Talk:Factory Acts
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Mid | This article has been assessed as Mid-importance on the assessment scale. |
 |
Factory Acts is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
|
WikiProject Scotland To-do:
|
|||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject England, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to articles relating to England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article associated with this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
If memory serves me correctly, this was UK legislation, but the article should specify which jurisdiction--Doc Glasgow 13:02, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 11:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
This relates to the initial legislation that was followed by several more Factory Acts. Hence the merge tag. Joe1011010 22:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- The standard form is for Factory Acts to be an article about the overall series, with Factory Act 1833 et al. being about the detail of each Act. So, not wholly merged, but yes, these need to be revisited.
- James F. (talk) 02:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't this redirect to Factory Acts, which then links to each individual act? Or redirect all the individual acts to Factory Acts? Earlopogous 19:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
You'll have to flesh out the individual acts now. Have fun! —Nightstallion (?) 11:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Propose Merge
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of this discussion was to merge the Factories Act 1802 article into Factory Acts. Road Wizard 16:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I propose that the Factories Act 1802 page be merged into the Factory Acts article. Does anyone have any comments? Road Wizard 18:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- This seems to have been discussed already (see above), but it's not clear what the consensus was. I would like to see the Factories Act 1802 merged into this one, but I think this should really go through a proper AfD, as you will effectively be deleting the article in the process. Please, let me know if it does go to AFD, and I will probably support a merge. Captainj 19:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- The discussion above relates to moving the article Factory Act to Factory Acts, which resulted in the decision to move. If you look at the Factory Act 1833, Factory Act 1844, Factory Act 1847, Factory Act 1850 and Factory Act 1878 pages, you will notice that they all redirect here. The only ones that don't are the Factory Act 1867 & Factory Act 1874 pages which don't exist yet and the Factories Act 1802 page I mentioned initially. Given the precedent of having all of the other pages merged into this one, I don't see any need to go to AfD, especially as I can't find any reference to AfD on the merge guidance page. However, if you think an AfD is necessary, please go ahead and nominate the article. Road Wizard 20:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Correction, another host of Factory Act articles that redirect here: Factory Act of 1802, Factory act of 1833, Factory Act of 1833, English Factory Act of 1833, Factory Act of 1844, English Factory Act of 1844, Factory Act of 1850, Factory Act of 1867, Factory Act of 1874, Factory Act of 1878. If someone does want to split the articles up again, I think their first problem will be working out what to call them. :) Road Wizard 20:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- The discussion above relates to moving the article Factory Act to Factory Acts, which resulted in the decision to move. If you look at the Factory Act 1833, Factory Act 1844, Factory Act 1847, Factory Act 1850 and Factory Act 1878 pages, you will notice that they all redirect here. The only ones that don't are the Factory Act 1867 & Factory Act 1874 pages which don't exist yet and the Factories Act 1802 page I mentioned initially. Given the precedent of having all of the other pages merged into this one, I don't see any need to go to AfD, especially as I can't find any reference to AfD on the merge guidance page. However, if you think an AfD is necessary, please go ahead and nominate the article. Road Wizard 20:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Merge (obviously). Lapaz 15:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- please merge Earlopogous 20:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- My mistake, you're right, and you have followed the procedure. Merge Captainj 21:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, 5 days have passed since the merge tags were placed on the articles and we appear to have a consensus to merge. I will now go and read the guidance again on how it should be done. :) Road Wizard 15:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit] Merger
I think more time should have been spent discussing the merger, I only just saw the 1802 act was merged. It was tagged on 27 May and 3 days it later it has been done. I for one did not have chance to participate as it was a Bank Holiday weekend. Kurando | ^_^ 08:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- You are always welcome to open a new discussion on reversring this, but it was fairly uncontroversial (there was a precedent since all the other factory acts were on one page) and no-one objected, so it seemed reasonable. You don't really want to separate out all the acts do you? Captainj 09:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- To be precise, the merge tags were added on the 24th May and the merge occurred on 30th May, a total of 6 days without objections (the guidelines say to only wait 5 days). However, having said that, the decision to merge is not set in stone. If you can argue a good case as to why the articles should have remained separate, I can't see any reason why they can't be split again. Road Wizard 17:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Ok sorry I was mistaken about the timing, I see 1802 was tagged on 24 May and it was a later edit on 27 May. I'll leave it merged now as I don't have anything to add to it at the moment, but I imagine that article on the 1802 act could be expanded substantially. Kurando | ^_^ 08:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Possible Copyright Violation
The 1891 section seems to be a direct copy of this: [1]. FlowRate (talk) 04:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- You appear to be correct. The Internet Archive states the content was on that page from at least 25 Feb 1999, whereas it was only added here on 29 Mar 2007. It is not clear whether the text was created by the website or if it is a direct quote from the book they refer to, however either way it appears we have a copyright violation. I would suggest a rewrite of the 1891 section is in order to put the text in our own words. Road Wizard (talk) 05:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
