Talk:Parton v Milk Board (Vic)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal	Parton v Milk Board (Vic) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-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.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian law.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

[edit] Dairy farming

I'd like to help our student out in his or her education.

Just because a case has broader implications in constitutional law, that doesn't mean the effects of the decision in the actual case before the court on the principal parties involved goes away.

Dairy farming is a business. Production taxes, as well as subsidies and price regulation by marketing boards, are as much a part of that business as milking machines are. Gene Nygaard 10:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying earlier; I had exams. Using the hints at Wikipedia:Categorization:

• "If the category does not already exist, is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the subject of the category, explaining it?" - No, it really didn't depend at all on the fact that it was dairy farming, and we can't say anything more on it.
• "If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why the article was put in the category? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?" - No, we don't talk about dairy farming. The law applies to all forms of production, so we could very well add it to Category:Agriculture, but I'm sure you would agree that would be ridiculous. Dairy farming is not a focus of the article.

If we just add categories because the article mentions the topic, then why isn't Nix v. Hedden in Category:Tomatoes or Category:Horticulture? You're setting way too low a bar for category inclusions. Adding this category to "dairy farming" isn't going to enlighten anyone (presumably interested in law) reading that article. "I'd like to help our student out in his or her education." -- and drop your condescending tone. enochlau (talk) 12:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This case is notable because it is a constitutional case. It is not notable for whatever effect it would have had on the milk industry. Since the de-regulation and de-centralisation of the Australian milk industry, whatever implication this case might have had on milk industry per se has long gone.

To categorise this article under "Milk industry" would be like to categorise Montgomery Bus Boycott under Category:Public transport. Sure, it happened on a bus. But is that what it's about? --Sumple (Talk) 12:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

My opinion will count for naught, but the case is important for its legal principles, not that it involved milk. The tax could have been on any other good and the result would be the same. Kewpid 19:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think there's certainly room for law articles, such as these case articles, to be categorised based on their subject matter, in certain circumstances. This case did concern a tax on milk, but the tax was ruled invalid by the court in this case, and that was over half a century ago, so it's hardly relevant anymore.

Remember that the question to be asked is "if someone is trying to find this article, or articles like this one, where would they go?" I wouldn't expect to find this article if I was looking in Category:Dairy farming, nor would I look there if I was trying to find it.

If the case was a recent case about, say, a compulsory milk marketing scheme that was still in effect, that would have a much closer relation to dairy farming and would be an appropriate category in my opinion. The link between the category and this article however is not terribly strong: it's an old case, about a tax that no longer exists and has no impact on dairy farming today. --bainer (talk) 02:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Is an article about an 1859 warship "not relevant any more"? How about the U.S. income tax that was thrown out before our U.S. constitution was amended to allow it?

If someone goes to the article from Category:Dairy farming, will it be immediately obvious why the article was put in the category? Well, duhhh. It's about a tax on milk. Yes, it's obvious. You already knew from the article name that it was probably a legal case of some sort, and it involved a regulatory board. If you clicked on the link, it is probably something related to what you were looking for. You probably didn't necessarily know, of course, that this legal case was in Australia. That may or may not matter.

And, if you got to this article on the Australian case from, let's say, an internet search, and your interests really were about some other aspect of dairy farming or milk boards or whatever, then having a link at the bottom of the page to Category:Dairy farming is also quite useful.

There seems to be some strange notion of how categories work and what they are used for on the part of enochlau, when he/she says "Dairy farming is not a focus of the article."

BTW, the suggestion about Category:Tomatoes was a good one. Lot's of people are interested in just that type of trivia about tomatoes. Gene Nygaard 03:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a silly idea. Trivia does not make an encyclopedia. Consensus appears to be that the category be removed. enochlau (talk) 05:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)