User talk:James500/archive 1

Note: I will only be retaining talk page content which appears to have some continuing utility.

Query about conversion to in line citation
Why "retrieved on the 5th December 2008"? What does that mean and why is it mentioned? I just want to know why you've done this so that I know what its purpose is and if it is something that I ought to do routinely. James500 (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is used to trace which version of a web page was used for a reference. It can be used with the Internet archive's WayBackMachine to find a version of the page that existed around the time of your retrieval. Unfortunately the internet archive doesn't have a copy of that google books page at the moment so it isn't a very good example.
 * However, using one of the External links as an example, this link provides the current version of the page, while this other link shows what it looked like in August 2004. This is especially useful when an important reference link goes dead as you can retrieve an archived copy of the page instead. Road Wizard (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: User:Yssha
I would recommend that you do not tag his pages as nonsense - they all fail the inclusion standard but are good faith additions written in Filipino. &bull; \ / (⁂) 09:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me this. But what should I tag them as: only applies, I think, where there is an article on the wiki in the other language. James500 (talk) 09:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If the article looks like there is some merit, you can use the notenglish tag to alert users who may know the language that it needs translation. If it doesn't get translated, it will be deleted. However, you can use a rough machine translation, such as Google Translate, to give a rough estimate about whether the article should be included. If it meets the CSD criteria, you are safe to treat it as if it were written in English. &bull; \ / (⁂) 09:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for removing my template messages from the User's talk page. James500 (talk) 09:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:Hornbook -- a new WP:Law task force for the J.D. curriculum
Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 05:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

UK Supreme Court case drive
Hi! Thanks for taking the time to read this message.

As you may know, the United Kingdom Supreme Court has been hearing cases for about 18 months now, taking over from the House of Lords as the Court of Last Resort for most appeals within the United Kingdom.

During that time, the court has handed down 87 judgements (82 of which were on substantive appeals). Wikipedia covers around 11 of these and rarely in any detail. Some very important cases (including Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42 (prenups) and Norris v USA [2010] UKSC 9 (extradition)) are not covered at all.

I'm proposing a drive to complete decent quality articles for all, or at least a good proportion of these cases as soon as possible. If we can eliminate the backlog then a small group of editors might want to stick around to ensure articles are created relatively speedily for new cases. Since the Court process, on average, one case a week this shouldn't be too great a task.

I'd like to ask you to help with this drive, and help make Wikipedia a credible source for UKSC case notes.

How you can help


 * Help me improve this Template:Infobox SCOTUK case based off the US Supreme Court equivalent.


 * Complete that template and add it to existing cases.


 * Improve formatting & prose. Copyediting.


 * Improve the coverage of cases we have articles on, including adding content, sourcing and fact-checking


 * Create new articles for UKSC cases


 * Improve the categorisation and listing of UKSC cases.


 * Improve the judgment listings articles: 2009 Judgments of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom 2010 Judgments of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom 2011 Judgments of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Thanks for reading!, Sincerely Bob House 884 (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Stabbing [a]ct
Well spotted!

I don't have a copy of Prothero to hand, but I checked the Chronological Table, and then checked the explanatory notes to the Chronological Table, and discovered I've been reading it wrongly for several years.

Acts in force are listed by their short title; if not short title, the description is enclosed in square brackets, eg, [Status of children born abroad] (25 Edw. 3 St. 1). I'd misread the note explaining this to imply that all Acts without a short title were listed with square brackets, but on close examination. all repealed acts seem to be listed identically whether it's a description or a formal short title.

The 1606 Act was fully repealed in 1828, so it seems fairly likely it wouldn't have received a short title.

Thanks for spotting it! I'll have a look at the other contemporaneous legislation articles I've worked on and see if there's any similar errors. Shimgray | talk | 13:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

'The'
A quick scan through legislation.gov.uk for 'Theft Act' brings up various different acts, including the '68 version, none of which are listed with the definitive article beforehand. I don't have a copy of the Chronological Table of the Statutes immediately to hand, but that also lists all acts as simply the short title minus the article. I've never seen a textbook or article anywhere that refers to it as The Theft Act, indeed normal English usage is that the definite article is normally not part of the title of something but simply included as a part of speech (i.e. the United Kingdom's name is United Kingdom not the United Kingdom even if you would habitually precede it with the definitive article). Use of the, like this or that, serves only to particularise the subject rather than form part of it. While searching for a source, the most specific I can find comes from a Canadian government guide to drafting of legislation, a system based very much on ours. "Note that the definite article that precedes the title of the regulation is not in italics, since it does not form part of the title." -  Chrism  would like to hear from you 13:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And right after posting this I find a UK-specific source, the Cabinet Office's guide to drafting legislation, paragraph 9.31.

Re: Theft Act
I think a statement from the department responsible for drafting legislation as to what is and what is not accepted practice in legislative drafting in that jurisdiction is a reasonable source for the statement which doesn't require them to source it themselves. This applies to both the Canadian (whose system is based largely on ours and can reasonably be assumed to be similar if not identical in its practice) and British examples. The guide comes not from the Cabinet Office but a specific part of it, the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, which is the department responsible for drafting legislation. If they say that's the standards for drafting, they are. It would definitely pass our guidelines regarding reliable sources, your statement that "For all I know, it might be a mistake, or the product of intellectual laziness, or someone's personal opinion" would not however.

Section 7(1) calls it "the Theft Act" not "The Theft Act". Had it capitalised the, you'd have a point as they'd be clearly going out of their way to depart from the normal rules of English writing, otherwise its just a standard part of speech that the English language places before objects. Arguable their failure to capitalise it as part of the title disproves the point.

As to where they say that is its title, I think its a reasonable assumption that if somebody prints the title of an act at the very top of it in large text, in a manner that most readers would logically assume they were intending it to be the title, that they believe that to be the title and not just a random assortment of letters that happen coincidentally to actually be the title of the legislation. That the title of a page is its title isn't something that requires a source as to its veracity, its one of those statements like "water is wet" OR "Monday comes after Sunday" that we don't require sourcing for and any argument to the contrary is an exceptional claim which would require sourcing. Your argument requires a leap of logic, in that they would place something that looks like a title but which they know to not be the title in the exact position normal writing standards would expect the title to be. Placing the year in brackets is an editorial revision, which is why the brackets are there.

And as two random counter-examples, the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1998 or the Localism Act 2011, neither of which use the definite article when repealing any Act listed, and the Localism Act helpfully emblazons its title both on the front cover and right above the long title without the article. For a specific reference to the Act without the definite article, we have [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/schedule/7 Sexual Offences Act 2003, Sch. 7].

Secondary legislation does indeed use the definitive article as part of the title, but the Theft Act is primary legislation so that point's not really relevant. - 21:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

We need an article on English civil law
Further to your Edit summary: "Criminal law is complementary to civil law, including substantive law, not just civil procedure", I strongly suspect that English civil law ought not to be a Redirect (to the English civil procedure article), but rather an article in its own right. A twin article of our English criminal law article.--Mais oui! (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

SLR Acts
Hey there James - Statute Law Revision Act is a term of art (hence the page), invented by the British - who have of course in recent years muddied the waters by changing the term (alone of all common law countries) to "Statute Law (Repeals) Act". If you want to retrofit modern usage I suggest you use the phrase ""Statute Law Revision Act|Statute Law (Repeals) Act" but really SLR Act is more internationally understandable and would have been the term used at the time as well.--Zymurgy (talk) 08:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Re Magna Charta
Noted, Do you have a more complete list of which bits of 13th/14th Century law aren't considered Parlimentary acts ? (other than the article you mention).

This is because I was planning on using an old 'Statutes at large' from around 1764 (digital scans found on archive.org) to fill in some red-links on Wikisource, and would thusly need to filter the document list appropriately :)

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * , This has a table of Statutes (as was known in c. 1764), It might prove useful to compare it against other sources, as I note some difference between it, and both the relevant articles concerned. :).Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The link works fine for me.. The original is not on Google Books. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC).

Wikisource:Portal:English_Statutes
Your assistance with collating the various sources as they exist would be much appreciated

So far there seem to be at least 3 for stuff prior to 1707 :( as well as various pages on Wikipedia/Wik,isource :(.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

List of Statutes of New Zealand 1840 – 1890
Please see my comments on the talk page of List of Statutes of New Zealand (1840–1890). Hugo999 (talk) 11:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Stage Carriage[s] Act 1832
I have responded to your comment on my talk page with a reference to my source as to the correct title for the Act. No idea which is correct and will go along with your opinion. PeterEastern (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Three Rooms Press
please vote keep if you would like to the article to remain up. delete if you believe it should be removed. follow by a brief justification for your vote. thanks GetDaFacts (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

sorry forgot to include back link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Three_Rooms_Press GetDaFacts (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Size of navigation templates
Hello, James500. I'd like to challenge your comment here "Not practical for a navigation template". I was pleased with this as it was, though I was thinking it might be better if automatically collapsed. In my view, if practicality is the test, then the main issue is to prevent large navigation templates from being intrusive. Cf the template below; such large templates are the rule in the area of education. With best wishes, Moonraker (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC).

Law templates redirect
Hi James, I am going through all the WP:cross namespace redirects on Database_reports/Cross-namespace_redirects, and noticed your redirect Law templates. Typically redirects into plumbing/project categories start with 'CAT:'. There havent been any policies that regulate this space, and guidelines were very vague and contradictory, but that is up for discussion now at Village_pump (policy). You're redirect is not the only one without a prefix that goes to project categories - I've found another nine on those lists. (C;sd, Shouldbesvg, Requests for unblock and Images with no source, Candidates for Speedy Deletion & Speedy deletion candidates, UNSLO, and two more being discussed at Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 December 25) I am wondering if you would mind if we moved Law templates to CAT:Law templates. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello. In answer to your query, I have no objections to your proposal to move the cross-namespace redirect. James500 (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks! John Vandenberg (chat) 22:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Reinstatement of page deleted in 2014 since reasons for deletion no longer apply
Dear James500

The page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics_and_mechanics_of_complex_systems got deleted in 2014 on the grounds that the journal was not indexed in Scopus or Web of Science. You were one of the people who contributed to the discussion here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mathematics_and_mechanics_of_complex_systems

I'm writing to you because I'd like to reinstate the page as it was at the time of deletion, now that the reasons for deletion no longer apply (see below).

However, I do not see any way to recover the content. This is contrary to what deltahedron implied when the page was about to be deleted.

Can you help? The journal started being indexed by Scopus in 2016 and by Clarivate Analytics in 2017. Clarivate is the successor to Thompson Reuters) and placed the journal in the Emerging Sources Citation Index.

Thank you for any help

Silvio Levy (codairem) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codairem (talk • contribs) 01:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey
Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:


 * 1) Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
 * 2) Editor-focused central editing dashboard
 * 3) "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
 * 4) Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
 * 5) Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded User wikipedia/RC Patrol (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, — Delivered: 01:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Addition of un-redirected pages to Special:NewPages and Special:NewPagesFeed
I'm contacting you because you participated in this proposal discussion. While the proposal was approved, it has not received developer action. The request is now under consideration as part of the 2017 Developer Wishlist, with voting open through the end of day on Tuesday (23:59 UTC). The latter link describes the voting process, if you are interested. — swpb T 18:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)