Talk:Monopoly law

What is it about?

Hey, I see both Dominance (economics) and Monopoly articles already exist. Is this article providing any notable info that doesn't fit into either? In other words, are there any unique characteristics of "D+M" that are not applicable to either D or M alone? Or is it a merge attempt and you plan to remove original D and M pages? --Kubanczyk 10:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm basically adding stuff from the competition law page as well - because the dominance stuff is just economics, and the monopoly stuff doesn't tell us about all the law on abuse. I was trying to think about how I could add the competition law stuff in this area into one or the other, and then decided this would be the best way. Do you think it's okay? In other words the other two things are subsections of this one. Wik idea 10:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn't say it's OK now. Even, after reading the whole article I cannot really determine what is it about. Two words - precise title. If you want to write an article about law - give it a title with a word law in it (my first guess is Dominance and monopoly laws). But mind you, there is a LOT of such articles in Template:Competition law already.

A proper encyclopedia article should have a precise subject and contain its clear definition in the first paragraph. This is what an average reader expects. There is a very good article about it. --Kubanczyk 11:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ups, sorry for being so bold, seems like you have more wiki experience than me (comparing number of contributions) :)) --Kubanczyk 11:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and split suggested. The {{Template:Split-apart}} is because the article literally doubles information with Monopoly and Dominance (economics) - contents should be moved to these pages or to other (new) pages with proper names and this article should be deleted or renamed.--Kozuch (talk) 01:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-merger

The above proposal for splitting is not very well thought out. A finding of dominance in law (or a monopoly) is a necessary pre-condition to finding an abuse, therefore it needs to be treated as a single subject. I would concentrate my time on improving the page rather than throwing criticisms around! Wik idea 22:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your editing efforts, could you please clarify why there are few exact contend doublings with the above listed pages? Also, as stated above, Wikipedia articles should be easily understandable (this implies especially to clear and single-subjected page names). Why dont you want to merge and maybe improve other monopoly- and dominance-related articles? Is there any particular reason you want to keep this page?--Kozuch (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes now that I look back at it, it all seems very convoluted, title and all. I think I need a page called Monopoly law, just to keep the title simple, and because the purpose of this page was always meant to be for law; as a subsection from Competition law. Otherwise, it'll all get very confusing with the economics stuff. Wik idea 08:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I renamed the page. Take care of the content if you can please.--Kozuch (talk) 10:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]