Talk:Judiciary Act

Splitting this article
As the page currently stands, it is simply a list of Judiciary Acts without any cohesive info. I dont see why this cant be split into individual pages pertaining to each act. (Ignore the vfd that was an error - I was unaware of the split tag) freestylefrappe 20:32, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

 * This needs to be expanded before it's worth splitting up. Right now its a good combination of mutually relevant material. One issue -- I just fixed a few double redirects that were attempting to go to specific relevant section, e.g. Judiciary Act of 1801 was a redirect to that section in the (earlier title of) the page. Of course, this doesn't work. Given some assurance that the page is going to stay here, someone can quickly go through and actually set all links to this page to focus on the relevant act, if any. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:46, 2005 August 26 (UTC)
 * While I do think that eventually this page might be split up, right now if any of the individual sections were made into an article, it would have to be listed as a stub. — DLJessup (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Additional thought: Even if people decide to split off some of the articles, there's nothing that says that this is an all or nothing option.  The section "Judiciary Act of 1789" could be a paragraph summary and a link to the Judiciary Act of 1789 (US) article.  See Summary style for what I'm talking about. — DLJessup (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Please make the subarticles Judiciary Act of 1789, etc., unless there is actual ambiguity. Why force piping? Septentrionalis 22:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Let's discuss what sort of split is being proposed before resorting to voting. I've removed the voting sections.  For example: Do we want to have a a paragraph or two explaining what a Judiciary Act (in the United States) is here, and split the sections on the individual acts into Judiciary Act 1789, Judiciary Act 1801, Judiciary Act 1802, Judiciary Act 1866, Judiciary Act 1869, and Judiciary Act 1891? Do we want some other sort of split?  How inextricable are these acts? What text is being proposed for the introduction? (Don't put it here.  Please put it in the article.  ☺) If the article is split, should it just have a list of links to the individual acts, or short summaries with main on each? Uncle G 22:21:14, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
 * "...A paragraph or two.." with links to individual pages sounds good to me. freestylefrappe 22:50, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Please be bold and write the introductory paragraphs. Uncle G 13:38:03, 2005-08-28 (UTC)
 * There is now a separate article on Judiciary Act of 1789. I hope to do articles on at least the more significant of the other acts as I find the time.  My personal opinion is that, once that is done, this should be replaced by a bare-bones disambiguation page, and general background on the federal judiciary merged into United States federal courts.  --Russ Blau (talk) 19:50, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

 * For reference, see Naming conventions (precision).

Per Uncle G's tonguelashing on Votes for deletion/Judiciary Act, we really should discuss the renaming issue here. Here's the issue:

I substantially revised this article back on January 6–8. Back then it was named "Judiciary Acts (US)", and there was a disambiguation page at Judiciary Act. On January 26, User:Neutrality deleted the disambiguation page, moved "Judiciary Acts (US)" to "Judiciary Act", and put a disambiguation link to the Australian Judiciary Act at the top of the page. I would be perfectly happy if the original situation were restored.

Note that this issue is still relevant, even if the split issue is successful, in that this page will survive as a disambiguation page directing readers to the individual acts, and the name of that page will still be relevant.

Discussion

 * It wasn't a tonguelashing. ☺ Uncle G 22:21:14, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
 * If consensus forms for the move, let me or another administrator know and we'll delete the edited redirect to make way for the move. We can also do a history-only undeletion of the original disambiguation article for you afterwards. (I don't see any copyright problems in the deleted history.) For details of the latter, see Deletion review. Uncle G 22:34:07, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
 * If the page is split up, then a disambiguation page would probably be appropriate, but right now this seems like a reasonable primary-use setup, as long as the Australian one is clearly mentioned at the top. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:38, 2005 August 27 (UTC)
 * Support moving to either "Judiciary Acts (United States)" or "Judiciary Acts (U.S.)" but not to "Judiciary Acts (US)". Let's follow the Manual of Style. CDThieme 15:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutrality originally renamed Judiciary Acts (US) to Judiciary Act (United States), before renaming the latter here, notice. Uncle G 17:03:07, 2005-08-31 (UTC)


 * Might it be an idea to follow the naming convention (wot I wrote ;-)) for UK law in this context? Specifically, this would be moved to Judiciary Acts (plural) as it talks about the set of Acts as a whole... Or, it should, at least. :-)
 * James F. (talk) 01:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I have removed this from WP:RM for the time being: there son't appear to be a problem with the move however there is no agreement on where to move it to. If you come to a decision let me or another admin know and we will move the page. -- Francs2000 23:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)