WT:WikiProject Law

Do you think we should redirect this to Wiktionary? Be bold! Bearian (talk) 11:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

:Sorry for the template.

:== Proposed deletion of :Ex contractu ==

File:Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article :Ex contractu has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced and unimproved for over 15 years. I asked on if anyone wanted to redirect it, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law, but got no volunteers. Run of the mill, obscure legal term.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|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 {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 09:19, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

:I redirected it to Ex delicto. Bearian (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Article 12 of the Constitution of Singapore 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. Z1720 (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

:It was denied by another user. I agree with the current assessment of a C-class. Bearian (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Can somebody please help to build up this stub, and source it? Bearian (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

:Almost 3 months later, it's still a stub. I can't read any Cyrillic words. Bearian (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Protecting Women's Private Spaces Act#Requested move 27 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 19:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

:It was moved. Bearian (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Here's another stub for us to source and expand. This page hasn't been updated or properly sourced in 15 years. Please, rescue it, merge with another article such as Administrative law, or go to WP:AfD. 2025 is a year of decisive action. Bearian (talk) 06:45, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

:It was redirected. Bearian (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

This stub has been tagged as unsourced for 15 years, since its creation. The author has been banned as a sockpuppet, so technically it could be deleted for that reason. However, I think the kernel is useful. Can we please find and add reliable sources? Bearian (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:It's not a WP:G5 because the creator wasn't banned at the time of creating the article. SilverLocust 💬 04:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:It is not clear to me that this is necessarily a topic worthy of an article. John M Baker (talk) 05:37, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:: Based upon this discussion, I have merged and redirected it to Consideration. Bearian (talk) 12:32, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution 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. Z1720 (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Criminal damage in English law 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. Z1720 (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Karl Menninger was an important psychiatrist who participated often in the overlap between Law and Psychology. He was also a very vocal proponent of Prison Reform, writing a book The crime of punishment. Could his biography be included in the articles of this wikiproject? User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 18:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:Yes. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:00, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::Just do it. Bearian (talk) 03:39, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Please rate: is this a start article yet? Can you find additional sources as tagged? Thank you in advance. Bearian (talk) 03:39, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Dan Sullivan (U.S. senator)#Requested move 22 February 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 12:37, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Florida Parental Rights in Education Act#Requested move 24 February 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 06:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Inviting discussion at Talk:Court cases related to Donald Trump's second presidential term#How comprehensive will this article be - will it list all cases? re: the relationship between that article and an older one, Legal affairs of Donald Trump as president. Questions include whether they should be merged, or if the older one should be moved to a new name that parallels the newer one but is limited to his first presidency (or, possibly, if they should both be moved to new but parallel names). Over 100 cases have already been filed since his inauguration, involving DOGE, First Amendment issues, mass federal layoffs, birthright citizenship, immigration, dismantling of USAID, and more. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

This poor little stub could use some TLC to expand it, perhaps even from an expert in bankruptcy law. There's an interesting discussion about student loans on the talk page. Bearian (talk) 09:19, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Can we work on this one, too? Or should it be merged somewhere? Bearian (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I'm going through the law stubs alphabetically, and found this old chestnut. It was revamped 11 years ago and then not much has happened. I was bold and assessed it as a Start article, but with a little more work it will be a B-class article. Bearian (talk) 14:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article :Art equity has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced and unimproved dictionary definition for 8 years. No reliable sources that I could find define this phrase in this way; some sources refer to it as in representation. No obvious target exists to merge and/ or redirect.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|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 {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 03:07, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

With a little work, this could be a cute DYK. Any takers? Bearian (talk) 09:10, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article :Beau pleader has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Referenced to a single source. Dictionary definition. Unimproved for a decade. Few sources online Google; they are all dictionary definitions themselves. Obscure legal term not used in 200 years.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|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 {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 09:37, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

• Follow up: This has been redirected in lieu of deletion. Bearian (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Trump v. United States (2024)#Requested move 7 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Feeglgeef (talk) 19:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Sadly, the creator passed away after he requested an assessment, but before it could be fulfilled. Someone else assessed it as C-class in the past. I assessed it as B-class, with specific and actionable goals on the talk page for a GA. Can someone else please help by giving a required second opinion? Bearian (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Auckland District Law Society#Requested move 24 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 07:43, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Federal Service for the Oversight of Consumer Protection and Welfare#Requested move 17 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 15:16, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

In Detention of Mahmoud Khalil, Khalil is involved in two legal cases, one before an Article III court (a habeas corpus case) and one before an Article I court (a deportation case before an immigration court). Since there are two relevant cases, we're trying to pay attention to both, though there's a lot more info about the former than the latter. We have the info for the {{Infobox court}} in the habeas corpus case. But I'm having trouble finding {{Infobox court}} info about the immigration court. I know that the case involves Khalil, and the name/location of the immigration court (LaSalle Immigration Court in LA), but can't find a case no. or a judge's name or a case name. Are immigration court cases just called something like "In re Mahmoud Khalil" or "In the matter of Mahmoud Khalil"? Do they get case numbers and dockets? Do immigration courts publicly identify the judge assigned to the case? My impression is that {{Infobox court}} generally isn't used for Article I court cases, but I think it would be helpful to readers of this article if we lay out the two different cases proceeding in different kinds of courts. I'd appreciate guidance about what info should be included in the deportation case Infobox.

Less important: I've seen the habeas corpus case identified both as Khalil v. Joyce and Khalil v. Trump. Joyce was named as the first respondent in the initial petition for a writ, but Trump and Rubio were added as respondents in an amended petition for a writ, with Trump named first. Some of the lawyers (e.g., the ACLU) representing Khalil identify it as Khalil v. Trump, but the judge's order transferring it from SDNY to DNJ, and some other other documents still refer to it as Khalil v. Joyce. Does anyone knows which is the correct title? Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:There isn't really a case number for the administrative adjudication within DOJ, it's just the person's alien registration number ("A number"), which isn't public info. Nor is the record of proceeding public. DHS's notice-to-appear form uses "In the Matter of" [https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/8a3cbff6-4589-43e1-8455-042fa9555e3c.pdf]. If it were to lead to a (very rare) published decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals or the Attorney General, that would then be cited as Matter of Khalil, but I doubt that any source would call it that unless and until that happens. An appeal of a final order of removal would be filed in the court of appeals as Khalil v. Bondi (or whoever the AG happens to be), but obviously that wouldn't refer to the agency adjudication. JensonSL (SilverLocust) 04:58, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you. I guess we won't use an infobox for the immigration court case, and we'll just address what's known about the case in the article's text. I'd seen that the A number was included in [https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2014/07/25/3400.pdf this BIA ruling] that addressed the government's previous use of the same law (perhaps that's because Ruiz-Massieu died shortly after) and had wondered if that was a case number, so thanks for explaining the actual use. FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act#Requested move 17 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America#US law categories that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Tule-hog (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:Additional questions probably more appropriate for this WikiProject: would it be correct to re-categorize 'acts' currently listed in :Category:United States federal Indian policy into :Category:United States federal Native American legislation? Also, is it meaningful to have the latter as a subcategory of the former, or should they just link to each other with {{tlx|see also}}? Tule-hog (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::I think all discussion should probably happen at one place to avoid things getting messy, so I will respond at the indigenous peoples talk page. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Censorship in Islamic societies#Requested move 14 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 10:26, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Refugee Act#Requested move 13 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 11:13, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

{{disdis|Manuductive|spi=Lardlegwarmers}}

I have a userspace draft article going on this topic. I'd invite any and all constructive input. Feel free to edit the draft with regular BRD protocols if you wish to do so. I could use a little help with the placement and formatting of the references. Manuductive (talk) 03:29, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

:For reference formatting, see Wikipedia:Inline citation. You also need to dumb this down and explain it in plain English. Legal citations in the first sentence is not accessible to non-lawyers. Don't abbreviate things like SecState either. Additionally, I generally prefer citations to law reviews over news stories when writing legal articles. See, e.g., a featured article I wrote, Shostakovich v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:42, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

::I've searched for "22 I&N Dec. 833" in a couple different places and nothing comes up except the opinion itself. Does any other legal source cite this case? I think it's mostly notable for its coverage in news media. Manuductive (talk) 06:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Have you looked on Westlaw or Lexis? voorts (talk/contributions) 12:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Just noting here that I've added a Merge proposal. I don't think that the case is notable in itself. It didn't get significant coverage at the time, it didn't get significant coverage in the intervening years, and it's only getting small amounts of coverage now because the Trump admin. is trying to use the same law to deport a lot of people on visas and some with green cards. The more significant legal issue is whether the law is constitutional, and that will have be addressed in an Article III court. I've suggested merging it into Mario Ruiz Massieu, and perhaps a bit into Detention of Mahmoud Khalil, where it's already mentioned. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::I could be mistaken, but the notability is established by the coverage in articles like {{tq2|Nathan, Debbie (March 21, 2025). "The Insidious Doctrine Fueling the Case Against Mahmoud Khalil: How a century of immigration law has evaded constitutional rights". Boston Review. Retrieved March 30, 2025 https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/the-insidious-doctrine-fueling-the-case-against-mahmoud-khalil/}} which go into moderate analysis and do mention that its a precedent decision at the BIA, which is not for nothing. Manuductive (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Most precedential BIA cases are probably not notable, just like most published court decisions aren't notable. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

::::I don't have access to those databases, as far as I know. They're not in the Wikipedia library, my public library doesn't provide them, and INAL. Maybe somebody else could look. Lexis Nexis does have a source that probably covers it that popped up:

::::https://store.lexisnexis.com/en-us/products/the-national-security-implications-of-immigration-law-grpussku-us-ebook-32400-epub.html Manuductive (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Try HeinOnline on TWL. They archive legal journals and law reviews. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:33, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Nothing came up Manuductive (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::This case may not be notable in the legal literature then, but that doesn't mean it doesn't meet GNG for being a prominent case that was written about by historians, etc. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:37, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::It's been referenced in a lot of news articles this week, with medium-depth analysis. Manuductive (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{outdent|6}} Sure, but that coverage isn't really likely to be sustained. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I merged the article into the BLP for Mario Ruiz Massieu. Manuductive (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Does anyone have expertise in this area? This stub, of unassessed importance, has been unreferenced for 15 years. Please add reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

Not being a lawyer I am a bit stuck with Talk:Arrest of Ekrem İmamoğlu#Arrested vs Detained?. Could anyone fix short “Turkey” subsections in the Detention (confinement) and arrest articles? Chidgk1 (talk) 10:37, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

:I think you'd need a Turkish criminal lawyer or someone who can read Turkish sources to answer that question. In the US, arrest and detention (which could mean a seizure, imprisonment, pretrial detention, or a host of other things) are distinct legal concepts. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this list works. It's been unsourced for 15 years. Should we delete it? Can you add reliable sources? Discuss. Bearian (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:Seems somewhat redundant for purely navigational purposes as categories and the template {{tlx|Asia topic|Law of}} cover this. Delete seems an option in its current iteration, but there is certainly a wide body of literature on law in Asia generally speaking. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Assess class C, in accord with User:Nettrom/sandbox/WikiProject Law stub predictions. This would easily be a B-class (or even a GA) if all sections had inline citations. Can somebody help with this please? Bearian (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy#Requested move 26 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 12:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:David Maxwell Fyfe, 1st Earl of Kilmuir#Requested move 26 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 13:15, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article :Casu proviso has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Dictionary definition sourced to a single source and unimproved for about 19 years.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|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 {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 04:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

: Note: I have boldly merged this into List of writs. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks, {{U|BD2412}}! Bearian (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Executive Order 14172#Requested move 7 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 06:38, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I have nominated Treaty of Devol for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

This Mid-important article has issues. I assessed it as a Start, but with all statements sourced reliably, and an image of a person doing community service, and it will be a B-Class article. User:Nettrom/sandbox/WikiProject Law stub predictions assessed it as a C-Class, FWIW. Please help! Bearian (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

A few weeks ago, I suggested changing the redirects for four Trump executive orders with "Department of Government Efficiency" in their titles from List of executive orders in the second presidency of Donald Trump to Department of Government Efficiency (and I now think that it's better to redirect to Department of Government Efficiency § Legal status, which lists the #s and titles and then discusses the structure that arises from the combined EOs). It was relisted to generate more discussion, but there have been no new comments so far. I figured I'd post a notification here in case anyone wants to voice a preference. Here's the link. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks! Bearian (talk) 10:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

In a couple of cases about deportations by the Trump admin of Venezuelans and Salvadorans to a prison in El Salvador, the Trump admin. has made emergency appeals to SCOTUS. The articles are J.G.G. v. Trump (about whether it's constitutional to invoke the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged members of Tren de Aragua without due process, and whether the Trump admin. ignored a court order to bring planes carrying these men back to the US mid-flight) and the other is Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia (about whether the Trump admin. must seek the return of a Salvadoran who was mistakenly deported to the Salvadoran prison despite a withholding of removal order). The articles have short sections on SCOTUS actions (a per curiam decision in the first case, an administrative stay in the second case while the appeal is referred to the court). Do people ever add infoboxes for emergency docket cases?

I'm trying to decide whether to add infoboxes for the dockets in these emergency appeals, or if I should just add external links and docket #s at the bottom of the articles, since the Template:Infobox US Supreme Court case is really designed for normal SCOTUS cases where they've granted cert. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:36, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:Sure, see Tandon v. Newsom, which I recently co-created. – JensonSL (SilverLocust) 21:29, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::If you want to build better articles, an infobox is basically a criteria for GA status. It's also a good place to put essential information in one place for our readers. It's like a head note in West Reports. Bearian (talk) 10:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

This is possibly the worst article of our Project. Does anyone want to fix it? Or do we need to blow it up and start over again? Should we nominate it for deletion? Bearian (talk) 10:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Nine years later, this article still has serious issues. Chu is a patent attorney who has argued some of the most important cases in that specialized field of law, so he's notable. Can somebody please fix the issues with this? Bearian (talk) 10:37, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Responses to the 2020 Chinese involvement with Hong Kong national security law#Requested move 1 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 04:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi editors, I made an edit request on the ASCAP talk page regarding a lawsuit that may be of interest to editors here. Any feedback would be appreciated! Cheers Stephanie BINK (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I've posted some COI edit requests at Talk:Sidley Austin. Sharing in case anyone here is interested in taking a look. Thank you for any help or feedback! Mary Gaulke (talk) 04:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

The just decided For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers, which is garnering news coverage globally, is in need of expansion. Interested editors are invited to help improve the page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:It's not a High Court ruling - it's a Supreme Court ruling. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::I stand corrected. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks for the amendment. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Following Rinkoff v Baby Cow Productions, we really should have an article about format rights, which, depending on who you listen to, are either a valuable and important form of intellectual property around which a whole industry is based, or a nonsensical idea that doesn't actually exist in law. I've created a sub-stub draft article at Draft:Format rights. — The Anome (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you. Bearian (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

It is now possible for any citation template to automatically format dates. Is this desirable in any of the law citation templates?

The most popular citation templates all automatically format the dates if {{tl|use dmy dates}} or {{tl|use mdy dates}} are present in the article. These citation style 1 (CS1) and 2 (CS2) templates are implemented by Module:Citation/CS1. Auto-formatted dates are also possible in any template via the recently written Module:Auto date formatter. It will either format the date, or if it cannot parse the date, it will output it as written. The module does not have the broad range of error detection, tracking, and warning that CS1 templates offer. Earlier this month, {{tl|cite patent}} was updated to use this module.

Would auto-formatting dates be desirable for any templates in :Category:Law citation templates? Some match external standards and style guides where a date format is specified. For example, the Bluebook citations output mdy dates. Others, like {{tl|UN document}}, look like CS1 formatting rather than an external style.

Rather than try to guess where it would be desirable to implement, I thought it would make the most sense to ask here. Also, I can assist or clarify anything in the module's documentation if there's a consensus to add auto-formatted dates to any of the legal citation templates.

Regards, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:Yes. Consistency with article date style is in our guidelines and should be followed. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::Right, but I mention it here because some of these are clearly based on an external style and therefore will be using that style's date formatting. I've pushed the changes live at Template:UN document. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Prostitution in the State of Palestine#Requested move 18 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 04:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Article 9 of the Constitution of Singapore 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. Z1720 (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:For_Women_Scotland_Ltd_v_The_Scottish_Ministers

There is currently a discussion on the Talk page for this case, under the heading Rejected interventions, which may be of interest to this project. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Preterintention is mostly a steaming pile of dense incomprehensibility, with little puddles of clarity here and there, most likely due to the fact that the author's English level is probably 1 or 2 and he probably indulges in occasional AI translation. I left him this message about it, but it's hard to know where to begin: it's way too late to draftify, so what is to be done? The one thing he gets right is sourcing, which he has been assiduous about (> 100 refs). Any ideas how to improve it? Mathglot (talk) 08:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:This is the third post about this article here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law/Archive 26#Preterintention and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law/Archive 26#Preterintention 2. I don't know why this particular legal concept is attracting AI junk and poor writing. It can be redraftified via afd. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:: Thanks for the links. I had heard of the topic, first via French criminal law, as it happens, where it is known as dol dépassé, but it seems to be a concept barely covered in English, although there is some Italian, Portuguese, German, and Spanish coverage of it. Unclear if enough to support an article here; perhaps a section or mention in another one. Mathglot (talk) 08:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I see that it's being worked on. I'd rather wait for a few days before merging it. Bearian (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::The fact that it's being worked on is part of the issue, as Mathglot noted. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Frankly, I think this needs to be TNT'd or stubified. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Ok. Delete it. Bearian (talk) 23:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::: Pretty sure it won't be outright deleted. If kept at that title, it will very likely be TNT'd and become a WP:Permastub. A better outcome imho, would be write up a paragraph or two at Mens rea or Culpability about it, and then redirect the page to it. Mathglot (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

This has been proposed for deletion. Bearian (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article :Multiplicity of suits has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced and unimproved for over 15 years. This term is very rarely used in the law.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|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 {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 00:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:It was redirected per BLAR. Bearian (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I created a draft for Musk v. Altman. It may be of interest to members of this project. Thriley (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:I don't think this is notable. This is all routine coverage. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::The suit is the subject of over one year of detailed reporting in global news media. There is definitely room for expansion. Thriley (talk) 19:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::From what I've seen, they're all primary sources / tick-tock reporting. Is there any in depth analysis of the case other than "this was filed on this day and then the judge ruled X"? voorts (talk/contributions) 20:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Prodded by {{U|Worldbruce}}, seconded and assessed as a stub by me. Please review. Bearian (talk) 23:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thirded. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

This article needs more work:

1. updates to address the changes by Trump and Musk in 2025,
2. images, including office buildings and/or administrators, and
3. additional secondary sources.

Please help out! Bearian (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I've completed the entire 10+ year backlog of requests for assessment. Now all that are left are my 13 requests. Can somebody please help me? Bearian (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I saw on the front page here at Wikipedia:WikiProject Law that "Terry stop needs to be fixed...multiple warnings," but other than updates needed, I don't see a single problem with this. Am I missing something? Bearian (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:Probably an old message. Who knows when the front page of the WikiProject was last substantively updated. (Obviously the page history, but I'm too lazy to look and I'd wager it was long ago.) voorts (talk/contributions) 21:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks. I'll check it out. Bearian (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I can't figure out how to edit it from my iPhone. Can you please help, {{U|Voorts}}? Bearian (talk) 20:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

This stub has been unsourced for 15 years. Can anyone source it? Bearian (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Let's keep on an eye on this. It's gotten [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-20&pages=Habeas_corpus an explosion of page views], obviously because it's in the news. Thanks for your help. Bearian (talk) 00:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article :Possession proceedings has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced and unimproved for over 15 years. Tagged as NN for 5 years. No other language has an article from which to translate. This actually is a dictionary definition, but could be a dab page. Unless some editor wants to rescue it, it's probably better to delete or redirect somewhere.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|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 {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I assessed this as a Start-Class article, and as predicted by User:Nettrom/sandbox/WikiProject Law stub predictions; I also requested images. There's no reason for why this important case has such a shabby article. With a bit of work, this could be a B-Class article. Please help out. Bearian (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:W.M.M. v. Trump#Requested move 17 May 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)