Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian law
 | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Are disbarred lawyers of importance at Wikipedia?
[edit]You may be interested in this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#A7._No_indication_of_importance regarding a speedy delete of an article about a Canadian disbarred lawyer.
Case names in citations
[edit]I noticed only a brief discussion of the McGill style versus others for case names used in citations—which presumably inspired the guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Canadian_law#Citation_style ("For case law and legislation, whether mentioned in-text or in a footnote citation, use the post-2010 McGill Guide format (no full-stops)."). Why follow that, and not the thoroughly reasoned treatment from the Canadian Judicial Council's Case Naming Guidelines (appendix to their style manual for decisions)? Many courts seem to be using the CJC format (e.g. see Supreme Court of Canada reasons for judgment) in their own documents. (They would write "R. v. Somebody", not "R v Somebody", for example.) Given this, it seems disputable that the prevailing usage is McGill, even if for the sake of argument, McGill was more frequently seen in academic writing or motions before the court. TheFeds 01:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- Given that the guidance for this project to use current McGill guide has been in place for a long time, I think, reverting would just introduce more inconsistency. Unless someone is willing to systematically change things from one thing to another, I don't see a point in switching back. Also, I presume (and hope) that increasing numbers of law students and younger lawyers will show up to edit and be in the habit of using present day McGill guide, so insisting on the previous standard doesn't ensure consistent usage in any event. Given all that, I'm in the camp that less characters is better. ShinyObjectsOnly (talk) 08:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Importance criteria
[edit]Forgive me if I missing something, but are there criteria established for importance rankings? If not, may I re-rank some pages (without controversy as much I can) and work towards proposing some criteria? For example, there are a fair number of individual court cases ranked as being of high importance that perhaps should not be. Court system and constitution could use more attention and are of greater importance than any individual decision. And so on. ShinyObjectsOnly (talk) 08:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Names of Wikipedia articles for old Canadian court cases
[edit]Hi, I've started a discussion about the best way to name Wikipedia articles about old Canadian court cases. It's at Case Citations: Historic Canadian cases. It's not a full blown RfC. Would welcome comments. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)