Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian law

Codelfa Construction v State Rail Authority of New South Wales

Hi folks. I've created the above page and would love some feedback from editors in the law community. If anyone has recommendations for where to look for this, or whether this group might be interested in reviewing my page, please let me know. Thanks so much!--Bofn8828 (talk) 23:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I'll have a look @Bofn8828:. I have moved the page to add "Pty Ltd" to the name and will tidy up some of the references, but it is a good start. Find bruce (talk) 00:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help! I really struggled with adhering to the citation style for cases as a first time user. You have greatly improved the quality of the page Find bruce--Bofn8828 (talk)

Yes I found the citations a bit tricky at first but once you get your head around the cite AustLII template it is pretty easy. In terms of the article content, a couple of suggestions for improvement. The decision section is usually limited to what the High Court actually decided. Commentary & discussion as to the rationale & comparisons with English law would then be in the next section. This is one of the most cited Australian cases (see lawcite) and for the most part uncontroversial, but academic papers, quite understandably, focus on the areas of controversy. It seems to me the article is focused a little too much on both the areas of controversy and the comparison with English law. On that note, Codelfa in 1982 can't have diverged from the English position in 1997. My recollection was that the English position has changed over time but the High Court declined to do so. These are minor points and you are under no obligation to agree with them & like I said the article is a good start. Find bruce (talk) 21:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

How active is this project?

Hi - I have been responsible for most of the recent activity in AL’s sister project, WP Australian crime (in occasional bursts), though apart from that, that project is probably a candidate for an "inactive" tag. Was wondering about that here... I did a few housekeeping edits today (feel free to let me know if something wasn't quite right and I'll rectify) but was wondering if anyone or anything is still active here? Thanks. JabberJaw (talk) 02:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Australian sub projects are all 'live' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/ on close examination - an in most cases the notion of activity is as to whether there are any processes conducted - usually against the log process such as:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Perh articles by quality log

Where assessment or changes in assessment are indicators - and each Australian project has varying degrees of intensity as to where participants in some projects are adequately active in keeping up with that project.

Another project component is the presence of any activity at the talk page of the project. Or in people adding themselves as participants.

In most cases querying whether a project is active or not is counter productive. Just edit and get on with it, making sure you get over your lack of assessing - and the project is definitily alive. Asking the question doesnt help, editing alway does. JarrahTree 10:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Infobox court case: Substituting 'opinion' with 'judgment'

I have added a suggestion on the talk page of the above template that it be amended so that a different term for 'opinions' can be included. Opinions does not seem correct in an Australian context - it is not in common usage, judgments is the term used. Added here in case anyone wants to chime in over there. Local Variable (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Big Six (law firms) recent changes

There have recently been a lot of changes on the Big Six (law firms) article. I am hoping some experienced Wikipedian who is interested in Australian law topics can look at them, as it's beyond my ability to follow.

My concern is that two editors (or maybe one user with two names) are turning the article into something it is not intended to be. It appears to be morphing into an article about current prominent law firms, whereas I think the article is meant to be about the term Big Six itself, and its earlier use for the 'top' law firms in Australia. I have put my concerns on talk, and also on the users' talk pages, 1 and 2. Now it's getting way too confusing for me.

If there's someone active here, maybe Local Variable, for instance, could they take a look, please? Apologies if this is not the appropriate place to ask, but some of the boards I looked at seem too extreme, as I am uncertain of the seriousness of the problem, or even if it is a problem. Also, mildly concerned if there could be a touch of conflict of interest? ... Just that they only edit Law Firm articles, but that may be only because they're new. Please ignore this, if inappropriate. Thank you 49.177.64.138 (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@49.177.64.138: Thanks for drawing my attention to this article. I will have a look at those edits, and make any edits I think are needed to maintain the WP:NPOV and WP:NOPROMO policies. I am slightly concerned that there is sockpuppetry involved between those users, based on similarity of edit summaries and edit history. Opening a case at WP:SPI may be warranted. Local Variable (talk) 15:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

In the meantime, I have placed a notice on the talk page of each user advising of the one account policy. If suspicious editing continues on both accounts, I'll look at further options like SPI. Local Variable (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Help: how to find details of cases that make legal history in NSW?

I hope this is the right place to ask. I am writing a WP article- Draft:Carolyn Quadrio - and I have been given information that the person has made legal history at least three times prior to 2016. Is there a way I can find out the details using their name? Where would I search and how? Thanks in advance.--Bcritical (talk) 05:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Requesting eyes on Big Six (law firms)

I need help. When only two users are editing and disagree, it's very hard to resolve disputes. Another editor wants to turn it into an article about another term, "Top tier", and there's only patchy sourcing for that term, anyway. I started an RfC here:

• Talk:Big Six (law firms) § RfC: Is the term "top tier" law firms verifiable and in scope here?

but I don't think it's going anywhere. The article's only rated "low importance", but I'd still prefer it remain accurate. Perhaps I am wrong ... Any advice appreciated: on improving or publicising the RfC; or just weigh in on the Talk page or article. I'm unlikely to have the energy to keep on it, myself. Thanks. AukusRuckus (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)