Talk:List of acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom

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

Duplicated years[edit]

Is there any reasons why the years 1914, 1916 and 1918 are duplicated in the article? If there is, then the section headings need to be made clearer to point out the differences between them. If not, then the sections need to be merged to remove the duplicated entries they contain. Can anyone see any reason to retain them? Road Wizard 20:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The years that you've mentioned appear more than once because they were split between two different parliamentary sessions. This is actually quite common but is not immediately apparent in all the various lists because they're still incomplete.
It's necessary to provide sessional details because this forms the basis of how individual Acts are cited, but it does unfortunately mean that it's difficult to make a neat list that's clearly presented. However, the current method of presentation could no doubt be improved upon. As the lists are now being worked upon by a few people, it will hopefully be possible to get the overall presentation improved upon in the near future.
Silverhelm 21:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
I seperate the year 1702 in the following fashion: session 1's public acts, session 1's private acts, session 2's public acts, session 2's private acts. See List of Acts of Parliament of the English Parliament, 1601 to 1706. Do you think this the best way of arranging them? Kurando | ^_^ 10:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly the approach that I've used when trying to split other years. However, I'm thinking that the best method might be to use a colour-coded table. I haven't as yet put any thought into how that might work in practice, though!
Silverhelm 15:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Indian Army Act 1911[edit]

doesn't appear to be included in the list. a reference to it can be found here. Doldrums 17:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Indian Army Act, 1911" wasn't a British Act of Parliament, but rather an Act [No. VIII of 1911] of the Governor General of India in Council. Silverhelm 13:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Accuracy of older details and general formatting[edit]

Please see the talk page at Talk:List of Acts of Parliament of the United Kingdom Parliament, 1801-1819 for current discussion of possible changes to these lists. Silverhelm 09:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Parliament of Great Britain[edit]

would it make sense to split off the Great Britain legislation to the previous list? It very nearly aligns with a century break, so would be handy. Morwen - Talk 12:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to do this. Morwen - Talk 16:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy of listing[edit]

I'm concerned about the accuracy of the short title given for a number of these Acts (not just those for 1801-1819, but also some of the other periods). It appears that someone has taken the listings in the "Chronological Table of the Statutes" and appended the word "Act" and the year after each item given. However, not all Acts (especially earlier ones) have ever been given a formal short title, and I believe that in these cases the Chronological Table merely gives a brief description. I believe that some of those descriptions have unfortunately been blindly turned into short titles here that will only ever exist in this list.

It's a bit difficult to prove that an Act doesn't have a short title, of course, but quite a number of the "short titles" listed appear rather unlikely, and I think it downright improbable that (to use an extreme example) fourteen separate Acts within the same session would all be given the same name by subsequent legislation ("Taxation Act 1801").

Silverhelm 16:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I have a copy of the Short Titles Act 1896, which I presume listed acts still in force at that date. The Taxation/Customs/Importation Acts etcetera didn't make the list of course, so it doesn't help a whole lot. I've checked a few sample acts from the 1896 Act, and the titles given here seem OK. Lozleader 19:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem, as you say, is what happened with Acts that weren't included within the scope of the 1896 Act; I don't doubt that those that were are generally going to be correctly listed. A number of the others had already been given short titles in passing by amendment Acts, and those are probably listed correctly as well. But that leaves a lot of Acts that would have been repealed by the 1890s, slipped through the net, or were considered too obscure or inconsequential to merit a name.
Since I happened to be looking some other stuff up today in the "Chronological Table", I had a quick look at their introductory notes; supposedly when they've used descriptions they've been identified by the use of square brackets, but I'm sure that this principle has only observed by them for unrepealed legislation.
Short of going through every Act of Parliament from the doubtful ones onward, though, I guess it's going to be difficult for me to objectively prove my suspicions. But I really cannot see that there would have been (say) fourteen different "Taxation Act 1801"s! There are numerous similar examples to be found in the lists, as well as a number of "short titles" that look plain suspicious (some of the ones with a colon, for example). Unfortunately the only remotely practical solution I can think of is to strip out all the Acts that are redlinked, and police the lists so that each and every entry that is then added has evidence to support its inclusion. I have my own list of around 4,000 Acts that notes whether the short title I have is from the Act itself or from a reliable secondary source (eg, another Act), for example.
It would help if whoever added all these entries had noted what their source was! I would certainly put a shilling on it being what I guessed above; entries from the "Chrological Table" with the word "Act" and the year appended.
Silverhelm 22:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Other suspect items are various "Inclosures Act"s (as opposed to "Inclosure Act"s, which I seem to be able to verify; it's also suspicious that there's only one of the latter in any year, but sometimes three or four of the former), and variations on the theme of "Confirmation of [Certain] Marriages Act". As far as the latter goes, I think it's telling that the Foreign Marriage (Amendment) Act 1988, which repealed a whole load of these, only gives a short title for one or two (and the ones listed explicitly named what part of the world they were for, whereas the ones listed on these lists are utterly generic); given that the Law Commission was involved, it seems doubtful that so many short titles would have been overlooked if they actually existed. I'm sure that this is another case of the "Chronological Table" giving a brief description that has been misinterpreted as a short title.
I know none of these are conclusive as such, but I'm trying to provide specific examples to support my argument.
[Apologies for poorly structured sentences here, btw. Brain dead!]
Silverhelm 02:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I suppose someone could go through the statute books and add the long titles to the dodgy ones. My local reference library has most of them for the nineteenth century; if their titles are indexed, I could photocopy them and slowly add them. The chance of most of these acts ever getting an article of their own is remote, though. Also, seeing as a lot of these act titles are fictional, would it not be better (logical) to arrange them in chapter order? Lozleader 10:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the long titles, perhaps what I've been doing for the List of Acts of the Parliament of Ireland could be the basis for English/British legislation also. Many of those Acts lack a short title, and originally were listed with a brief description. In a number of cases I've replaced that description with the long title; in others, the long title would be far too long and unwieldy, so I've rewritten or expanded the description (and identified it with "Re"). It still all needs work (I think some of the long titles I've added in should perhaps be replaced with a description, for example). I've also been italicising both long titles and descriptions, mainly so that the short titles stand out better, but perhaps a better approach would be to italicise descriptions only (and to remark as such at the head of the list)?
As for what order the lists are in, my initial feeling was that they should be in chapter no. order, and hence in chronological order. However, on further reflection, I'm not sure that would be very useful for a general-purpose encyclopedia. Although it would be a lot of work (and I'd be entirely happy to do it myself), I would suggest that there should in fact be two separate listings:
  1. Strictly alphabetic (ie, regardless of date), and
  2. Strictly chronological.
I'm not sure how Acts lacking a short title could be dealt with for the first of those, however; perhaps they should simply be omitted from that listing, or there should be a side listing of Acts that lack a short title?
Silverhelm 16:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
All the acts I have added have been cross-checked against the legal database justis, and may not be the actual short titles (because one has not been assigned), but are verifiable. Kurando | ^_^ 12:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. As far as I'm aware there is no official database listing Acts of Parliament (the UK government has a statute database but it took as its starting point the law in effect as of (I think) 1991), so I would guess that Justis.com have indeed done what I suggested above, and just added the word "Act" and the year to each item in the "Chronological Table". Incidentally, that site no longer seems to offer a search for legislation; "Quick Search" just goes to a tutorial. Unless perhaps you're a subscriber?
The above aside, I'd also suggest that we (I) reformat the listings using tables; perhaps something like this, but with alternating colour-coding to identify changes of calendar year and session:
Year Session Chapter Title/description
1868 31 & 32 Vict. c. 33 Cotton Statistics Act 1868
I'd also suggest that, for the lists prior to 1963, the now extremely long TOCs be replaced with two much smaller ones; one for the calendar years (this could be generated automatically by having sectional breaks in the table with each change of calendar year), and one for the sessions (if in-page anchors are possible in wiki-language in the same way that they are in HTML).
Silverhelm 16:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Perhaps if the lists were converted into tables, as an interim step Acts with a confirmed short title could be colour-coded? That way it'd work as a common self-maintaining check list. Once a significant proportion have been verified, perhaps then it could be switched around so that the unverified titles would be the ones that are highlighted. Silverhelm 03:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Maybe try tabulating a section and see what it looks like? Updating all the TOCS is something I am also keen on, but it is quite a task - I did start to do the "short" 1700-1706 page but even that got a bit hairy and I'm afraid I gave up until I have more time to devote to the job. Kurando | ^_^ 09:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A good idea. I'll have a stab at 1707-1719, though; all those "private" Acts in the other list make my head hurt! I'll post back here when I've mocked something up on a dummy page. Silverhelm 17:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I don't think that this is just a problem of missing short titles. The list features:

  • Lunatics Act 1845 c. 100
  • Lunatics Act 1845 c. 126

- which should, from a quick Google seach, be:

  • Lunacy Act 1845 c. 100
  • County Asylums Act 1845 c. 126

Is there any reason for me not just leaping in and fixing this if it's obvious? Cutler 10:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Draft reformat[edit]

Okay, following on from the above discussion, I've put together a draft reformat at User:Silverhelm/Playpen/List of Acts of Parliament, using the current list for 1707-19. The main changes are as follows:

  • The Acts for each calendar year have been grouped together into a single table.
  • Verified short titles have been highlighted (I have very little material for this period, so there are only a few of these at present).
  • The "short titles" that are (in my view) either clearly wrong or very doubtful have been stripped down to a description; these stand out clearly as they're the only items not wiki-linked.
  • The auto-generated TOC has been replaced with two, much smaller, ones, for calendar years and parliamentary sessions respectively.

Clearly that third item is relatively subjective. I erred on the side of caution, but broadly speaking I've taken any of the names that appeared more than once in a year (eg "National Debt Act", "Taxation Act", etc.) to be a strong indicator of an incorrect short title, and likewise for those with a colon, or with a place identifier separated by a comma. A few others "just felt wrong" so I stripped them down as well. Other changes of possible interest are:

  • The format "1 Geo. I" (etc.) has been amended to "1 Geo. 1", in line with the more common practice for legal citation.
  • I've replaced the side box with an experimental revised version that doesn't take up so much horizontal space (amongst other changes).

About the only thing I haven't done is shuffled the Acts into strict chronological order; I've left them in the current sequence so that it's easier to compare the "before" and "after". At the moment it's my intention to change the list to a strictly chronological one when putting it up "live".
I've also left the introductory text unchanged for now.
Finally, I've put a possible new article name at the top of the page. The reason for the suggested changes should be self-apparent.
I think that's everything...! Silverhelm 09:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Good work. Do you think that years with more than one session should be in the same table? Concerning the short titles, I'm not sure that they are that dubious, they may in fact be, as you say, the entry from the chronological table of statutes with the word Act and the year appended, but it's reasonbly descriptive. The fact there are several acts of the same name does not surprise me, as even today we have acts named Appropriation Act 2005, Appropriation (No. 2) Act 2005 and Appropriation (No. 3) Act 2005. On the other hand, it isn't unreasonable to unlink them because they are highly unlikely to ever be written about, highly probably repealed, possibly not particularly significant to the modern reader. And they can always be relinked if necessary. As to order, I mainly stuck to the way things had been done previously. I suppose that alphabetical makes it easier for the reader, but chronological makes it easier for editors to update. I also agree with the proposed new title. Kurando | ^_^ 11:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% certain about the "all sessions together" thing. But I think on balance it's best to simplify things a bit by having one table per year (obviously what this might look like would have been better demonstrated with a different period). The possible approaches seem to me to be:
  • a new table with each change of calendar year; or
  • a new table with each change of session; or
  • a new table with each change of calendar year or session.
I can't really come up with a carefully thought-out rationale for preferring simplifying things to calendar years. One issue with using the third option (essentially what the lists currently use) is that it could mean around forty tables for some twenty-year blocks. And although it's important (in my view) that the session should be identified for each Act, I don't think any of us really think of Acts as being "from" a particular session, but rather we think of them in terms of what year they were enacted. Possibly that's influenced by the modern convention for citation. Anyway, one improvement that I could perhaps make to the tables if we go down the "one table only per calendar year" road is to use alternating colour-coding for sessions. In my mock-up that would only be really obvious for the change from 1 Geo. 1 St. 1 to 1 Geo. 2 St. 2, but I think it would remove the most obvious problem with having them in the same table; ie, it would reduce the risk of not noticing a change in session (those two sessions are quite a good example of how easily they might be confused, since they differ by just one digit).
Perhaps I could put together a second "mock-up" using a list where the sessions typically overlap changes of calendar year, to see what colour-coding might look like in practice?
Regarding the "multiple name" busines, note that the examples you've given are clearly distinguished by the "(No. 2)" etc. I noticed the other day that the "Chronological Table of the Statutes" footnoted a genuine case of two Acts in the same year (session?) having identical short titles. It was the only example from 1801 through to the late 1860s, though. As argued above, however, I feel sure that the "Chronological Table" uses only descriptions for quite a number of Acts, and that it doesn't distinguish between descriptions and short titles for repealed Acts. In all cases it omits the word "Act" and the year, so it's hard to directly demonstrate this either way. One subtle hint might be use of capitalisation, though. Anyway, it's almost certainly the only "database" of Acts of Parliament, and it seems very probable that the website you mentioned earlier would have used it as its source; any other alternative would be an expensive exercise. A final remark on this issue is that some of the titles that I'm disputing simply "don't sound right". I appreciate that's a rather nebulous thing, but even though the language used has evolved over time, there is a definite "rhythm" to the naming of Acts. Most of them have a particular "feel" to them, and a number of the ones we've got just don't fit in. Of course, some that are beyond doubt, particularly the early Acts which provided their own short titles, "sound odd" as well. As I've said before, it's extremely difficult to prove that a given Act doesn't have a short title. I'm being forced to rely a bit on "trust me, I know I'm right", unfortunately!
Anyway, you'll see that where I have changed "short titles" to descriptions, I've not altered the description other than some change of capitalisation. Hopefully this is a reasonably non-destructive approach. Combined with the delinking, it would be light work to identify them and convert them back if I were proven to be wrong.
Finally(!), I think having parallel lists, one alphabetical, one chronological, is the way to go. The current ordering is neither really chronological nor alphabetical, and perhaps falls between stools. Once a purely alphabetical listing has been set up, it should be fairly easy to maintain. It does mean duplication, of course, but in the absence of being able to use a database, it's the only way of doing it. If we (I) do this, I'd suggest that my initial list should then be "Chronological list of Acts of the Parliament of Great Britain, 1707-1719", and the others might then be "Alphabetical list of British Acts of Parliament". That then raises the questions of whether the pre-union alphabetical lists should be kept separate, which partly defeats the object, or if they were merged together (and the table could easily identify with a letter code which Parliament was responsible), what would be a good title? Either way, it would presumably be sensible to break the alphabetical list into bite-size chunks (perhaps one for each letter of the alphabet would be the most user-intuitive, although it would mean wildly differing lengths).
Another possibility, although it would involve a hell of a lot of work (and is probably too difficult to fully complete) would be to create a third list that is thematic; I'm just throwing that into the ring to see what the response is. It's easy enough to come up with broad categories that are reasonably descriptive (the monarchy, Parliament, colonial law, customs and taxation, elections, local government, turnpikes, devolution, etc. etc.), although what should go where might prove tricky. Of course, there's no reason why a given Act couldn't appear under more than one category if necessary.
Too many thoughts and ideas!!
Silverhelm 17:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
There are so many acts it would be nice to have different methods of searching, ie. chronological and alphabetical. I'm not sure if there are list guidelines which frown on that sort of thing? I also wonder if whilst we are restructung these lists, it might be best to split them up further - they are all quite long, possibly down to decade or even by year for the 18th and 19th centuries when there were 100-200 acts per session.
On the thematic listing, this is done to some extent in the category Acts of Parliament by subject, of course this only lists acts with articles. Some articles also contain lists of related acts: History of British nationality law and Department for Constitutional Affairs come to mind. Kurando | ^_^ 12:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The English lists could certainly do with being shuffled about, I would say. Perhaps something like:
  • [mediaeval]
  • [Tudor]
  • 1603-1649
  • 1649-1660 [I think this period deserves special treatment]
  • 1660-1706
As for the British lists, I absolutely agree with you that they're going to be (or are already) far too long, particularly if all the personal and local Acts are to be included. I think the approach to take is to (a) reformat, (b) verify, and then (c) split, as separate steps in the process. I'll start converting the post-1801 lists and posting them up "live". If I add to my integrity check the ranges from the OPSI's website for the other Acts, and perhaps add totals, that should give us the best possible evidence for settling a fairly permanent length for each list.
Incidentally, it's quite interesting how the number of Acts various over time. My notes could probably form the basis for an interesting little bit of material for the main article on Acts of Parliament. Of course they won't reveal the actual length or complexity of Acts, which is the other main complaint about Parliament's work!
Silverhelm 21:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Plan for reformatting (etc.) of lists[edit]

Okay, here's my proposed strategy (this is in part a summary of the rather lengthy text above):

Phase 1 (as per my draft reformat)

  • Lists are converted into table format.
  • Doubtful short titles are converted to unlinked descriptions.
  • Legislation box is replaced with narrower/reformatted version.
  • Sessional citations are converted from "43 Geo. III" format to more usual modern format of "43 Geo. 3".
  • Replace massive automated TOC with two separate manual ones, for calendar years and parliamentary sessions respectively.

Only when Phase 1 has been completed for every one of the lists will Phase 2 be started.

Phase 2 (as per my draft reformat) Rename lists to avoid redundancy of word "Parliament" and to distinguish between "Great Britain" and "United Kingdom".

Only when Phase 2 has been completed for every one of the lists will Phase 3 be started.

Phase 3 Create parallel alphabetical lists (exact details to be decided).

Only when Phase 3 has been completed will Phase 4 be started.

Phase 4 Convert the original lists to strict chronological ordering.

Phase 5 Split original lists further, to reduce size. As part of this process, I'd suggest that the current English list for the period up to 1603 is split in two (mediaeval and Tudor), with the mediaeval list then being merged with (or into) Kurando's list of English statutes; this split would reflect the change in nature of the documents themselves (from statutes in the older sense, to Acts of Parliament as we use the term today).

Parallel to the above is the question of verification. Having thought a little more about this point, it seems to me that the nature of the source for each and every short title should be given. Clearly it would be impractical to use the standard <ref></ref> system for so many individual items, so I'd suggest using a colour-coding scheme based on the following categories:

  • Short title verified against original text of the Act concerned
  • Short title verified against original text of the Short Titles Act
  • Short title verified against original text of any other Act that gave it to the Act concerned
[for example, the Trustee Savings Banks Act 1863 was named by the Trustee Savings Banks Act 1887; I'd suggest that Acts in this category are footnoted or "ref"d]
  • Short title used as a reference in other legislation
  • Short title given in any other reputable source
[for example, in the text of Halsbury's Laws; or in the reports, etc, of bodies such as the Law Commission, or of the Republic of Ireland's Office of the Attorney General]

A small number of Acts seem to have the format "[subject] Act (Ireland) [year]". Modern practice reserves this format for pre-union legislation, and even in the nineteenth century these post-union Acts were also being referred to in the now more familiar format of "[subject] (Ireland) Act [year]". Possibly these should only be considered verifiable against the original enactment of their short title, with perhaps the other form being given as "(also known as ...)". Otherwise there's too much likelihood of problems due to contradictory information.

Silverhelm 19:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Current progress[edit]

I've now started on the Phase 1 reformatting for 1801-1819. Silverhelm 19:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Comment[edit]

Sorry, I only heard of this discussion when a note of it was posted on another list.

  • The correct citation is by regnal year (not calendar year) until mid-20th century, so that the regnal years should be given predominance. Short titles did not officailly exist until late 19th century, when some were retrospectively imposed by the Short Titles Act. In the 18th century, at least, the Parliamentary session ran until May or June, and the majority of Acts were given royal assent when the king closed the session. This accorded with the fiction that all Acts of a session formed a single statute of which the Acts were chapters. If there were two sessions in a year, there were two statutes, with a separate series of chapter numbers. I would encourage you to tabulated in regnal year/chapter format.
  • This article (and others of the kind) have a terribly large number of redlinks. We probably never will have articles on many of these, so that retaining a redlink is pointless, unless there is good reason to believe that there should be an article. Similar delinking has also been done with lists of peers.
  • Breakpoints: Reigns will probably work well, for some periods. George III may need 2 or three articles. Elizabeth; 1603-1640; 1660-1689; 1689-1707; 1707-1727; George II; etc. There were no Acts for 1649-1660; what there were are usually referred to as Ordinances, but they all lapsed at the Restoration, as enacted under 'usurping powers'. The best of the legislation was re-enacted in 1660 and 1661.
  • Order of columns: I would suggest: Session/chapter/calendar year/Official short title (if any) (with reference - e.g. Short Titles Act)/Description/See (this is for articles dealing with the subject matter: an article may deal with a series of Acts on the same subject). I have occasionally dablinked an Act to a relevant article, but that would be better in a column of its own. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Coventry Canal Act 1768[edit]

List of Acts of the Parliament of Great Britain, 1760–1779<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Acts_of_the_Parliament_of_Great_Britain,_1760%E2%80%931779#8_Geo._3> This is an incomplete list of Acts of the Parliament of Great Britain for the years 1760–1779.For Acts passed up until 1707 see List of Acts of the Parliament of England and List of Acts of the Parliament of Scotland.See also the List of Acts of the Parliament of Ireland to 1700 and the List of Acts of the Parliament of Ireland, 1701–1800.. For Acts passed from 1801 onwards see List of ...

Will the person who made the entry in the above list of repealed Acts stating that the Coventry Canal Act 1768 has been repealed please explain how he or she arrived at this conclusion?

The Coventry Canal Act 1768 is still listed in the Chronological Table of the Statutes published by the Stationery Office as being valid and in force today, save only for two Acts of 1819 and 1881 that repealed the Act of 1768 in part only.

It would appear that a mistaken entry has been made here.

5.150.66.18 (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Split[edit]

The following twenty year lists have been split up into annual lists:

Short Titles and Popular Titles[edit]

(@James500: I'm tagging you as I thought you might be interested in this/able to assist.)

Short Titles[edit]

I'm conscious of the fact that before the 1890s there are plenty of Acts which have been retrospectively given short titles. I thought it would be a good idea to compile a list of Acts which grant them, as there are a few, and no doubt some which I don't know of. Section 19(2) of the Interpretation Act 1978 states that "[a]n Act may continue to be cited by the short title authorised by any enactment notwithstanding the repeal of that enactment", so it doesn't matter whether they're still in force or not.

I would also say that where an Act is conferred a short title by an Act other than itself, the list entry should contain a citation.

  • Statute Law Revision (Substituted Enactments) Act 1876 - section 7 and the Schedule confer 5.
  • Interpretation Act 1889 - section 13(6) confers 1.
  • Short Titles Act 1892 - section 1 and the First Schedule confer 851. It was repealed and re-enacted by the 1896 Act, but there could be a handful of Acts in the 1892 Act that were repealed between 1892 and 1896 that aren't in this one. It feels best practice for the short title citations to reference this Act as well, as it shows when they were first conferred. This goes for any others duplicated.
  • Short Titles Act 1896 - section 1 and the First Schedule confer 2,095.
  • Statute Law Revision Act 1948 - section 5 and the Second Schedule confer 158.
  • Short Titles Act (Northern Ireland) 1951 - not been able to view this yet.
  • Statute Law Revision (Scotland) Act 1964 - section 2 and Schedule 2 confer 164 to old Scottish Acts.
  • Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1977 - section 3 and Schedule 3 confer 8.
  • Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1978 - section 2 and Schedule 3 confer 3 and amend 1.

There are a large number of miscellaneous Acts that confer a small number of short titles to earlier, related Acts. These provisions seem to have been consolidated in the 1896 Act, but I'm unsure if all of them have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theknightwho (talk • contribs) 01:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Short Titles Act 1896 does not consolidate all previous provisions that conferred a short title on an earlier Act. For example, the short title of the Revising Barristers Act 1872 (35 & 36 Vict c 84) was conferred by section 4 of the Revising Barristers Act 1874 (37 & 38 Vict c 53). This short title is not included in First Schedule to the Short Titles Act 1896. (The Revising Barristers Act 1872 was repealed by section 5 of the Revising Barristers Act 1874, so it was repealed before 1896). James500 (talk) 04:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Useful to know. Thanks. So far as I can tell, these tended to be conferred by the same section that conferred the short title on the given Act itself, so reverse chronological order should pick these up. Theknightwho (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it would be expedient for all red linked entries in the pre-1880 lists to include a footnote identifying the source of the short title or popular title, including the entries for Acts that confer a short title on themselves. I think it would be harder to check and correct the lists without such footnotes being included in the lists.
In the case of blue linked entries, the present practice has been to move such footnotes into the article on the Act as soon as reasonably practicable. This has not however been done for all such entries yet. Accordingly, I think it would be expedient for a blue linked entry to include such a footnote, including the entries for Acts that confer a short title on themselves, if the article on the Act does not yet include such a footnote. James500 (talk) 03:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think a note in the header to the effect that except where otherwise stated an Act confers its own short title would be neater. As such, it'll be necessary to include footnotes for all applicable Acts (whether blue or red linked). This also retains consistency across list items, which feels preferable for something like this. Theknightwho (talk) 15:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland[edit]

The Short Titles Act 1962, the Statute Law Revision Act 2007, the Statute Law Revision Act 2009 and the Statute Law Revision Act 2012 are missing from the list above. They confer short titles on Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and of the pre-union Parliaments of Great Britain, England and Ireland. James500 (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This raises some broader questions of how we treat Acts that may have been given divergent treatment by successive legislation in different jurisdictions. I had initially intended to note where legislation has been repealed, but I realised quite quickly that that might end up becoming misleading and so I haven't implemented this pre-2000. One of the more prominent examples of this is short titles, as you say, but there may be other examples of where amendments may impact long titles divergently (e.g. the Colonial Solicitors Act 1900 remains in force in the UK with a long title that was amended in 2009, whereas it was repealed in Ireland in 1954). Theknightwho (talk) 14:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Popular Titles[edit]

These are trickier. I'm unsure how to go about compiling a list of these, as while I'm sure there are many, they're unlikely to be listed anywhere. I also think consideration needs to be given as to how these are distinguished on the list, as the big difference is that these can't be used to formally cite the Act.

Theknightwho (talk) 01:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know whether the citation of an Act by a popular title is presently completely prohibited. See for example, In re Bicknell's Settled Estates (1872) LR 14 Eq 467, where an Act which had no short title at the time was permitted to be cited as "the Leases and Sales of Settled Estates Act". James500 (talk) 01:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where an Act does not have a short title, it will be necessary to use a popular title (if there is one) as the page name of the article on that Act, or the redirect for that Act. So the list needs to include, at a minimum, the popular title (if there is more than one) that would make the best page name. [There is a caveat to this: Sometimes an Act is referred to in subsequent legislation by a name that looks like a short title but which is not (as far as I am aware) strictly a short title. I think that such a name should be included in the list if the Act does not have another name that is clearly a short title, because it is the closest thing the Act has to an official name.]
Both law books (including periodicals) and history books include many popular titles for many Acts. There are a number of works that contain extensive, but non-exhaustive, lists of popular titles. Some Acts on the same subject have similar popular titles that tend to be listed en bloc in the same book on that subject. Apart from that, identifying popular titles is a question of using a search engine and looking at works that are likely to contain popular titles. If you wish, I could compile a list of particular works and types of works that include popular titles, and some description of the methods that can be used to find popular titles with a search engine, but it would take me some time to compile that and I can't guarantee it would be exhaustive. James500 (talk) 16:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - and yes, that would be very helpful if you're willing to do so! Insofar as Acts already have pages on Wikipedia then the relevant popular title can be found and used as a link quite easily, which means that there is no obvious harm in omitting popular titles simply because we haven't come across them yet. By their nature, what defines a "popular title" is a bit woolly, so I suspect it'll be a case of determining whether something is a genuine popular title (e.g. the Black Act 1723) or simply a descriptor such as in the Chronological Tables (e.g. the numerous "Taxation Acts" of which there might be several in a single session). Theknightwho (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am aware, a popular title or popular name of an Act includes any name for that Act which is not official. The descriptions contained in the Chronological Table of the Statutes are not titles or names at all, but writers do sometimes use them to coin names for Acts that, once coined, are as valid or invalid as any other non-official name. To turn to the example you give, the Act 38 Geo 3 c 16, for example, is referred to, in various books, as the Taxation Act 1798 and the Triple Assessment Act. Neither of these popular names is "wrong". Both names are attested in reliable sources. Whether we use either or both of them would not depend on whether they were derived from the description "taxation" in the Chronological Table or not. James500 (talk) 16:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't argue with that! I suppose what I mean is that its use in the Chronological Tables alone does not constitute sufficient evidence alone that it is a popular title.
To answer your question relating to unauthorised citations, s23(3) of the Interpretation Act 1978 states that s19(1) applies "to deeds and other instruments and documents as they apply to Acts and subordinate legislation", which refers to the citation of Acts by another Act "by year, statute, session or chapter," but that doesn't in a strict sense preclude a document (or even Act) from citing an Act however it likes. Short titles strike me as one of those strange areas of interpretation where I can understand why they were introduced in the way that they have been, so as to make it crystal clear that their use is authorised and to ensure that the same short title is used consistently by everyone, but that a lack of such authorisation for a particular Act should not cause a citation to fail unless there were some genuine ambiguity that resulted. If you're interested, there is quite a silly debate on Hansard from 1961 that highlights this. Interestingly, the Interpretation Act 1978 repealed the provision in the Interpretation Act 1889 that authorised the citation of Acts by their short title or regnal year and session on the basis that it was simply unnecessary to authorise such citations. See para 7 of the Law Commission's report. Theknightwho (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Names of Acts[edit]

"Mr Canning's Act" (1828) relates to the importation of corn: [1]. It is not chapter 28. James500 (talk) 09:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is one reference to "Fever Hospital (Ireland) Act" [2] which seems to be the same as the "Fever Hospitals (Ireland) Act" [3], which seems to be a name for both the Act of 1834 and the Act of 58 Geo 3 [4]. James500 (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The short titles from the Short Titles Act 1896 are now done. James500 (talk) 02:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CORONERS ACT 1877[edit]

Hi, I saw a reference to this act at Criminal Law Ace 1977 but could not find it on this page. Does it have another name? Thehalfone 20:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To do[edit]

  • Short titles and titles, etc from Schedule 1 to Statute Law Revision Act 2007 (pre 1860 and post 1865), and the Schedule to the County Courts Act 1888, and section 50 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1879, and section 1 of and the Second Schedule to the West India Loan Act 1879, and section 1(2) of and the First Schedule to the Foreign Jurisdiction Act 1878 (pre 1860), and section 1 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act 1878, and the First Schedule to the Municipal Corporations (New Charters) Act 1877 (pre 1860), and section 3 of the Public Record Office Act 1877, and the Schedule to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge Act 1877 (pre 1860), and section 1 of the Solicitors Act 1877 (pre 1860), and section 37 of and the Schedule to the Commons Act 1876 (pre 1860), and the Customs Consolidation Act 1876 (pre 1860), and the Schedule to the Chelsea Hospital Act 1876, and section 5 of and the Schedule to the Copyright of Designs Act 1875 (pre 1860), and section 13 of the Post Office Act 1875 (pre 1860), and section 1 of the Private Lunatic Asylums (Ireland) Act 1874, and section 1 of the Shannon Act 1874, and section 19 of the Factory Act 1874 (pre 1860), and section 1 of the Betting Act 1874, and the First Schedule of the Middlesex Sessions Act 1874, and section 1 of the Railway Regulation Act (Returns of Signal Arrangements, Working, &c.) 1873 (for 1840 to 1842), and section 6 of the Revising Barristers Act 1873, and section 6 of and the Schedule to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners Act 1873 (pre 1860), and section 6 of and the Schedule to the Government Annuities Act 1873 (pre 1860), and section 2 of and the Schedule to the Matrimonial Causes Act 1873 (pre 1860), and section 2 of the Charitable Donations and Bequests Act (Ireland) 1871 (pre 1860), and section 1 of and Schedule 2 to the Regulation of Railways Act 1871, and section 2 of the Burial Act 1871, section 3 of the Juries Act 1870, and the Second Schedule to the National Debt Act 1870, and the Schedule to the County Court (Buildings) Act 1870 (pre 1860), and the Schedule to the Poor Law Amendment Act 1867, and s 1 of the Penal Servitude Act 1864, and s 14 of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1867, and s 111 of the Metropolis Management Amendment Act 1862.
    • and the Schedule to the Metropolitan Police Act 1884, and the First Schedule to Metropolitan Police Act 1886, and the Fifth Schedule to the Police Act 1890
    • section 243 of the Municipal Corporations Act 1882
    • The Foreign Jurisdiction Act 1890, s 19(2) and First Schedule [5]
  • The Hull Docks Act 1861 seems to confer short titles on a number of earlier Acts from 1774 to 1854, if I understand Rickards abridgment correctly: [6].
  • Short titles conferred by local and personal Acts, including:
    • Manchester and Birmingham Railway (Ashton Branch) Act 1845, s 3 [7]
    • East Lancashire Railway Amalgamation Act 1846, s 1 [8]
    • Stamford Water Act 1877, s 1 [9]
    • Littleport and Downham District Act 1878, s 1 [10]
    • Whitby Port and Harbour Act 1879, s 1 [11]; Burnt Fen District Act 1879, s 1
    • The Liverpool Corporation Act 1880, s 9 & Schedule [12]
    • Gilbert Earl of Shrewbury's Sheffield Hospital Act 1886, s 1 [13]
  • Collective titles
  • James500 (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Split[edit]

This article is in the process of being WP:SPLIT into annual lists. Its size before the first split was 182kB. Once completed and fully referenced, it would probably have become more than three times that size. James500 (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Observance of November 5, May 29, etc. Act 1859[edit]

The article currently lists "Observance of November 5, May 29, etc. Act 1859 c. 2". Searching for this finds very little that doesn't relate to wikipedia (there is a Project Gutenberg link but it has nothing). Another article I mentions Anniversary Days Observance Act which seems to be the same act (at least it does what I assume Observance of November 5, May 29, etc. Act 1859 would do). Searching for this is more productive e.g. [14] [15] [16]. I see some discussion of short titles in the above linked discussion from 2006. I know next to nothing about naming of UK legislation even now, let alone in 1859, so I don't have any clue if the Anniversary Days Observance Act is the short title, or the correct title (perhaps the earlier title was abandoned) or what, but perhaps someone who knows more or can find better sources can help resolve this confusion. Nil Einne (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, 1840–59. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To do[edit]

Short titles conferred by public general Acts on themselves for 1851 to 1859 are done. They need to be done for 1845 to 1850. James500 (talk) 12:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, 1860–1879#To do has a list of public general Acts passed between 1860 and 1879 that confer short titles on pre-1860 Acts (excluding Acts of 1860 to 1879 already exhaustively cited in our lists of pre-1860 Acts or in the blue linked articles). That list is not complete for Acts passed from 1880 onwards, or for local and personal Acts, though it does include some of them. James500 (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these Acts have popular names derived from the short title of the Bill for the Act (Bills had short titles before Acts did). The short title of the Bill (minus the word "Bill") is typically included in the page header of the annual volumes. It will be necessary to search for these, replacing the word "Bill" with the word "Act" and, where possible, adding the year. James500 (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[Acts that never had short titles][edit]

Header inserted to avoid breaking up the "to do" list. James500 (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • What's the source of short titles given here for Acts that never had one? There are some duplicates that I presume have arisen because somebody has invented a short title, such as 9 & 10 Vict. c 71 & 78 cited here with exactly the same title as the authorized one for c. 2, "County Works (Ireland) Act 1846". In modern usage they'd get a parenthesis such as "(No. 2)" before the year. Hairy Dude (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of the names in the list seem to be "popular titles" coined by judges, practising lawyers, politicians, legal writers, historians, journalists, law books, history books, newspapers, and other people and publications etc. Unfortunately, some of the names in the list seem to be 'neologisms' coined by Wikipedians, and some of the names seem to be 'typos' that are garbled distortions of actual short or popular titles. James500 (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Links[edit]

Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1925[edit]

I am going to remove the entry "Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1925". As far as I can see, the short title of chapter 49 is "The Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925", which is already listed. When I looked in the annual volumes for 1925, I could not find another Act with that short title. The following searches appear to indicate that this expression refers to chapter 49:

I have now redirected that page to the correct article. James500 (talk) 09:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Names of Acts[edit]

The Gaol Fees Abolition Act 1815 is sometimes mispelled Goal Fees Abolition Act 1815: [17]. James500 (talk) 01:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template limits[edit]

Edits made by Mauls (talk · contribs) today have caused this page to hit WP:TLIMIT problems. This manifests itself in templates showing as links and not transclusions. As I write this, the first of these is at List of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, 1880–1889#1889 (52 & 53 Vict.), and shows as Template:Legislationuk. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have found that the problem appeared with this edit, even though no templates were added in that edit. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the issue by splitting the page into two. Mauls (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in List of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, 1890–1899[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, 1890–1899's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "S12":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:45, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in List of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom from 1802[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom from 1802's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "STA1896":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT⚡ 12:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization and wording questions[edit]

Why is act capitalized when not used as part of the title of an act in these titles and in the text?

Another question, why is it "acts of the Parliament" rather than "acts of Parliament"? Together, should the title of this article and the related articles be List of acts of Parliament of the United Kingdom?

I'm not proposing a change yet, but looking to see if there's something I don't know. In a legal context, act may be capitalized, but that is not Wikipedia's style. I also know that as an American, there's a lot I don't know about the UK.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  19:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. This is not American English Wikipedia. YorkshireExpat (talk) 21:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 October 2023[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 10:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

– Per the rules outlined in WP:LOWERCASE, MOS:CAP, and WP:NCCAPS; the last of which states: Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper name. "Parliament of Foo" is exempt because it's a proper name, but "acts" and "measures" are common nouns and have no compelling reason to be capitalized. Moving these articles would make them consistent with their American counterparts (e.g. List of acts of the 112th United States Congress). If consensus is reached here, eventually all child articles (e.g. List of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom from 1958) would also be changed accordingly. Woko Sapien (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generic "acts of Parliament" is definitely not a proper noun anymore than "acts of Congress" is a proper noun. And we don't capitalize "acts of Congress" on Wikipedia either. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From Cambridge Dictionary

a law or formal decision made by a parliament or other group of people who make the laws for their country:

an Act of Parliament

Please note the capitalisation.
YorkshireExpat (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably also worth noting that the articles list are not referring to generic acts, but a list of acts that are specific Acts of Parliament. YorkshireExpat (talk) 21:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I may make a counterpoint that was touched upon here by @Rreagan007:: List of vice presidents of the United States does not not refer to generic vice presidents, but a list of individuals that are specific the U.S. vice presidency. Woko Sapien (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I posted a British English dictionary reference. You are presenting an article on an American English topic. I can't see any dictionary reference in that link. YorkshireExpat (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Same counterpoint, but this time with List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom. Woko Sapien (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are many differences between variations of English around the world. I am not aware of differences in the definition of proper noun. Wikipedia's style is to only capitalize proper nouns, and here we are talking about writing on Wikipedia. SchreiberBike | ⌨  22:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See the capitalisation applied in the various (non American English) links below. YorkshireExpat (talk) 22:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I were writing for another publication, I would use their manual of style. In this case we use Wikipedia's style. SchreiberBike | ⌨  22:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Capitalising does not go against the style guide, if indeed 'Act' in this context is a proper noun. YorkshireExpat (talk) 07:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's not a proper noun, so then it shouldn't be capitalized. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have produced significant evidence to the contrary (see links below). It is beholden on those supporting this to product evidence that supports the move. YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with sources, this is a matter of style and basic English grammar. A proper noun is "a noun that identifies a single entity and is used to refer to that entity as distinguished from a common noun, which is a noun that refers to a class of entities"; and "acts of the Parliament" is clearly a class and is therefore a common noun and thus should not be capitalized. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, firstly, as I have pointed out further down, WP:WINARS, but we'll start with that wiki article on proper nouns. Further down it goes on to say that detailed definition of the term is problematic and, to an extent, governed by convention. This forms part of my argument, that an Act of Parliament could be considered a proper noun by convention in some English variants, such as British English, but not in others, such as American English (not that American English every really gets to use the phrase in the domestic sense, but there we go).
In some contexts I agree that it would be considered a class noun. For example, if I was an academic teaching law, I might as my students to go away and 'read some acts of Parliament'. I may not care which acts they read (just want to get them used to the type of language used maybe), so it is correct not to capitalise here.
However, in another lesson, I may ask them to study Act A, Act B and Act C, and say "go and read these Acts of Parliament". In this case I am referencing specific Acts, and therefore I capitalise. The articles we are talking about here are lists of specific Acts, therefore capitalisation is necessary in line with convention. The links to sources I have provided, from various reliable sources in different English variants (not American English), are set out to prove that this convention stands. YorkshireExpat (talk) 09:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think instead that we are seeing capitalization for emphasis or to indicate importance. I was taught in school to always capitalize president when referring to my country's president and presidency. It wasn't explained why, it was just what we did then in my country. I don't write that way for Wikipedia, because our manual of style specifically mentions not capitalizing for emphasis and significance. SchreiberBike | ⌨  19:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Several points here:
  • Arguing from the point of view of job titles is not appropriate. Wikipedia has seen fit to put in specific policies for that which clearly do not apply in this case. I have stated this previously. If convention dictates that this is done in this instance we cannot not capitalise here without appropriate further discussion and policy. Doing so would go against WP:SYNTH. Indeed, sometimes it is appropriate to capitalise the word 'president', and those policies already mentioned cover that.
  • Those arguing to support have highlighted cases from articles where use of American English is appropriate. That English variant is not appropriate for any of the articles listed in this move request. MOS:ENGVAR and MOS:RETAIN therefore must apply.
  • WP:MOS says that Wikipedia does not capitalize something unless it is consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources. I have produced many sources, several of which are certainly independent (though I'm not entirely sure what would qualify as independent in this case; in the UK legislation as the Crown gives assent, it's probably owned by the British monarch, and the same for Austalia and Canada in fact), and all of which are reliable, that capitalise the word 'Acts' in the same context at these article titles. As far as I can see, those opposing have so far produced no sources that support their position. You are absolutely free to do so.
  • I do not think that it is contraversial that proper names should be capitalised in article titles. Again, I have produced multiple sources that suggest that 'Act' is regarded as part of a proper name when specific Acts are being discussed, at least in some of the variants of English relevant here. Again, MOS:ENGVAR and MOS:RETAIN apply.
YorkshireExpat (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of these article titles, "acts" are not a proper noun. And by convention we don't capitalize common nouns in these types of article titles on Wikipedia. It's just like our rule on not capitalizing short prepositions in article titles, even if most sources do. It's that simple. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I don't think you're listening any more. YorkshireExpat (talk) 07:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You've found multiple examples of act being capitalized, maybe most or even all, but we do not know it is capitalized because it is a proper noun. By general English capitalization rules act is not a proper noun, so it is probably for some other reason. I suggest emphasis and significance in this case, like president was when I was in school.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  14:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have a difficult time understanding the real difference between a list of generic things (where things can be considered a common noun) and a list of specific things (where things must be a proper noun somehow), which seems like splitting hairs to me.
Take for instance List of awards received by Charles III: it's not just some list of generic awards; it's a list of specific awards won by Charles III. Those awards individually can be proper nouns, like the Global Environmental Citizen Award. But collectively, they're still just awards. If we make an exception on Wikipedia for lists of specific things, then you could make a cogent argument for renaming that page List of Awards received by Charles III, since it lists the awards he's specifically won. Woko Sapien (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:PEOPLETITLES and MOS:JOBTITLES clearly do not apply here. Here are some more links. Some are primary, but some are not, and I'm not sure WP:COMMONNAME applies here anyway. YorkshireExpat (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't really an English variant issue, it's just a style issue. There are U.S. style guides that say to always capitalize the word "President" whenever it is referring to the President of the United States, but we don't follow that stylistic rule here on Wikipedia, even in articles explicitly written in American English. See List of presidents of the United States. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia style, as quoted above, says that Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper name, as evidenced in the multiple sources I have raised above. What I am arguing is, that in British English and Australian English at least, that an 'Act' in this context is regarded as a proper noun. Therefore, capitalising it does not go against Wikipedia style guidelines. What you are suggesting is that you all know better than everyone else, and that is WP:SYN. Your arguments pertaining to job titles are heavily dependent on the MOS:PEOPLETITLES and MOS:JOBTITLES policies. Those clearly do not apply in this case. YorkshireExpat (talk) 07:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please help me understand how in this case Act of Parliament is a proper noun, but it is not in phrases like act of Congress. Do different countries have different definitions of proper noun? I'm open to change. SchreiberBike | ⌨  12:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert, but looking at the Wikipedia article on the subject the detailed definition of the term is problematic and, to an extent, governed by convention, and I'm aware that Wikipedia is not a reliable source ;). It seems to be convention when saying 'Act of Parliament' in at least some countries, that it is considered a proper noun phrase. To go against this seems like WP:SYNTH to me. I can't really comment on the American English usage; I don't believe that there is any entity in the US known as a 'Parliament'. Just to add another English variant here's one from Canada. Maybe therefore it's possible to extend the convention to all 'Parliamentary' systems based on common law, but that might be a stretch. I think WP:RETAIN therefore applies to the list of articles presented in this move request, and each needs to be considered on its merits.
For the job titles Wikipedia has clearly decided to write specific policies that would trump convention, but that is not the case here. I think it would be a stretch to start applying that policy in other cases. YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YorkshireExpat not to be pedantic, but I'll point out that even if we all agreed that "Act of Parliament" were a proper noun, technically none of the articles here use that exact phrase. They use a modified phrasing: "Act(s) of (the) Parliament". Woko Sapien (talk) 13:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Woko Sapien please look at the links I posted above (apart from the dictionary link). They all contain an example of use of the plural. There is no rule that I am aware of to prevent use of the plural of a proper noun. YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YorkshireExpat Even then, these pages aren't called "Acts of Parliament", but "Acts of the Parliament". A case has to be made that it's still a proper noun despite the modification. Woko Sapien (talk) 22:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, ok. Here goes nothing!
Example here on page 5 ("Acts of the Parliament of Northern Ireland").
Example here very early in the body text.
A couple of examples in here near the bottom of the page.
These seem like three reputable sources. I'm running out after that. It seems not to be common in that exact phrase (other then on Wikipedia :)).
There is an example here of the uncapitalised use, but I would even suggest that is correct in the context, as it refers to generic 'ordinary acts of the Parliament', i.e. not specific ones as in the other cases. YorkshireExpat (talk) 09:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your sources are irrelevant to this discussion. In the context of these article titles, "acts" are not a proper noun. And by convention we don't capitalize common nouns in these types of article titles on Wikipedia. It's just like our formatting convention on not capitalizing short prepositions in article titles, even if most sources do. It's that simple.
WP:MOS says that Wikipedia does not capitalize something unless it is consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources. So according to the policy sources are NOT irrelevant. I'm stopping now because this is becoming irksome. To whomever closes this, please remember
and that I have presented arguments and evidence in line with my opinion, and the supporters really haven't, beyond very simplistic referencing of policy, and things like "it's just really simple!!!!" and other conjecture. YorkshireExpat (talk) 07:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'll assume good faith, but I'm really NOT a fan of adding that warning template into my request, since at first glance it could suggest to other editors that some sort of vote-stacking has occurred here, when it clearly has not (as of this writing, the tally is only 3 to 1 in favor). You've made your point...repeatedly. And so far at least, other editors don't seem to be persuaded. Maybe others will come along who are convinced, that's fine with me. But slapping a warning label into a move request that didn't need one feels like working the refs a bit. Woko Sapien (talk) 14:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The term acts of Parliament is a 'term of art' (a defined term), not a proper noun. Many sources capitalise terms of art, but Wikipedia does not. This is similar to not capitalising terms like "statutory instrument". Mauls (talk) 12:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there it is in WP:LAWMOS. In that case I must withdraw. I wish someone had pointed that out much earlier.
Still wrong though! YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. For Malaysia, the word akta (English: act), which primarily means laws, is not capitalized by default according to Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka in here. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 15:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support lowercase acts, while recognizing that "Act" is capped when part of the name of an act. Dicklyon (talk) 03:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - as proposed. Primergrey (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What next following moves above?[edit]

Many of the lists above include sublists which will need to be changed. I could spend some time on this on Sunday. Anybody have a plan of attack? Thanks, SchreiberBike | ⌨  22:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We may or may not want to move the following articles.
List of articles [sic]
There are also incoming redirects, which seem less important. Certes (talk) 13:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did List of acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom from 1801 yesterday. It's time consuming, but it's the kind of work I enjoy and it'd get faster with practice (and possibly some semi-automation with AWB). I could get it done, but I don't have the time until mid-December. Smarter people than I could probably find a way to fully automate it. SchreiberBike | ⌨  14:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe admins can move pages in bulk using AWB and/or JWB, if there's consensus for it. Changing the text seems to be more tedious. AWB could help, using the feature where one double-clicks on a change to reject it and keep the capital A (Union with Ireland Act 1800, etc.) We could also deploy a more complex regexp such as (?<=[a-z0-9]\)*[,;:]? \(*)A(?=cts?\b) → a (not tested) to weed out occurrences that are not mid-sentence. Certes (talk) 17:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support moving all the articles listed to "List of acts of the...". I'm a glutton for tedious housekeeping, so I don't mind moving them piecemeal over time. But I'll gladly accept a bulk move too if that can be arranged. Woko Sapien (talk) 19:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the Parliament of England pages. I started a couple of the UK ones, but Demonguy1990 has been reverting, and saying any future changes will also be reverted... Mauls (talk) 09:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've started a conversation at User talk:Demonguy1990#Are you aware of ... to try to move forward. I'm willing to wait a bit to get their agreement, but unwilling to stop a project which has gained consensus because there is an objection which is out of order. SchreiberBike | ⌨  00:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mauls: Based on his response I think we can move forward from here.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  19:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've refreshed the punch list to show the articles that have been moved. There are still some remaining that weren't on the list, but the vast majority of them have been moved accordingly. --Woko Sapien (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_acts_of_the_Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=1208198682"