|WikiProject European Union||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Open||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Pirate Politics||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
Removed only example of problematic legislation
The article used to include this text:
- For example, the UK Patent Office withdrew its initial proposal for a fast-track implementation (using the European Communities Act), and British parliament may now have to pass customised implementation legislation.
I have removed it, because the UK did pass the EUCD into law in 2003. Although the linked text of the law says "Coming into force ... 31st October 2003", the previous page says "Came into force on 31 October 2003."
This removal detracts from the remaining sentence that preceded it:
- Many important details are not specified in the Directive, and as a result, EU member states have significant freedom in certain aspects of directive implementation.
Lack of content?
This page doesn't say anything about the actual law... What it does, etc. Retinarow 20:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the current article name is inappropriate. It think it should be moved back to "EU Copyright directive", or perhaps EU 2001 Copyright Directive. We have no obligation to refer to something by the official name. That makes linking and such unnecessarily difficult. Thoughts? Superm401 - Talk 05:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strong disagree. Most EU directives don't have "short titles", and those common names that do exist are usually ambiguous (there are half a dozen directives covering copyright, for example). Use of the full name (or rather an abbreviated version, omitting the number and date which are given in the lead paragraph and table) is the only way to ensure consistent naming of articles on EU directives. Linking can be facilitated by making as many redirects as you like—"Redirects are cheap", and that's what they're there for! Physchim62 (talk) 14:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree too. The current article name is the actual name of the directive. Other forms are well-known too, but they're shortened forms with no consensus on which of those would be most appropriate. I think the article name should be the official name and would find it hard to justify changing it for esthetic reasons. As for the convenience reasons, a number of these short forms have been set up as redirects. — Northgrove 12:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Some proposed amendments to WP:EU/MOS would require renaming this article. For comments please go to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject European Union/Style guidelines#Some proposed amendments. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Will do. In fact my views on the subject have changed in the last two years, and I would no longer oppose a page move. Physchim62 (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- The directive is referred to as InfoSoc Directive among professionals and academics alike and definitely deservs a redirect. EU Copyright Directive is not a precise title (as there are several others which deal with certain aspects of copyright) but should also probably redirect here. --As286 (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- "Copyright Directive" is by far the commonest title. If it were so ambiguous, why does "EU Copyright Directive" redirect here instead of being a disambiguation page. The article could and should contain links to other directives which involve copyright. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 21:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- A search of the European Commission's website produces only 18 hits for the "InfoSoc Directive" but 317 for the "Copyright Directive". — Blue-Haired Lawyer 22:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
The name InfoSoc Directive should be placed more prominently. Although it seems from the above comments that the Commission's website seems to favor the term "Copyright Directive" I have always come across it as the InfoSoc Directive, be it in academic literature or at conferences (not only academic ones). In fact, I also just did a custom google search for both terms, and while "Copyright Directive" yielded more results, those for "InfoSoc Directive" were more targeted at the legislation in question. Moreover, as also mentioned above, the term "Copyright Directive" can easily be misleading, as one would expect to find a framework Directive such as the Trade Mark Directive or the Community Design Directive which purport to cover most of the field, which is certainly not the case for copyright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon503a (talk • contribs) 03:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)