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.
This is page intended to work in conjunction with the Environmental law portal. The mission statement from that page:
This page is intended to serve as the Wikipedia portal for the broader topic of environmental law. Please edit it to conform to other offerings in the WikiProject Law class. The point is to provide a neutral, general, broad-ranging, well-referenced, and well-linked introduction to the field. It is intended to work in conjunction with subtopical pages in (work in progress) Template: Environmental Law, such as Air quality law, Water quality law, etc., toward the broader purpose of better organizing Wikipedia's environmental law pages.
Thus, please note:
1. The first paragraph of this article should be transcluded to the appropriate section of the Environmental law page. Edits to the first paragraph here will affect the content of the main portal page.
If you feel this page is missing something important, PLEASE ADD IT. Here are some ideas for work:
Perhaps a brief history section. The history sections in the Pollution article seem relevant, but the focus should be on the history of regulation, not of the existence of air quality problems. Something about the UK and US CAAs is likely relevant.
Separate discussions of major regulatory areas, including but not limited to:
1. identification and categorization of air pollutants
2. setting acceptable emissions levels
3. determining necessary and appropriate emissions control technologies
4. Expanded country-by-country information
5. Consolidation and revision of poorly-written controversy section(s)
Please note that some of this may require working to limit redundancy with the Air pollution page.
For file: Merger proposal, "Clean Air Act" article
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I am an attorney in the United States specializing in environmental law. I have recently been working on the WikiProject LawEnvironmental law pages. I have significantly expanded the Environmental law page (work ongoing) and - I believe most importantly - have redesigned the Template:Environmental law. The taxonomy set out in the template (pollution control, resource mgmt and conservation, etc, with subcategories) is a pretty standard approach to organizing the topic and I have begun working on pulling together the sub-pages. Part of this process will be attempting to reduce duplication with other pages, and I propose merging, to the extent possible, related pages into the taxonomy I am following. I propose merger of Clean air act into this page for the following reasons:
1. Despite the title of the article targeted for merger, "clean air act" is not often used as a general term. This is precisely because of the confusion that arises with the U.S Clean Air Act, or any other country's (or state's) act that is designated "the" Clean Air Act within a particular jurisdiction.
2. "Clean air acts," if you want to use that term, are "air quality laws." However, so are international treaties such as MARPOL 73/78 Annex VI, and so are indoor air quality laws. They can all be discussed on the same page.
I would thereafter propose converting the page "Clean air act" into a disambiguation page, where CAA might stand for (list all the clean air acts with pages) or a type of [Air quality law|air quality law]].
I am making this proposal rather than being bold because of the prior lack of consensus regarding merger on this page. I will make this change in several days unless negative consensus emerges. Please confine discussion to this page.Ado2102 (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Disagree. I think the page should be left as is and not merged. Here's why: the comment re. the confusion with the US CAA is US-centric and not globally shared. If one uses the term "Clean Air Act" in any of the countries that have such legislation, the term is understood to apply to that country and not the US. In these countries one would typically say "US Clean Air Act" to refer to the US legislation and not "Clean Air Act". Thanks, 126.96.36.199 (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
== Do it==
There is all too much duplication in wikipedia in many subjects. This leads to several parallel tracks in which there is different material. Often the articles do not cross refer to each other, and if started in different countries or disciplines may not even understand their vocabulary. Many of them are started by people who take joy in multiplying the number of short uninformative articles without any wish to take part in editing, improving, researching, or etc... Please bring some order to the chaos. Avram Primack (talk) 16:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
== Dont Do it==
While their is all too much duplication in wikipedia, This is an important issue, and topic, and it deserves a page all to itself. While much of the contents of this page could be moved, I suggest leaving the Clean Air Act page open, with refrences to the act itself, it's provisions and regulations, for easy refrence. The clean air act is of great importance to many people and industries in the US. Please leave a page open for The Clean Air Act! Jfirewind (talk) 00:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
== Doin' it ==
I am in process of merging Clean air act into this article. I have moved all the contents across and now am beginning to make the enlarged article coherent. I will explain my actions later. --Greenmaven (talk) 07:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I have been convinced by the arguments above in favor of merging Clean air act with this article.
My reasons are as follows:
'Air quality law' is a more generic description for the article's title. Names of legislative Acts may vary over time.
Much of the content was common to both articles (clearly cut'n'pasted)
The two supporters of the merger User:Ado2102 ("I am an attorney in the United States specializing in environmental law" ) and User:Primacag appear to be better qualified to adjudicate than an IP editor and a very inexperienced editor, who opposed it.
This (merged) article contains the Template:Environmental law, and is consistent with it, and therefore with the organisation of related articles.
I have not lost any significant part of the content of either article. --Greenmaven (talk) 08:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.