Wikipedia talk:Requested articles/list of missing legal terms

Redirection

Many dead links can be redirected to existing articles. -- Toytoy 00:09, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Some redirections are pretty useful. The redirection from eyewitness to witness solved many articles' deadlinks. -- Toytoy 00:13, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

I went redirect crazy with all of the injunction articles. Mmmbeer 22:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A note regarding this list

Please note that this list was compiled from a large number of sources, and is not derived from any single work. -- The Anome 09:13, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Taking up the Challenge

I have decided to take up the challenge of providing an entry for every notable term on this list (not all are worthy of an encyclopedia entry, and those I will weed out). --BD2412 14:39, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is quite a task. It's going to generate a whole bunch of stubs. Though, I to have started going through the "easier" or more timely ones. Mmmbeer 23:13, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removing links once article created?

Should one remove a link after creating an article for a missing legal term? -- David Hoag 15:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but if you don't, there's a bot that does it automatically every day or so. -- BD2412 ^talk 15:24, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I'll keep my eyes peeled to make sure the bot is sweeping up. -- David Hoag 01:15, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The bot seems to be on an extended break. Is a manual clean-up in order? Legis 12:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I got ticked off with it, so I manually removed all the blue links. Legis 08:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legal stubs & Definitions

I'm hesitant to create too many more legal stubs for some of these articles. For example, I just did Proffer, as in "proffer evidence", but really there isn't really room for expansion. Shouldn't these just be in wiktionary? Currently, the legal definition isn't really there. Anyone else see this as a problem for most of these terms. Mmmbeer 22:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Employment tribunal?

I'm putting this on Talk as I don't know whether it's an official legal name, but I'd have thought an article on employment tribunal (which I understand has replaced "industrial tribunal" in England) would be useful. 217.33.74.20 11:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(That was me; signed out accidentally. Loganberry (Talk) 11:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Appreciate

There is an article for appreciate, but it is an accounting term. Is the legal term "appreciate" different from the accounting term, or do they mean the same thing in the different contexts? -- Psiphiorg 23:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna go ahead and delete some of the fulfilled requests.

Plurals

A lot of the requests for outstanding legal terms are expressed in the plural (e.g. "disbursements"). Changing them to the singular (per Wiki standard) results in a chunk of them getting resolved (although not disbursement). Legis 14:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merger Discussion

The problem with the merger is that there will be a change in format to this article. It's not really a problem actually. It's just a lazyness to conceptuallize. (The other article has much info. which is added in parenthasis beside the term). I say we merge what we can within this list (the simple terms) and then we add those "quasi defined other terms" in a seperate list. (or better yet... add the one liner within the new article and add "stub") --CyclePat 15:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Redirect to Wiktionary

I ran across the term Drawee on the page Wikipedia:Articles requested for more than two years research lead to a finiding the page had been built and delelted for cause Talk:Drawee. Some research on Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary lead to solving the problem with a Wikipedia:Soft redirect. So I would sugggest that if you really feel the need to link to words that are going to get a dictionary entry, write it (or find it) on (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Main_Page) then do a Wikipedia:Soft redirect Jeepday 03:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At this time I am have completed up to the Letter "G" on my soft redirects to Wiktionary. Next on my "to do" list is going to be check what red links have links to them, I am going to remove anything from the list that does not have at least one (and maybe two?) articles linking to them and List of legal topics not counting as an article. There is no point in making an orphan page. Jeepday 04:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~I have completed the soft redirects to Wiktionary where I found articles already in existence for the terms.~~ Jeepday 03:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong soft redirects are not a solution see User_talk:Jeepday#Wiktionary_redirects or check my archive if a lot of time has passed. I have revered all my edits as they were based on faulty assumptions. Jeepday 13:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]