Category talk:Law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I removed the description conerning alternate meanings of law because it didn't seem like it was the appropriate place. The name "Law" by itself is just about universally refers to a legal system. When it comes to law in any other form it's best to refer to the disambiguation section.

As well, I don't see how Law (as in a legal system) is not an applied science while Law (as in physics, etc) is. The former is as much an applied science as Journalism and Education.

Lastly, describing Law in general terms as "a situation" is just inaccurate and confusing. I really hope there could be some clarification as to what this is getting at.

Cheers! Dostal 17:20, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Thank you for explaining your reasoning. Just read your note about the disambiguation page (which was not categorized under Law, until I just put it there). It is interesting that law can be thought of as a science, as might journalism. It has not been so long ago that people referred to the field as the legal profession. Can the terms technology and engineering be far behind? Ancheta Wis 12:09, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

clean up[edit]

I have been cleaning up this category lately as the whole field is in pretty bad shape. If anyone has problems with any of the categorization I won't be hurt if you change it, law categorization has been in such desparate need of cleaning that I can't guarantee accuracy on my organization. In sorting the articles, I've noticed that a good number of them are just legal terms. As Wikipedia is not a dictionary (legal or otherwise, use wiktionary if you want one), many of these articles should be merged into more substantial articles on a related topics. -- PullUpYourSocks 03:24, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

a proposal re categorisation of law[edit]

I agree that this category is in bad shape.

I've been in discussion with a website owner who has written 1500 articles on English law with a view towards getting those articles into wikipedia.

I think that the only sane way for him to do that would be if there was a coherent, logical structure to the law pages.

Currently all law is lumped togther, when we all know that that although there are similarities in CL system, they also diverge in other places.

So about this :

  • Law (articles common to all law - probably very few articles
    • Common Law jurisdictions (articles common to all CL jurisdiction including UK,Australia, USA etc)
      • UK Law
      • Australian Law
      • USA Law
    • European Law
    • Sharia Law ?

and THEN use a sub-categorisation system, similar to Halsbury's. 5 — Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders 10 — Administrative Law 15 — Agency 20 — Animals 25 — Arbitration 30 — Auction 35 — Aviation 40 — Bailment

That particular scheme is well documented, and known to thousands of Australian lawyers and students already.

Obviously, in wikipedia as articles can be members of more than one category, an article on

  • Invitation to treat distinguished from offer

could be categorised under both Category:Common Law UK and Category:Common Law Australia because they both have the same legal authority - the Carbolic Smoke Ball case.

Darren.kruse 04:21, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Admittedly, I'm not too familiar with Halsbury but I think it's fair to recognize that this problem of distinguishing between law jurisdictions is a major one. I wonder if this might be helped by starting something like a Wikiproject for law in order to get some consensus on the best way to approach categorization and equally the approach to writing articles themselves. The lack of consistency between concepts of law and where they are applicable prevents much of the material from being useful. -- PullUpYourSocks 19:26, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I have seen the main categories and I think that the result of their "merging" with their respective Wikiportals is excellent. Since there is a Law Wikiportal, don't you think that it would be good to put it here? --Bill the Greek 12:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup request[edit]

This category has many articles that need to be moved into appropriate subcategories. -- Beland 01:44, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

It also has way too many subcategories. Some of them really should be grouped, ideally by someone who knows more about law than I do. ReeseM 02:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I will try now, to start. Bearian 22:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I have started to place many articles into more detailed categories (e.g., Category:Legal literature, or Category:Common law). For the most part, I have left NO explanation on the Talk pages, with only a short 1 to 3 word Edit Summary. If any editor or admin has a particular problem with any re-listing, please revert the edit, or tell me, and I will ladly do it for you. Bearian 16:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Huh... ladly, what's that?! I meant glady. :-) Bearian 22:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Is there a way to make Category:Wills and trusts a sub-category of Category:Law? I dont see how they mesh in the system. Bearian 23:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

different counties different laws[edit]

the category law cannot be left like this. how can laws from different countires fall under the same categoristion. it makes it impossiable to use.

Well, I'd argue that no matter what country you're dealing with, there is some general similarity in the definition of "law". There are enough similarities that the concept of Law has its own page. On a different note, this category doesn't claim to address anything other than things that use the term "law", which by definition applies to the laws of all countries. Don't get me wrong, I understand the vast differences in laws not only between countries but between concepts of law as well (national laws, moral laws, things like Murphy's law, etc). But they're all called "laws", and that's what this category is meant to show. -Unknownwarrior33 03:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)