Talk:United States copyright law/Archive 3

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was move all to . The in verses of issue is murky but looking at all opinions the weight seemed to favor of; I will create redirects for each in title and the issue can be revisited in a subsequent dedicated discussion if necessary.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

United States copyright law → Copyright law in the United States – The top level copyright articles in Category:Copyright law by country are inconsistently named. As a result, we can not use to United States copyright law as a navbox (even if we added redirects, the current page will not be bold), nor can we add  to Chilean copyright law. Other similar topics are named as " in (the) ".
 * Examples:
 * Category:Intellectual property law by jurisdiction and Category:Alcohol law by country
 * Taxation in the United States uses and Taxation in the United Kingdom uses Taxation in Europe which is.
 * The other categories at the beginning of Category:Law by country. There are lots of inconsistencies throughout these categories, resulting in similar problems. e.g. Category:Criminal law by country uses " criminal law" and lots of redirects Special:PrefixIndex/Criminal_law.

I propose we use "Copyright in " or "Copyright law in ", but I am more interested in a uniform naming convention. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Law/Archive_12 and Template talk:Copyright law by country. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Copyright law of the United Kingdom → Copyright law in the United Kingdom
 * Australian copyright law → Copyright law in Australia
 * Chilean copyright law → Copyright law in Chile
 * Argentine copyright law → Copyright law in Argentina
 * Canadian copyright law → Copyright law in Canada
 * Egyptian copyright law → Copyright law in Egypt
 * French copyright law → Copyright law in France
 * German copyright law → Copyright law in Germany
 * Copyright laws in Greece → Copyright law in Greece
 * Hong Kong copyright law → Copyright law in Hong Kong
 * Indian copyright law → Copyright law in India
 * Irish copyright law → Copyright law in Ireland
 * Japanese copyright law → Copyright law in Japan
 * Jordanian copyright law → Copyright law in Jordan
 * Dutch copyright law → Copyright law in the Netherlands
 * Copyright law of New Zealand → Copyright law in New Zealand
 * Copyright protection in Pakistan → Copyright law in Pakistan
 * Philippine copyright law → Copyright law in the Philippines
 * Polish copyright law → Copyright law in Poland
 * The Law on Copyright and Related Rights (Serbia) → Copyright law in Serbia
 * South African copyright law → Copyright law in South Africa
 * Spanish copyright law → Copyright law in Spain
 * Swiss copyright law → Copyright law in Switzerland
 * Copyright law of Tajikistan → Copyright law in Tajikistan
 * Copyright in Russia → Copyright law in Russia
 * Turkish copyright law → Copyright law in Turkey

Requested move discussion

 * Support mass move per rationale above, as co-author of the Switzerland article.  Sandstein   14:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * At least one article in the above list (Copyright in Russia) is an overview article that also gives an overview of the international copyright relations. That's a bit more than just "Copyright law", so I'm not convinced it should be renamed. Child articles Copyright law of the Soviet Union and Copyright law of the Russian Federation then detail particular laws. (Which gives rise to the question "why 'in' instead of 'of'?"... one solution bypassing this issue altogether is to use redirects: move to "in", and create the "of" version as a redirect, or vice versa.) BTW, other law articles also have the same consistency problem with respect to naming, see e.g. Special:PrefixIndex/Criminal law ("... of Singapore", "English criminal law"; however, "of" seems to be preferred over "in"). Lupo 14:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So maybe rename everything to "Copyright in Foo" and create redirects for the "... of ..." and " ... law of ..." variants? (Copyright is a matter of law, so "copyright law" is perhaps slightly redundant anyway.)  Sandstein   15:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support a consistent article naming convention across this (and other) topics. The proposed mass move is good, although I think the title should be 'of', not 'in'.  And the title should include 'law', as the topic is copyright law. (Co-author of the NZ article.) --Pakaraki (talk) 19:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we should be emphasising "in" (jurisdiction) rather than "of" (nation) because copyright law is a bit of a special case, in that citizenship of the author is an important element of copyright law, and nationality might be a factor (?). We could write a very useful article about "[Worldwide] Copyright law [implications] for Australians [citizens]" describing how the works of Australians are protected in other jurisdictions, noting gaps in treaties, etc.  We already have two articles which cover copyright from that angle: Afghanistan and copyright issues and Iran-United States copyright relations. Also, "Copyright of " wont work as the title "Copyright of the UK" strongly implies "Crown Copyright". John Vandenberg (chat) 23:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support I think we should go with Copyright law of . Copyright law in would tend to suggest that there is a single copyright, that just exists everywhere, instead of all the different copyright law that exist. Adding the "law" part would overcome John's issue, while the russian article would be correctly described "Copyright in Russia" . VeryRusty (talk) 00:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that "Copyright law of " isnt ambiguous. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support: In addition to the nominator's points, it just sounds more natural. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 18:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Similar naming of similar articles (one of five principles at WP:TITLE); and this form is natural and rational. N oetica Tea? 04:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, because there's no justification for not having the subject first. Article titles are better as "subject, context", not the other way around. Rennell435 (talk) 07:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, The noun form of the nation's name is more formal and standard in a title, per WP:Naming_conventions_(country-specific_topics) Kauffner (talk) 12:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.