe directly link to the judgement in citations, but link to the webpage when the link is in the infobox of an article about the judgement)? I don't know whether the HTML webpages even existed prior to the changes at the end of 2024, so it seems to me like when links to the PDFs were first added into articles, the choice I'm contemplating now may not have existed at all. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Generating new archive links is so unbearably slow that it would take hours to do this by hand. I'll have to have a go at scripting it. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 13:39, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

All finally done with the exception of https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2017-0126-judgment.pdf which isn't available on the new website but should be. (It's a case with an interim and full judgment, but the website just links to the full judgment twice.) I've filled in the Supreme Court website's contact form to try to get them to fix it. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 22:23, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Code I used at https://github.com/ExplodingCabbage/wikipedia-uksc-link-fixer, for the record. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

The Supreme Court's website team fixed the exception I note already, in less than 24 hours - remarkable! Will fix that link on Wikipedia, too, then. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I just want to alert everyone that some AI-created legal stubs and articles have been proposed for deletion. Most were never tagged properly for WP:Law, so they were under the radar. I'm just the messenger. Bearian (talk) 09:53, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I've created an article on the National Security (State Threats) Bill, a UK parliamentary bill that now looks certain to be enacted into law. I'm quite surprised that a major piece of national security legislation has managed to get to this stage without a Wikipedia article; I'd welcome any help in improving it. — The Anome (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I think it's probably too soon for an article. If this doesn't pass, it's highly unlikely to have sustained notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:52, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I would love to get some more opinions at Talk:Johnson v. Monsanto Co.#Recent edits. The crux of the debate is whether or not an article about a lawsuit in which Monsanto was found liable for their Roundup herbicide causing cancer should be devoted to reassuring readers that glyphosate (the main ingredient) is not carcinogenic. On one side, this seems to be Wikipedia taking sides in the lawsuit (and ignoring that it was about Roundup, not glyphosate specifically). On the other side, we don't want readers to reach unwarranted conclusions from this lawsuit if it was decided incorrectly. Nosferattus (talk) 18:57, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Does anyone with a better grasp of German than me what to take a crack at fixing this? Bearian (talk) 08:45, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

This probably-AI-written article is up for deletion. I'm just the messenger! Bearian (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

We're contemplating reviving the child project on international law and are looking for more editors - if you'd like to help, come join us here! Palaeontolawgist (talk) 07:19, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Second impeachment trial of Sara Duterte#Requested move 8 July 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. HueMan1 (talk) 02:48, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

The following articles about the law of Burma (Myanmar) were proposed for deletion due to AI use:

1. Burmese customary law
2. Cybersecurity Law of Myanmar
3. Law of Myanmar
4. Myanmar Bar Council.

Bearian (talk) 04:05, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm just the messenger as usual. Bearian (talk) 04:05, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Intellectual diversity § Racial diversity?, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. George Ho (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I've noticed that articles on Scots Law are few and not of the best quality, especially compared to other jurisdictions. The Scots legal system is very different to the rest of the UK and is historically influential world wide, so I was quite surprised by this.

I was wondering if anyone on here edits this topic, or would be interested in editing this topic? Lemonladybug (talk) 11:37, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree, and while I have a vague interest as a person of Scots descent, I know little to nothing about this, and would be afraid to commit legal malpractice. Bearian (talk) 00:30, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi WikiProject Law,

I'm highlighting a topic that seems like it belongs in Wikipedia's legal coverage but doesn't have a page yet.

The Center for Law in the Public Interest (CLIPI) was a Los Angeles-based public interest law firm that operated from 1972 to 2007. It was one of the first general-purpose public interest firms on the West Coast and was funded by the Ford Foundation.

CLIPI recently donated 385 boxes of case files to UCLA to be archived in the UCLA Library Special Collections as part of a preservation gift by the firms founder, Carlyle Hall. https://www.library.ucla.edu/about/news/vast-collection-of-landmark-legal-history/

More about the firm can be found on their legacy website, https://www.clipi.org/.

The firm's litigation shaped several areas of California law such as:

Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors — one of the first cases to define the scope of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

Keith v. Volpe — the Century Freeway litigation, which ran for over 20 years and produced court-ordered housing and jobs programs (already has a section on the I-105 Wikipedia page)

Springer v. Jones — the Northrop shareholder derivative suit that exposed illegal campaign contributions and foreign bribery, contributing to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

Blake v. LAPD — gender discrimination suit that changed hiring practices for women in the LAPD

Sundance v. Municipal Court — decriminalization of public drunkenness

The firm is referenced across many existing Wiki articles (I-105, CEQA, FCPA, Prop 13, and individual pages for several alumni like John R. Phillips, Mary Nichols, Bill Lann Lee, etc.).

I should note that I have a connection to the subject, as I'm working with the firm's co-founder, Carlyle Hall, on a legacy project, so I'm not the right person to write this.

But I've compiled extensive source material (400+ independent news articles from the LA Times, NY Times, WSJ, etc.) and would be happy to share it with any editor who's interested.

If anyone here thinks this is worth an article and wants to take it on, I'd be glad to provide whatever source material would be helpful.

And if I'm going about this the wrong way, I'm open to being pointed in the right direction.

Thank you, Jolene JoAbbott88 (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I have prepared Draft:Easy-to-cancel mandate, a short article about cross-jurisdictional consumer-protection requirements intended to make subscription cancellation comparably accessible to enrollment.

Reliable sources discuss these measures collectively, while individual jurisdictions use different names. Could interested editors review:

• whether the cross-jurisdictional scope is adequately supported;
• whether the provisional descriptive title is appropriate under WP:NDESC; and
• whether the subject is better treated independently or merged into an existing article?

Alternative titles and critical feedback are welcome. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 19:03, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I've skimmed the draft. Looks good so far. Most of the stuff in the lead should be in the body and the lead should summarize the article. See MOS:LEAD. I'm not sure about a title. The current one doesn't seem great to me, but I'll think on it. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:18, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @Voorts, do you mind cross-posting to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft_talk:Easy-to-cancel_mandate&action=edit&redlink=1#c-Xinbenlv-20260716192200-?Scope,_title,_and_relationship_to_existing_articles hoping to be the canonical discussion location? xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 19:23, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm letting you all know that I have seconded this proposal to delete. Bearian (talk) 00:28, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

There are a few articles that might be of interest, which are in this category. I'm just the messenger again. Bearian (talk) 00:58, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Many WikiProjects have some sort of source and style guidelines. This project does not. So I am seeking some general advise on how to proceed and interested editors to perhapse give life to the idea, as I am but one person that does not have the Wikipedian tenacity required to write articles in excess of Start-class let alone a dozen. The task before me, and now you all since I put it here, concerns Finland and creating articles for landmark rulings of the two supreme courts.

1.Decision infobox. Finnish court rulings are not publicly atributed to any one judge or justice, yet they are not really per curiam either. That would require there to be no noted writer. That is incorrect because the decisions are prepared by a referendary, whose name is published, and polished by a justice whose name is not known. So can't really call such a decision per curiam. So no way to atribute the decision to one justice, but also not to the whole panel that decides the case. How to proceed here?

2.Naming. Finnish court rulings are numbered. For example the 26th ruling of the Supreme Court in 2023 is KKO:2023:26. These are not names known by the public and are largely not even referred to by media outlets. You need to be an expert or topic nerd to know and they are not something one would naturally search on Wikipedia. This fails WP:NCon both recognizability and naturalness, though complies with MOS:LEGAL. What to do?

3.Format. It could be argued that few of the cases, even if they may be notable enough to have an article, could be better presented in themed articles. This is because they do not often warrant such extensive coverage as cases in other jurisdictions even if they can be considered notable. Exceptions do exist. But would it still be better to just make articles for important cases?

4.Notability. I would also inquire as to whether I should allow notability within Finland to dictate or whether international recognition would be a better point to build this around.

Finfixer (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

@Finfixer: I am not a lawyer, and I cannot give legal advice. Court cases themselves are reliable and significantly cover the topic, but they are not independent or secondary. From what I understand about notability and style, any notability about a court case needs to be discussed in a secondary source, such as a peer-reviewed academic journal article or a newspaper article. If multiple Finnish secondary sources provide significant coverage on the topic, they should be fine, but an article may be more likely to stand if it had international recognition. Regarding Finnish court rulings, use the common name in the title, but provide the alternative numbering in the lead and infobox. I wonder if, for the decisions, you could use the presiding judge in the venue court, provided secondary sources list them. If secondary sources do not list who the judges are, it may be better to leave this field blank. Z. Patterson (talk) 01:59, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Good analysis. Bearian (talk) 02:00, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Duly noted. The problem is that the numbering is the only name a case ever gets. If media refers to a case it refers by that numbering. So it will just have to be that because anything else would be false.

As to the judges. The courts do name who the sitting judges on a case are as well as any dissenters. What is not named is who delivered the opinion. I think I can get around that by not using the "joined by" language and therefore atributing the ruling simply to the majority of the panel that is named by the court. Media never does, because in Finland that is contrary to convention. Finfixer (talk) 09:28, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I concur. Z. Patterson (talk) 01:36, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

This has been proposed for deletion, FYI. Bearian (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I have posted a disclosed request at WikiProject Biography seeking an independent assessment of a (my) possible biography as a legal academic, working in the field of labour law, legal theory and clinical legal education. As such, I wondered whether an WikiProject Law editor might be willing to comment. Here is the link, for convenience:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography#Request_for_Independent_Assessment:_Amir_Paz-Fuchs Amirpazfuchs (talk) 09:51, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

We are literally years behind. You should also post your request at WP:RA, with three independent, secondary sources. (The failure to provide 3 sources will result in an automatic and speedy denial.) Again, we have a huge backlog, so cross list it. Bearian (talk) 02:03, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

This is my Request for Comments, and for improvement of, an Article for Creation: Draft:Obstruction of governmental administration. As I am not an expert in the law, I'm asking others to help improve the article, if it merits such. Common sense tells me there's a difference in application between Obstruction of justice in the United States (a broad topic) and the seemingly more specific charge on which a police officer might book someone obstructing their duties, as portrayed in the Law & Order season 24 episode "Folk Hero". ThanQ IA for your input. ~<}:^> GreyElf (talk) 07:43, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

This has been proposed for deletion. Bearian (talk) 04:13, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Where would I find the docket number for case 5:26-cv-4060, filed in the N.D. of Iowa? The RECAP number is 71538; link here. Template:Cite Pacer indicates that the doc-number field, which I've omitted, is a required parameter; the consequent behavior appears to be that the default docket number is 1. In solidarity, Iseult ^Δx talk to me 06:00, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Iseult, I think "docket number" is a typo—the "template parameters" table says that "doc-number" stands for "document number", which makes a lot more sense. (Docket number is typically just a synonym for case number.) For the complaint you linked, the document number would be 1, as indicated in several places, including the left-hand column of the CourtListener docket page. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:20, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Extraordinary Writ, though, in that case, the template code is also bad, as what's displayed is Docket 1, as per the examples on the template page? History indicates that docket number was intended originally, and I'm loathe to touch something transcluded so widely and outside my field of expertise. In solidarity, Iseult ^Δx talk to me 07:27, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I guess the idea was for it to mean "number x on the docket", but "docket number" is just an odd way of phrasing it. Would be interested to hear others' suggestions, although it's a pretty obscure template and I'm not too worried about it. At any rate, it's clear from the transclusions that the parameter is for the ECF number/document number/R. Doc./number on the docket/whatever we want to call it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:09, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

In the meantime, I've corrected the parameter. In solidarity, Iseult ^Δx talk to me 08:47, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Feel free to jump in and add more sources, especially for England, Scotland, Australia, South Africa, etc. Bearian (talk) 01:28, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

It is good practice that the regnal year and chapter is given in the opening line of an article on UK legislation. However, it seems excessive to do so when referencing other legislation within the body of an article. Take, for example, Reform Act 1832, it appropriately includes the citation (2 & 3 Will. 4. c. 45) in the opening line. However, I can't see the necessity in the following paragraphs of doing so for the linked Scottish and Irish Acts in the following paragraph, i.e. "The act of England and Wales was accompanied by the Scottish Reform Act 1832 (2 & 3 Will. 4. c. 65) and Irish Reform Act 1832 (2 & 3 Will. 4. c. 88)" or in the concluding line of the article, "The whole act was repealed by section 80(7) of, and the thirteenth schedule to, the Representation of the People Act 1948 (11 & 12 Geo. 6. c. 65)".

Including the regnal year and chapter in this way breaks the flow, and arguably reduces readability. It seems to be a particular practice for articles on older legislation; the text in House of Lords Act 1999 is much cleaner. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 07:36, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

This has been nominated for deletion. Bearian (talk) 04:45, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I've looked at it, and removed the LLMPROD as the explanation provided on the talk page seems reasonable enough. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:43, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

The WikiProject Unreferenced articles August 2026 backlog drive is in progress, and I noticed there's a conveniently specific list associated with this WikiProject, with 46 articles: Category:Law-related articles lacking sources. There's also this list of 212 articles in scope that lack sources, including Murder in Brazilian law, Hong Kong criminal law, Law of Spain, and Life imprisonment in Greece. @Bearian is already doing great work adding citations to related articles, but I wanted to mention the drive in case I can encourage anyone else to join in too. :D Dreamyshade (talk) 15:55, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for tip of the hat! Bearian (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Legality of the Israeli occupation of Palestine § Issues with recent edits. Editors are discussing a substantial proposed revision of Legality of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, primarily concerning the relative coverage of the ICJ, the Supreme Court of Israel, the government of Israel, and academic commentary. The proposed revision was first reverted because of concerns about its reliance on primary sources and overemphasis on Israeli domestic law. It was then restored in revised form with additional secondary sources and a shorter discussion of Israeli law, and reverted again on the ground that it gave "undue weight to Israeli opinion". Proposed revision before the latest revert. — ac talk 07:54, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I removed the “Succession of seats” section of the article on the Judges of the International Court of Justice, and I’m proposing to remove most of the predecessor/successor statements in the infoboxes of ICJ judges. I’d welcome your comments on the article’s talk page. Joriki (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2026 (UTC)