Talk:By-law

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Parliamentary Procedure, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Parliamentary ProcedureWikipedia:WikiProject Parliamentary ProcedureTemplate:WikiProject Parliamentary ProcedureParliamentary Procedure articles

Law Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Emphasis

I think this article may need a change of emphasis; I think the rarely referred to historical context needs to come in a sub-paragraph rather than the lead, and more focus should be detailed on the constitutional nature of the various types of by-law. --Legis (talk – contribs) 11:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The term seems to have specific meaning for some governments, and a more general meaning for other organizations. The distinction needs to be spelled out by someone with expert knowledge. Lou Sander (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just added the link that a used removed. As an attorney, I refer my clients to the template I put a link to on wikipedia. Unlike most websites that strickly put crap legal templates on the web with google ads, the site I put a link to just provides good legal forms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.145.87.119 (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A possibly missing meaning

What about this: By-Law on The Notification of The Technical Legislation and Standards between Turkey and the European Union? If an instrument with this name was adopted by a government (board of ministers), is this a wrong use of the word by-law or does this article just miss this kind of word usage? (I mean, this is neither local nor corporate by-law). 62.65.192.82 (talk) 01:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found that in this title the word probably referred to a EU directive.62.65.192.81 (talk) 02:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By-law versus Constitution

I came to this page looking for the difference between these two types of documents. Perhaps this could be a future update that is made. --Robthepiper (talk) 05:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling variants

Byelaw

Is Byelaw a valid alternate spelling to bylaw? Syd1435 23:38, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC)

uh, probably not today. Its more likely an old and now outdated spelling (due to changes in language) Emb021 July 10 2006

Sorry, you're wrong. Byelaw is the correct spelling, By is the butchered up version. In fact, the word "By" itself is incorrect. It was, and always will be "Bye", which is more similar to its roots. I believe "Byelaw" is used in Europe more frequently, whereas "Bylaw" is used by the yanks, due to their habit of shortening words within their dialect. --MadCat 18:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i think that statement calls for a quotation. Dkviking 17:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In australia (founded by the english) we say bylaw and my grandma says bylaw (shes from england) rainyrox101

"by-law" vs "bylaw"

Pacerier (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC): ❝[reply]

Why is this article called "by-law" instead of "bylaw"?

Webster doesn't even have an entry for the word "by-law".

Should we rename the article to "bylaw"?

❞

Agreed based on:

Black's Law Dictionary Free Online Legal Dictionary 2nd Ed.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/bylaw
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bylaw
Burton's Legal Thesaurus, 4E.
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition
The People's Law Dictionary by Gerald and Kathleen Hill Publisher Fine Communications
Adams, Ken (February 23, 2008). ""Bylaws" or "By-laws"?". Adams on Contract Drafting. Retrieved 8 February 2017.

Sondra.kinsey (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 February 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By-law → Bylaw – Current most popular spelling of reliable sources Sondra.kinsey (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). BilCat (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – From reading the article lead, this appears to be a WP:ENGVAR, and as such needs to be discussed first. Evidence that "bylaw" is the current spelling in Commonwealth countries needs to be presented. BilCat (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Where's the evidence? Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just as an example in the UK http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ uses "By-Laws". MilborneOne (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Laurel Lodged: the evidence is cited above in section #Spelling variants Sondra.kinsey (talk) 00:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I dont see any reason to change as By-law is an accepted and common form that appears in at least British government legislation. MilborneOne (talk) 10:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose by a margin of 690,000 to 12,000. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on By-law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160106205837/http://www.newportnewstimes.com/v2_news_articles.php?heading=0&page=91&story_id=46154 to http://www.newportnewstimes.com/v2_news_articles.php?heading=0&page=91&story_id=46154

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]