Talk:Commanding precedent
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Does anyone know the origin of the term "on all fours"? Tisane talk/stalk 23:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think more importantly is to provide a source that defines the phrase. The one currently in place uses the phrase but does not define it precisely nor indicate that it's anything more than slang or jargon. Also, how does this article not violate WP:DICT? There exists an entry for "On all fours" at Wiktionary that does not include this definition. Perhaps it would be better to add to that definition than to keep this article. Further, the definitions supplied at Wiktionary are not accounted for here. Putting this all together, this article is poorly sourced, woefully incomplete, belongs at Wiktionary, and should be deleted. SQGibbon (talk) 20:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Why do people hate stubs so much these days, and want to demolish them? It used to be that we recognized that it's okay for an article to start as just a quick description of an obviously notable subject with sufficient context that people can understand what it's about. I create a lot of stubs, and for any of them, I could spend a lot of time looking up references and becoming enough of a mini-expert on the subject to significantly beef up that first revision, but then I would end up creating fewer articles. So I save the beef treatment for articles where notability is more questionable. It's better to let some legal expert come along and expand on the subject, while I work on articles that are more within my fields of expertise. However, I know enough about the law to know that the concept of a case being on all fours is important. Tisane talk/stalk 20:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe that's how it "used to be" but fortunately Wikipedia standards have improved. It's not obvious that's it's a notable subject since you didn't provide any sources that demonstrate such notability. Better is to start this on one of your own sub-pages then if/when it's ready for inclusion on Wikipedia move it over. Also, what's wrong with it being on Wiktionary? If it's only going to be a definition then isn't that where it belongs anyway? SQGibbon (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- All right, well since you insist, I'm going to beef up this article, although I doubt you would prevail if you brought it to AfD. Tisane talk/stalk 20:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- I have no doubt that this article, in its present form, would die an ugly snowball of a death at AfD but that's not my goal. If this is a notable subject then I would love for it to be here. I consider myself to be a well-educated person but have never heard of this usage before. Unfortunately the article in its present form does nothing but give your definition for the phrase which does a disservice to it and Wikipedia. But I question, again, is this actually an encyclopedic subject or just a definition? SQGibbon (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- OK, moving the article as you did (which puts it more in line with the source provided) and adding the other links I think satisfies stub requirements for Wikipedia. Thanks, and now I've learned something interesting. SQGibbon (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- I have no doubt that this article, in its present form, would die an ugly snowball of a death at AfD but that's not my goal. If this is a notable subject then I would love for it to be here. I consider myself to be a well-educated person but have never heard of this usage before. Unfortunately the article in its present form does nothing but give your definition for the phrase which does a disservice to it and Wikipedia. But I question, again, is this actually an encyclopedic subject or just a definition? SQGibbon (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- All right, well since you insist, I'm going to beef up this article, although I doubt you would prevail if you brought it to AfD. Tisane talk/stalk 20:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe that's how it "used to be" but fortunately Wikipedia standards have improved. It's not obvious that's it's a notable subject since you didn't provide any sources that demonstrate such notability. Better is to start this on one of your own sub-pages then if/when it's ready for inclusion on Wikipedia move it over. Also, what's wrong with it being on Wiktionary? If it's only going to be a definition then isn't that where it belongs anyway? SQGibbon (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Why do people hate stubs so much these days, and want to demolish them? It used to be that we recognized that it's okay for an article to start as just a quick description of an obviously notable subject with sufficient context that people can understand what it's about. I create a lot of stubs, and for any of them, I could spend a lot of time looking up references and becoming enough of a mini-expert on the subject to significantly beef up that first revision, but then I would end up creating fewer articles. So I save the beef treatment for articles where notability is more questionable. It's better to let some legal expert come along and expand on the subject, while I work on articles that are more within my fields of expertise. However, I know enough about the law to know that the concept of a case being on all fours is important. Tisane talk/stalk 20:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Merge
[edit]In spite of what I just said above, wouldn't this be better if it were merged with precedent since it's just a specific type of precedent? SQGibbon (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Possibly, but one could say the same about binding precedent, persuasive precedent, etc. Tisane talk/stalk 21:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Those should be merged as well. In fact at the talk page for binding precedent that suggestion is made. If these articles are worthy of being kept separate then they need to be longer and summarized at the precedent article. I think the best approach, unless you just want to devote a lot of time into making this a long article, is to merge it and then split it out later if necessary. SQGibbon (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Either way is fine with me. I generally prefer to keep articles separate if I think there is potential for them to grow large (as I think is theoretically the case with subjects like various types of precedents, that are so vital to the practice of law), but there is no way to predict whether editors will actually step up to the plate and do it, and often such articles are neglected. We have a lot of core articles that are still badly in need of expansion after all these years. Merge away, if you wish. Tisane talk/stalk 21:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Those should be merged as well. In fact at the talk page for binding precedent that suggestion is made. If these articles are worthy of being kept separate then they need to be longer and summarized at the precedent article. I think the best approach, unless you just want to devote a lot of time into making this a long article, is to merge it and then split it out later if necessary. SQGibbon (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)