Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian law

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bofn8828 (talk | contribs) at 07:24, 25 October 2018 (→Codelfa Construction v State Rail Authority of New South Wales). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Citation templates

Please refer to my comments at Template talk:Citation HCA --SilasM 07:25, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Signing Up

Any chance I can join the project? I know I can just add myself to the member list, but I kind of felt it seemed a bit more polite to ask first. I'm a fifth year comp sci/law student with interests in constitutional, administrative and intellectual property law, and I loathe judicial overreaching, but love to discuss it, so I'd love a chance to make articles on Australian case law in particular. As well as the usual major cases, I believe I could offer a good set of cases with regards to the ability to exclude judicial review through privative clauses, having only just finished a research project on the matter last semester.

Of course! We need all the help we can get - this has struggled to get off the ground so far. Also, did you know you can sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~)? Ambi 15:02, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Whoops, yes I do, I just keep forgetting :) Plasma 21:32, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This sounds cool! How do I join? btw i've just finished 3rd yr com/law at usyd. --Sumple 10:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You already have. :) Just dive in wherever you feel like - there's always room for expansion. If you're not sure of where to start, you might try List of High Court of Australia cases or List of Australian federal legislation. While we've got at least some article on all the High Court justices (List of Judges of the High Court of Australia), they just about all could do with a lot further expansion if you're interested. If you have any questions, feel free to drop a note on my my talk page. :) Ambi 10:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restarting project

We've got quite a few members now, and there's plenty of articles getting written but there doesn't seem to be much activity here, so I thought I'd make a start on some to-do lists. One of the first things we can do is to finish off the List of Judges of the High Court of Australia: see the project's Judges page. There's been quite a few stub additions to the List of High Court of Australia cases, which is good, but we still need to finalise some naming conventions: see the project's Policy page. --bainer 07:49, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It'd be nice to see the list of cases expanded some. You can expect a few contributions from me (as far as judges go - and cases if you can point me in the direction of some good ones to cover) as soon as my first law exam is done on Tuesday - then I should have a bit of free time. Ambi 12:34, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is anyone prepared to write an article for The Law Council of Australia? It was cited in a recent wikinews article, and the was no coresponding wikipedia article.. I'm not savy with that organisation, nor am I active in this project. --..micky 12:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox court case

I've added a proposed Infobox at User:Thebainer/Infobox court case, which displays information about court cases. I created this with Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian law in mind, but really this could be used for any court. I thought I'd throw it open for comments before I start adding it to articles. --bainer 08:57, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tasks list

Would anyone mind if I moved this to the project page as opposed to here? I didn't even know this was here until today! Ambi 13:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, it'd probably fit better out there. When I copied the WikiProject template it had an old 'to do' style thing on the talk page, I just changed it yesterday to this 'open tasks' format instead. Now that it's in this form it probably would be better out there where everyone can see it. --bainer (talk) 22:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi guys. I'm new here, a law student and as a fresh face not yet cynical ;). In exams at the moment but over the next few weeks planning to do a bit of work on Australian contract law. If things need research/citation I'm happy to do that sort of thing because it's an intersting way to learn. Man, I sound naive don't I... wait until I'm in practice, I'll become stereotypical soon enough. --mjec 12:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Case citation

I have been adding case citations for other countries and I've added a section for australia. Since I'm not familiar with it, there's liable to be mistakes. If anyone with australian citation knowledge would like to contribute that would be great. -PullUpYourSocks 17:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Revisiting the dot: an English dilemma

I've just been browsing some of the more general law articles, and I've just realised that all of the articles on English cases use the dot in their title. This creates the odd situation where half our articles are going to use it, and half are not. I'm really not fussed which way we go, but either way, both the English and Australian articles probably should be using the same format.

If you haven't already, you might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Law, which seems to be doing some good work already - there might be some things we could take away from there to use here. Ambi 04:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The dot is dead, long live the dot. The full stop in case citation abreviations (including the 'v') is no longer in use in contemporary legal publishing in Australia. It is archane. Lets not revive it on wiki. FedLawyer 15:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Legislation

As usual, the US seems to be far ahead of us - take a look at List of United States federal legislation. Any interest in getting a similar list together here? Ambi 04:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've cobbled together a list of a few important Acts over at /Legislation, and there's a few I'd be happy to make a start on. Any ideas about how to organise article on legislation? --bainer (talk) 13:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What sort of article were you thinking of? I've just created an Australian version of the American list, based on your list, at List of Australian federal legislation - feel free to make any changes you want. Ambi 03:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to type articles - I was wondering if anyone had any ideas about a standard way to structure articles on individual acts. Having a look at the American list, the USA PATRIOT Act is pretty comprehensive. Perhaps a section each on the history and context of the legislation, the purpose, the effect, and so on. --bainer (talk) 05:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Australia Act 1986
Parliament of Australia
Long title: An Act to bring constitutional arrangements affecting the Commonwealth and the States into conformity with the status of the Commonwealth of Australia as a sovereign, independent and federal nation
Introduced by:
Dates
Date passed:
Date of Royal Assent: December 4 1985
Commencement: March 3 1986, 05:00 UTC
Other legislation
Amendments: none
Related legislation: none

| align="center" colspan="2" style="background: #ccffcc" | Current legislation

In the meantime I made a quick infobox that could be used on pages about individual acts, it covers the basics like what the long title is, when it was given Royal Assent and who introduced it. There's an example below. Any suggestions about adding to it? --bainer (talk) 08:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me - I can't think of anything more that could be added off the top of my head. Ambi 12:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've now added the infobox: Template:Infobox Legislation, with instructions and descriptions of the parameters at Template talk:Infobox Legislation. --bainer (talk) 08:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Someone apparently didn't like the Aussie-centric naming of the template and moved it to Template:Infobox AU Legislation, in order to restore Americo-centricity. Please update your usage accordingly. --bainer (talk) 10:40, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect to legislation - it is continuously being amended with new bills into parliament. Is the template and article going to be a complete incorporation of all the bills introduced that have subsequently amended it? For example the VSU legislation is coming through under the Higher Education Ammendment Act 2002 (or similar) but it is just one paragraph. The template so far looks really good. --Never29 15:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's the idea, any amendments can be listed in the "Amendments" section in the template. The amendments can then be discussed in detail in the article. At the bottom of the template there's also the {status} parameter, which can be set to "current", "amended" (if there have been substantial amendments) or "repealed". See Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902 for an example. --bainer (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why repeat what is effectively already up on the free net at AustLII? If something is to be done on legislation lets value add to the AustLII material. FedLawyer 15:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ease of use

I was wondering if the Australian law infobox could be made easier to use or if it is already easy if it could be explained more simply. For example the general {{Infobox Legislation}} shows its fields thus | Name= | Parliament/Congress/Senate it was passed in= | Logo of that parliament or congress= | longtitle= | introducedby= | datepassed= | datesigned= | amendments= | relatedlegislation= | tablewidth=

A List of laws concerning Indigenous Australians will probably lead to some new articles. Thanks, Paul foord (talk) 02:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article workup?

Over the last few months, we've been having enormous success in the Canberra WikiProject with the concept of a featured article workup - similar to the common collaborations, but not limited by time; it stays there until it gets featured. It's so far managed to produce Canberra (which was accepted on FAC virtually unanimously) and History of the Australian Capital Territory (which is very close to being nominated), and I think there could be a lot of potential to do that here - so many of these articles are ordinary, but if a few people were interested, we could produce some real gems. Supreme Court of the United States is already featured, so perhaps we could take heed from this and make High Court of Australia even better. Ambi 07:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, and the HCA is a good first candidate. At first glance it's missing a "History" section, which seems pretty glaring. WP:SCOTUS has their collaboration over at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court Cases/PCA, although it's been stuck on Miranda v. Arizona for about a year now. --bainer (talk) 08:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be nice to see HCA worked up to feature standard. Australian constitutional law is pretty comprehensive as is.--cj | talk 08:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Kick Starting Australian Property Law

Hey Guys, I would like to write the article on Australian Property Law but thought before I just leaped straight in to ask for some guidance as to style, sub-categorisation, etc given it is such an ecompassing and almost limitless topic.

For example

  • There is Real Property Law (Land) - mortgages, easements, covenants, leases
  • Intellectual Property and its associates; copyright, trademark
  • Chattels and the intermingling with torts
  • Different state schemes of bureaucratisation
  • A long Australian history; and English history indeed - beginning with Feudalism
  • Of course Native Title
  • Body Corporate & Community Law
  • Many theories of property law


I will use the Property law page as a guide/model however there are some major distinctions as Australian property law is unique to the extent that in the federal system it his highly bureaucratised through legislation, being such a broad topic it could be a nightmare!

I Propose

The best way to begin would be to start off with some theory explaining what property is (in terms of a legal right) in the Australian context, then begin by explaining the different state regimes of land title (e.g the Qld Torrens System of Land) but then do you go into history? Quality should be emphasised over quantity, making the focus on land as property then expanding when I've got that one right?

How far does wiki law go? Should it be one big article, or a project encompassing dozens of articles that spring off Property Law? Any pointers? Cheers --Never29 16:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very new here, but I would suggest that the property law article should be a launching point for the three main areas of property law in Australia with a brief overview
  • - Real Property (torrens title and native title)
  • - Goods & Chattels (like the english, Denning and such)
  • - Intellectual Property (like the English again, automatic copyright and patents)
I do not think that Australian property law theory and history deserves it own section on the property law page. It would be worth mentioning the two areas of property law where Australia has really innovated - torrens title and native title. If I learn to edit better I will start working on some of this. IP is more my forte than anything else. VeryRusty (talk) 12:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{LawUnref}}

Note - I have created a modification of the {{unreferenced}} template for law articles - {{LawUnref}}, which puts articles into Category:Law-related articles lacking sources. I have substituted this for the regular unref template on some law articles in Category:Articles lacking sources. Please use this as a resource to note law-related articles that require references. Cheers! BD2412 T 15:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for Statutes

Some articles about federal and state laws are starting to appear. I suggest that categories/stubs are created for statues of each of the state parliaments and for the federal parliament. jmd 03:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are thousands of pages of the stuff each year - it is like holding back the tide. Categories as suggested are great, but I don't think wiki will ever keep up with the output (or cover what is there) and that is best left for the subject articles anyway. (eg Australian migration law). FedLawyer 15:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-Class and good B-Class articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles on Austrailian law? We are also looking for FAs. Please post your suggestions here. Cheers!--Shanel 00:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Australian constitutional law looks life a good Class-A article--Shanel 01:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dietrich v The Queen was recently FAed. Australian constitutional law is probably the next best; High Court of Australia is approaching FA standard, although there's still one more section that needs writing. Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942, Immigration Restriction Act 1901, Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902 are all maybe A or B. --bainer (talk) 10:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the extremely late reply, but thanks!--Shanel 04:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judges

We now have articles on all of the High Court Justices. It would be nice to get some articles started on some of the Federal Court or state Supreme Court justices. Anyone know of some good sources for bios on these people? --bainer (talk) 02:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be nice to get a list on each court article first. Once we've got that, I think we should be able to construct at least some decent biographies between Google and Factiva. Ambi 02:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
a bit hard... NSWSC website only has list (and bio) of the chief justices. there isn't even a list of the other justices. --Sumple 13:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, we'll find it in time. If one of us can't find it in a law library or state library, then we could always write to them and ask them to point us in the right direction. Ambi 13:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VICSC has a list all every single judge who has ever served on it [1]. Xtra 13:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone fancy turning that into a list, ala List of Judges of the High Court of Australia? There's some people there who'd make for fascinating topics. Ambi 13:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done for Vic for current ones. Xtra 14:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lovely. I've formatted all the names according to convention, and I think I'll have to start writing soon. It'd be great if someone could do the full list, although the main article might need a bit of expansion to warrant it. Ambi 14:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done the complete list. Took a couple of hours. Going to sleep. Xtra 05:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've disambiguated the list, and added at least the current justices for Supreme Court of the Northern Territory as an aside. It'd be nice if someone with the appropriate know-how could create a table like that at List of Judges of the High Court of Australia. Ambi 06:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Organising articles

I have done some re-organizing along accepted categories for legal writing. Hope you like it ;)!? Maybe with a more normalised structure people might add smaller articles. I haven't added much article stuff as the big ticket topic items are a bit daunting, so maybe this will help with making some smaller topic items fell like they have somewhere to live.

FedLawyer 15:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Commissions and this project

Will this project pick up Royal Commissions, a list of national RCs has been created. Paul foord 11:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate Commission

Added article on inter-state Commission. I need some references (will add soon) and see-alos's. Suggestions? --Sumple 13:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Position of State courts within the court hierarchy - comments sought

Various articles about state courts make mention of the court's position within the Australian court hierarchy. State Supreme Courts are said to me in the middle and District Courts and the County Court of Victoria for example are said to be low. Could some of the participants in the Aust law project could take a look at some of these as they don't seem right to me. I would have thought it fair to say that the Supreme Courts were near the top, and the district courts (together with the Federal Court) were somewhere near the middle, and the various local courts and Magistrates Courts were at the bottom. See for example: District Court of New South Wales, Supreme Court of Tasmania, District Court of Western Australia. Thanks -- Adz|talk 10:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current hierarchy:

High Court is at the Top
Full federal court is equal to Courts of Appeal
Federal Court is equal to Supreme Court
County / Distric Court is a State only thing
Federal Magistrates is equal to Magistrates/ local

the Supreme courts are right in the middle and the county/district courts are towards the bottom. Xtra 10:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to say whether a court is in the "middle". If you just write them down as a list, then yeah Supreme Court is in the middle. But in terms of how things are perceived for people, then local court is on the bottom, district/county court is in the middle, and all the appeals courts are up at the top. The High Court is not really a rung on the stepladder because there is no automatic appeal to the High Court. The way I see it:
  • High Court at the "apex"
  • Courts of Appeal (& Full fed court) at the top
  • Supreme Court (fed court) near the top
  • District Court (county court) near the bottom
  • Magistrate's/Local Court at the bottom
--Sumple 23:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying that Xtra. I had thought of it much as Sumple has explained it. This perception is probably emphasised by the fact that the majority of cases would be dealt with by local courts and magistrates courts, and only more serious cases would go to a Supreme Court or a Court of appeal - or at least that's my impression as a lay person. Perhaps A disagram of a court hierarchy pyramid in the court hierarchy article would help.
I'm begining to think that because the various articles about the courts explain (or should explain) the role of the court and the variuos courts that sit above and below the court in question, adding a sentence about the court hierarchy only confuses things. I think its confusing to say that a particular court is the higest court in the state, and then place it in the middle of the hierarchy. Perhaps it would be suficient to provide a "see also" link to the Australian Courts Hierarchy article. -- Adz|talk 23:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My aim in adding the possition in the court hierarchy was really just to get the link to the article which I thought was important. Xtra 23:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to point out that a decision of a single High Court judge is not binding on a state Court of Appeal. Neither is a decision of a District/County Court binding on a local/Magistrates Court. Similarly for the Federal Court/Federal Magistrates Court. - Richardcavell 08:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Argument going on at Gillick competence

Can anyone who knows what they're talking about answer whether or not a parent and a child can have concurrent ability to consent to medical therapy at common law? In South Australia and NSW, there's legislation to provide for it. But my argument is that there is no concurrent ability to consent, based on Marion's case at page 316 (McHugh J) and the majority verdict that appears to construe parental rights more narrowly than Gillick IMHO. Also, if there's anyone around here who's interested in medical law like me, would you like to get together and referee each other's work? :D - Richardcavell 09:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

State Supreme Court justices

A while ago, we added lists of state supreme court justices to those respective court articles, and I've been thinking about starting to write articles on these. I've just been looking for a list of the ACT Supreme Court judges, however, and though I managed to find it (here), the list is thoroughly confusing. Is there any chance someone could upload this to Wikipedia in a way that makes some sense? Rebecca 04:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I nearly want to kill myself, but it's done: List of Judges of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. --bainer (talk) 07:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are a legend, bainer. :) Rebecca 06:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Queensland Supreme Court judges are added! Sambo 06:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution template

I was checking out {{US Constitution}}, which looks sorta nice, so I thought I'd do up one for the Australian Constitution:

Feel free to edit it before I move it into the template namespace and start adding it to articles. --bainer (talk) 11:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good but a lot of the sections are not interesting and wil never elicit an article. Also, s51 may need to be divided into the various subsections. Xtra 13:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Section numbers are pretty user-unfriendly. What about adding some meaningful nomenclature - eg Corporations power - s 51(xx)?
Yes, I'm picky, but isn't the plural of referendum referenda? Sambo 13:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I used to think so too, but apparently not, see Referendum#Terminology. Further, "referendums" has always been used in this context (see this, for example). --bainer (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybee its time to move it into the the template namespace. And addiing it to relevant pages might encourage users to create articles that are needed. Also maybee a section under SCPOE in this WikiProject, as this seems to be quiet a large selection of articles that will need work. Jarryd Moore

New member

Hi all - I've joined this project, and my first contribution is the List of Judges of the Supreme Court of Queensland. I'm with Rebecca - I nearly want to kill myself! Sambo 06:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin law, and more HCA cases

There's a notable absence of substantive legal commentary in Wikipedia on Australian immigration law. Given the recent controversies, and that there has been heated division on the High Court (eg in Plaintiff S157) (Gleeson CJ, McHugh J and Kirby J arguably the protagonists) I'm keen to start putting something together. Any volunteers to write some case summaries?

As far as I can see, the notable absences from HC case summaries are:

Sambo 08:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to help with some of those, Al-Kateb particularly, and also the Jehovah's Witnesses case. Unfortunately it's exams at the moment for me, and for several other members of the project so I may not be able to help straight away! Dietrich v The Queen seems to be fairly well accepted as our model case law article, so check that out when you start working on these cases. --bainer (talk) 12:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
S220/2002 is another important high court immigration case (for admin law anyway)... (JROBBO 07:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Australian tort law

This article is badly in need of editing and meaningful commentary. I've started by adding some references and editing/adding to (in part) the sections on legislative reform and recognised torts. Sambo 12:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

High Court Judges

Can we put the birth (and death if relevant) dates of the High Court judges on the list? I think it would make a useful addition to that list? If I recall they were on there for some time but were later removed. (JROBBO 07:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

What for? Rebecca 10:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with JROBBO - this would be a useful addition. Sambo 12:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spycatcher Case

Can we add a page for the Spycatcher case (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1988/25.html Attorney-General (United Kingdom) v Heinemann Publishers Australia Pty Ltd [1988] HCA 25] - the case about the publication of alleged MI6 secrets in Australia and the UK Government's attempt to restrain publication of the book in Austalia - rejected on the grounds of the assertion of sovereign authority by a foreign state in Australia. This is an important High Court case in Australia. (JROBBO 03:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

That certainly looks interesting! I'll do some research. --bainer (talk) 05:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New citation template

I've done up a new single citation template which can link to more than two dozen different case report and transcript sources at AustLII. The template is currently here, tests seem to work fine so far, so I'll move it into the template namespace and start deprecating the old citation templates if people think it's useful. --bainer (talk) 12:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely - that's a great idea. Sambo 16:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Finally got around to doing this, {{Cite Case AU}} is now available to use, it replaces the old citation templates, which I've deprecated from main space. It can also easily link to about two dozen more sources on the AustLII site, including various federal courts, the state and territory Supreme Courts and even some tribunals. --bainer (talk) 13:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas McCosker

Thomas McCosker is currently at AfD. The person is not really notable but the Fijian court case is. Would somebody like to have a go at turning it into an article about the court case? There is some support for a rename. I have now found the Fijian law report at http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJHC/2005/500.html. There are some articles on the Fijian judicial system and the constitution but there could be more.--A Y Arktos\talk 21:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allens Arthur Robinson

We don't currently have an article on this firm who by my reckoning is one of Australia's leading law firms. How do you add an article to a requested articles list. This is in relation to Norman Lethbridge Cowper who is currently nominated in Articles for deletion and who was senior partner in the firm when it was Allen, Allen & Helmsley. Capitalistroadster 10:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution of Australia

Hey guys, I am attempting a re-write of the Constitution of Australia article. Basically, the reasons that I feel this article needs work is because:

  • The current article is too much like Australian constitutional law.
  • I think the Constitution of Australia should be a short, descriptive outline about the document, and less so about doctrines or cases; more descriptive and less discursive.
  • When someone reads the Constitution of Australia article as it stands, they're likely to be left without very clear ideas about the nature/history/structure/contents of the documents.

What I've done so far is at User:Sumple/Constitution of Australia. The #Articles section is based on the United States Constitution article.

Things which still need to be done are:

  • A "History" section.
  • Work out a good way of explaining the relationship between the Constitution text, vs the "Constitution" including letters patent or other things.
  • I would also like to restructure the "See Also" section in such a way as to bring together all the Constitution-related articles on Wikipedia (cases excluded - they can be linked from Australian constitutional law).
  • There is some material from the original page down the bottom, under "Old Stuff". They're there just for reference.

Any comments, suggestions, and criticisms are most welcome. --Sumple (Talk) 01:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely with your approach: the article should focus on describing the constitution itself, not constitutional law. Your rewrite so far is brilliant, and, insofar as I can see, covers everything it need do. The only thing it really requires is a bit more meat :). Great job, --cj | talk 05:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it looks good, and I agree that it should focus mainly on the document (with summary sections for the history and law articles, which you have). I was working on a template (User:Thebainer/Constitution of Australia) a while ago with links to various articles on the subject, I was planning to do articles on each of the chapters and on some of the more significant sections, I imagined those as being the main articles on smaller sections on this article. That would tie in nicely with this structure. --bainer (talk) 05:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks cj and bainer for the encouragement. That template looks great. It would link all the Constitutional law articles together in a logical and coherent way. Great idea. --Sumple (Talk) 10:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How's this coming along?--cj | talk 05:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've (finally) got the History section written - see User:Sumple/Constitution of Australia. I'm sure it has much room to improve, but I propose to replace the old version soon (which will make it easier to edit by all interested parties). If there are no objections, I will do it in a week. Please post any objections, comments, or suggestions at Talk:Constitution of Australia#New version - any_objections. --Sumple (Talk) 06:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tort Law cleanup

Hey, just did a cleanup of the Australian tort law article - need feedback. MojoTas 03:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lex Lasry

I was surprised to discover that there wasn't an article about Lex Lasry, so I created one. It didn't seem to fit within the scope of the list of tasks for this project so I haven't added it, but I thought that participants of this project might be interested to know that it has been created and may want to add content and/or clean it up a bit. Cheers. -- Adz|talk 12:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do i sign up?

do i just add my name to the list?

p.s wait till spring semester is over, i'll go crazy on these articles. (Truth 06 14:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Just add your name to the list. It's that simple! Great to have you on board, motivated for the challenges ahead! Cheers and happy editing! Jpe|ob 14:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Family Trusts

Could some people interested in Australian law come and help out at this discussion: Talk:Trust law#Family Trusts (Australia)?

Nulyarimma v Thompson

I just created this article Nulyarimma v Thompson. I'm a wikipedia n00b so it probably has some faults, fix it if you can :). Cheers {Truth 06 12:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

case significance

how significant does a case have to be before we can create an article about it? {Truth 06 11:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

It is a bit like asking how long is a piece of string! But I would have thought significant HCA or state Court of Appeal cases should get priority unless there is some really novel point raised in a lower court's decision. Sambo 12:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the existing case articles are about High Court cases, since they are usually the ones which are most important. But that's just been a trend in our work - there are no rules about what sort of case you can write about. I myself have written mostly about High Court cases, with the occasional Federal Court case or state supreme court case.
Essentially, it's up to you, and we're happy to have whatever articles you want to write. Take a look at Al-Kateb v Godwin and Dietrich v The Queen, both featured articles, for some pointers on style and structure, if you haven't seen them already. --bainer (talk) 13:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers {Truth 06 03:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 03:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

Use of succession boxes for High Court Justices

I am curious to get the opinion of those reading on the matter of using succession boxes for Justices of the High Court of Australia. If we were to follow the American model, a justice would have a succession box listing the person to have occupied his or her seat on the court right back to that seat’s establishment. I assume this can be done by following the chart that it laid out of the List of Justices of the High Court of Australia.

Assuming this is acceptable, a succession box might look something like this for Sir Frank Kitto:

Legal offices
Preceded by Justice of the High Court of Australia
1950-1970 		Succeeded by
Academic offices
Preceded by Chancellor of the University of New England
1970-1981 		Succeeded by

Is this an appropriate method of listing the succession from one justice to another? Would adding such a succession box to each and every justice of the High Court add or detract from the page? Any feedback would be appreciated! - Kiwifruitboi 07:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it certainly can't hurt - I for one would find it useful. Rebecca 04:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Case of Mines aka R v Earl of Northumberland

Could somebody please look at a stub I created on Case of Mines. It is a 1568 case which was the legal precedent for the issuing of Miner's Licences (ie those things they were rebelling against at Eureka Stockade).

There is a citation (1568) 1 Plowd., 310, at pp. 336, 336a. given at http://www.brumbywatchaustralia.com/Principality18.htm

Mines Case4(1568) 1 Plowd., 310, at pp. 336, 336a. all the Justices and Barons agreed that, in the case of the baser metals, no prerogative is given to the Crown; whereas all mines of gold and silver within the realm, whether they be in the lands of the Queen, or of subjects, belong to the Queen by prerogative, with liberty to dig and carry away the ores thereof, and with other such incidents thereto as are necessary to be used for the getting of the ore.

I feel a case which is such an important precedent for how mining was managed in colonies across the British Empire (Aust, NZ and Canada) needs at the least a decent stub. I am really not sure how to usefully progress a case law article from the sixteenth century.--Golden Wattle talk 21:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The case is cited as The Case of Mines (1568) 1 Plowd 310; 75 ER 472. in an article in the Indigenous Law Reporter; Asking The Minerals Question: Rights In Minerals As An Incident of Native Title --Golden Wattle talk 21:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 23:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palm Island ACOTF

Hi Wikipedians, as you might already know the Palm Island article has just become the Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight. To bring this article up to scratch we need your help in the following areas: "Manburra People v GBRMPA", "Zen Pearls Pty Ltd" and "Aboriginals Protection and Restrictions of the Sale of Opium Act 1897". Also the recently implemented Alcohol Management Plan [2] for the Island may be of interest.

However of highest interest to members of this project I'm sure is the jurisprudence questions raised by recent events where the Coroner investigating a death in custody allocated the blame for the death to a police officer and then the Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions made an affirmative statement that the death was actually caused by an accidental fall and not the police officer. More recently the Queensland Government has asked (former NSW Justice) Sir Lawrence Street to provide a second opinion based on the DPP's own file. This will be an interesting project/article to get involved in I guarantee! WikiTownsvillian 08:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, there is a section /*Aboriginal Protection and restriction of the sale of opium act 1897 which is bigger than the main article to which it refers (Aboriginal Protection and restriction of the sale of opium act 1897). If a contributor could review that section, move relevant content to the main article, and place only a summary back on Palm Island, that would be a great assistance to the ACOTF.Garrie 04:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

High Court Judges List

I've done a bit of work on List of Justices of the High Court of Australia; I think this could easily be a featured list - besides references, which are quite easy to come by, and an opening that's a bit more detailed, I don't think much work needs to be done on it. If anyone can make any suggestions on the article and how it might be improved, please reply to this message. JRG 11:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone out there?

It's now almost a month since I posted the above. Any chance of a reply? Does anyone read this page any more? JRG 22:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Floating charges

In Getzler & Payne, Company Charges - Spectrum & Beyond it is claimed in the foreword that the floating charge has been abolished in both Australia and New Zealand. One of the authors (Josh Getzler) is an Aussie, so I suppose he ought to know, but the claim is actually made in the foreword by Lord Millett. Can anyone confirm if this is right and point me in the direction of any relevant statute? If it is corrected, then the floating charge article should be updated to mention this. --Legis (talk - contributions) 16:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea where he gets that from. Floating charges have definitely not been abolished in Australia - at least not in Victoria - unless there's something I missed in the last month or so. The position may have been modified by statute in other states (particularly the all-Torrens states) but even so, it wouldn't be correct to say that the floating charge has been abolished altogether. When was the book written? --bainer (talk) 01:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is copyrighted from 2006. I suspect it is an inaccurate throw-away comment. He also says that they have no concept of a floating charge in the U.S., which might be technically true, but they do have a concept of a floating lien, which is conceptually on all fours. I guess they let anyone sit in the House of Lords these day. --Legis (talk - contributions) 08:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki Cooperation

I've asked for an "interwiki cooperation". Please read the discussion here. Thanks. Erasoft24 23:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this from a stub notice without any kind of logo for Australian law, I dont know how to make it, but I think a good logo for Australian law stub notices (by stub notice I mean the things that say "This article relating to Australian Law is a stub..." would be the scales of justice over a map of Australia.Crd721 07:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews item on Susan Kiefel

A stub news item Kiefel appointed to High Court of Australia is being developed at Wikinews for publication on the day of Kiefel's swearing in. Any contributions are welcome to get it to the standard required to be featured as a headline on the main page. Dbromage [Talk] 07:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help with AWA page

Hi, I've been trying to edit the page on Australian Workplace Agreement to get it to NPOV, at the moment nobody is interested in adding anything unless I remove the tag "the neutrality of this article is disputed" and then all of a sudden people have an opinion. If anyone here would like to have a quick look at the legal side of the it that would help heaps. Master z0b 00:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re Court of Appeals

Please see my move proposal at Talk:Court of Appeals#Rename this article?. --Mathew5000 19:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication of Categories

I found an anomaly. There may be more to discover, but any-way I found these two; Category:Australian_constitutional_law and also Category:Australian constitutional law, which appear to be two distinct categories, so I added the first to a couple of articles so they have both, which hopefully might elicit either someone who knows what's going on to edit all the pages in both categories to a common category with agreed syntax so that only one category is in use, or might elicit a debate over the proper syntax to be applied for categories within the scope of this and related projects. petedavo (talk) 23:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

County Court of Victoria

I've added a list of judges to this page, and will try and get a few pages for individual judges up. Suggestions are welcome. Donners (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know about Blake Dawson?

It is missing an article (see redlink in Big Six law firms). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

High Court judge photos— URGENT

I know some people who read here have fought against Australian politician photos being deleted before— I was wondering if you wouldn't mind commenting on this deletion discussion for the photo of Justice Hayne on the High Court— deletion of this photo will mean that all photos of judges in Australia except those where the photo is in public domain (which means every judge since the 1950s/60s, essentially) will have to be deleted, except for Spigelman's picture which was provided by a family friend and Kirby (who is a major exception due to his other commitments). I don't think some users understand that it is practically impossible to get a photo of an Australian judge— we are not going to get free photos in a million years. Feel free to let others know and get them to comment too. JRG (talk) 05:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will respond. There's good reason for keeping these - I agree. Lonelygirl16 (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Prisons

If anyone's interested, I've proposed a new wikiproject for the creation of articles regarding specific prisons here. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burger King Corporation v. Hungry Jack's Pty Limited ([2001] NSWCA 187)

I need some help with this case over at Burger King legal issues. This article is currently is a Feature Article candidate and I would like some help insuring that the article is factually correct. Could any of the members of Australian Law project assist with this? I also need help making sure all case citations are properly noted per the standards of the Australian legal system.

Thank you very much, --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 07:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Australian law

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection before December 2008, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 16:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legislation citation template

To go with the case citation template I've created a legislation citation template, {{Cite Legislation AU}}. Like the case template, it produces links to the AustLII site. Of the resources available there, it currently supports consolidated acts and regulations (which are available for every Australian jurisdiction) and, where available, bills and explanatory memoranda, as well as repealed acts and regulations, which are available for only the ACT and NSW.

It's somewhat less useful than the case citation template, since you need to know the short name that AustLII gives to each piece of legislation that they use in the URL. However, it should still be useful for consistency (and for ease of updating in case MULR puts out a new edition of the AGLC) and for any possible template-data-mining tools that might be created. --bainer (talk) 11:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

High Court Judges

I recently saw this page (List_of_Justices_of_the_High_Court_of_Australia). Could this have references added? It could be a good article. Lonelygirl16 (talk) 07:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes needed to Australian Monarchy articles

Does someone want to look at List of Australian monarchs? --Lawe (talk) 06:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 04:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 08:49, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#PLOT

Apologies for the notice, but this is being posted to every WikiProject to avoid accusations of systemic bias. Hiding T 13:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Law notability guideline

You are invited to comment on the preliminary law notability guideline. Criticism, comments, better ways of phrasing things - even suggestions of other things it should cover - are welcome. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 02:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation

Folks, assuming anyone is out there.

It seems like the categorisation of articles is a bit hit and miss at the moment. We seem to have a lot of subcategories, some of them very specific, as well as some which appear to be duplicates. I would like to suggest that we attempt to consolidate and structure the current pages in a slightly new way.

My suggestion is:

A subcategory for each of the major areas of law. For example, the subcategory property law would contain subcategories for real property, IP, and native title, at least.
A category for people and structures supporting the legal system. This is where all the judges, courts, firms, journals, etc. would reside.
A category for legislation.

I'm not even sure that we need a category for legislation. Individual cases would belong to the area of law(s) for which they are notable.

Any comments please.VeryRusty (talk) 11:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We actually have quite a few of these already. Check out the subcategories under Category:Australian law. Category:Australian legislation already exists, as do quite a few categories on areas of law (such as Category:Australian property law and Category:Australian constitutional law). I see you've created the People in Australian law category which is a good addition! The judges category that's now under that is looking pretty good, but law firms are definitely an area in need of expansion.
Are there any other changes you've thought of? --bainer (talk) 08:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australian law articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Australian law articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 21:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject cleanup listing

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acts Interpretation Act 1901

I have expanded Acts Interpretation Act 1901 and added references. Perhaps someone could review? Otherthinker (talk) 21:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look, and it looks good, has a lot of the basic info. It would be good to see some more info about its use in practice (such as for judicial interpretation) and any major amendments, and cases which turned on it's provisions. I've upgraded its class to start.VeryRusty (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New article someone might want to look at

Hi all, I was doing new pages patrolling and came across this article: Latec Investments v Hotel Terrigal (in liq) (1965) 113 CLR 265, High Court of Australia. At present it's written essentially like someone's case brief rather than an encyclopedic discussion of the case itself (and has other problems, such as probably requiring a rename). That and I don't even know if we could call it notable (not familiar enough with Australian law myself). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

error message

Does anyone know why the bottom of wp:WikiProject Australian law says: "Cite error: There are < ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a Template:"reflist template (see the help page)"? XOttawahitech (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Wikiain (talk) 22:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

clarification for Carmen Rupe

In Carmen Rupe it says:

She described how local police treated her: I was locked up in Long Bay prison about a dozen times. But it made me a stronger person today.[4] An arrest in New Zealand failed to produce a conviction, because drag was legal there, unlike Australia.

That's definitely supported by the sources given, but the sources are Rupe-specific. Does anyone know of a good legal source for whether drag was actually illegal in Australia (in the 1950s-60s-70s) and when it stopped being a crime? Stuartyeates (talk) 10:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category:Australian law articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 23:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiConfererence Australia 2015 - Save the date 3-5 October 2015

Our first Australian conference for Wikipedians/Wikimedians will be held 3-5 October 2015. Organised by Wikimedia Australia, there will be a 2-day conference (Saturday 3 October and Sunday 4 October) with an optional 3rd day (Monday 5 October) for specialist topics (unconference discussions, training sessions, etc). The venue is the State Library of Queensland in Brisbane. So put those dates in your diary! Note: Monday is a public holiday is some states but not others. Read about it here: WikiConference Australia 2015

As part of that page, there are now sections for you to:

  • indicate your interest in possibly attending the conference (this is not a binding commitment, of course)
  • add suggestions for topics to include in the conference: what you would like to hear/discuss (again, there is no commit to you presenting/organising that topic, although it’s great if you are willing to do so), or indicate your enthusiasm for any existing topic on the list by adding a note of support underneath it

It would really help our planning if you could let us know about possible attendance and the kind of topics that would make you want to come. If you don’t want to express your views on-wiki, please email me at kerry.raymond@wikimedia.org.au or committee@wikimedia.org.au

We are hoping to have travel subsidies available to assist active Australasian Wikipedians to attend the conference, although we are not currently in a position to provide details, but be assured we are doing everything we can to make it possible for active Australian Wikipedians to come to the conference. Kerry (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, just letting you know we will not be proceeding with Wikiconference Australia 2015 originally proposed for 3-5 October 2015. Thanks to those of you who expressed your support. You are free to attend the football finals instead :-) Kerry (talk) 07:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Pride!

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

  • What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
  • When? June 2015
  • How can you help?
    1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here
    2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)
    3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.


Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   10:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_law&oldid=865644249"