Talk:Act of Parliament

Page links?

Currently, this page links to Bill (proposed law), which is just a one-line stub. This, however, is a very thorough article which covers most of the information on Bills that I can think of - suggesting to me that Bill (proposed law) be made a redirect to Act of Parliament. I'm slightly unsure, however, whether there exist systems that have Bills but not Acts, and therefore won't be covered by such a redirection. I'd appreciate any information you may be able to lend me. (see also Talk:Bill (proposed law)) - IMSoP 13:37, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

• Went ahead and redirected the Bill (proposed law) page to here, no one seemed to be to worried about it anyways--Dhuss 03:25, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

EC Act

I think more needs to be said in the parliamentary sovereignty section on the impact of europe. in particular, stating that the authority to not apply acts of parliament only exists b/c of this act needs to be added to. it is not universally accepted that the EC act may be repealed like any other statute (in the very least, itis certainly not subject to implied repeal). perhaps a comment on the political difficulties of repealing the act would be helpful.

Odd paragraph

I've removed this

===Parliament Acts===

Parliament Acts are executed by the Administration and its superior and

directive dome, the Government (specially using the administrative regulations),

are applied by the judicial power (judges), and must be obeyed by everybody.

as it doesn't make any sense. I think it's trying to say that the government and courts enforce acts of Parliament. Morwen - [[User_talk:Morwen|Talk]] 13:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

what is the constitution of the united kingdom?

This page sucks!!!!!!!!!!1 It doesn't tell me what is in the constitution of the untied kingdom!

May I suggest you look at the article Constitution of the United Kingdom, unless you really want the Untied Kingdom in which case I am not sure I can help you. --Ali@gwc.org.uk 23:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Assessment

This needs some more sourcing from reliable sources and an improved WP:LEAD to get to B class. Aboutmovies 04:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Style

I've reverted much of the recent edits regarding the capitalisation of "Act"; after discussion here and here, it seems that this is quite contentious. I'm happy for it to go back to lowercase, once consensus is formed, but I'm distinctly unhappy with the idea that the article had explicit footnotes stating stylistic opinions as fact.

Any thoughts on whether it should be "Act of Parliament" or "act of Parliament"? Shimgray | talk | 18:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Reverting an edit in the middle of discussion and imposing your personal preference despite an overwhelming list of sources speaking against it is not a good idea. You have consistently ignored the clear consensus of the dictionary sources listed in the discussions linked to above.--Espoo (talk) 08:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It might be best to focus on the matter at hand rather than engage in accusations. Please review Wikipedia:Ettiquette and feel free to modify your above comment appropriately. Hiding T 12:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your changes because they were made without any discussion, and as comments elsewhere have shown, they have turned out to be contentious, so we return to the old version and debate. This is the normal way to do things; a contentious change shouldn't remain in the article until it's agreed on. This change is definitely disputed, and a long way from being agreed on!

You may feel that there is a "clear consensus" among an "overwhelming list" of sources supporting you, but this is your interpretation of those sources, & your selection of sources, & your decision on what to treat as a valid reference. I find it surreal (and astonishingly blinkered) to talk of a consensus in support when everyone else who's turned up to comment so far seems to have disagreed with your position.

As to the footnote, however we decide on capitalisation, it simply isn't appropriate to include a lengthy digressive footnote treating a point which is so obviously contested as being a matter of self-evident fact, and I have removed it accordingly. Shimgray | talk | 00:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

On balance, I prefer capitalisation. I don't think there's much to be gained from looking at what other sources do, because they do both the upper and the lower case, so I think this is a matter that is left to editorial consensus. I think the style should be for an upper case A, the MoS doesn't discuss legislation while the naming conventions quite clearly state that a capital A should be used. Hiding T 12:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#act (statute) --Espoo (talk) 12:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The outcome of this discussion was, IIRC, that there was no consensus to make these changes. James500 (talk) 21:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I had forgotten about this entirely until today! Huh. Given it seems to be stable at Act rather than act, I've removed the slightly confusing footnote arguing that the latter is correct. Shimgray | talk | 23:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

No legal credentials

I have been giving this matter some thought, and I have come to the conclusion that the dictionaries etc cited as sources for this have no legal credentials and are not therefore qualified to determine the correct use of a legal term of art as a legal term of art. To put it simply, they are not reliable sources. A reliable source would be something like Halsbury's Laws of England or Halsbury's Laws of Australia. James500 (talk) 21:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)