Talk:Conversion

Chattels

I don't think that the comparison with Trespass to chattels is correct. The difference (in my understanding) is that TTC requires that the owner be in possession at the time the chattel is interfered with. However with conversion, possession is not necessary, there only needs to be an immediate right to possession. Eg. I lend you my bike for a week and you destroy it, as soon as I have a right to get it back a week later I can sue you in conversion, but I can't sue you in TTC b/c I didn't have possession at the time. However, if I kept my bike in the garage and you came over and destroyed it, I could sue you either in TTC or conversion. PullUpYourSocks 22:18, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Um, this page says nothing about which legal systems or jurisdictions it is describing, without which it is of limited use.

Not only that, but I came here because supposedly it's one of the claims FedEx is trying to use to get FedExFurniture.com pulled (that site being a personal website about how this one cash-strapped guy furnishes his apartment using FedEx boxes to make his furniture out of, and being an apparently non-commercial site). I still don't understand how "conversion" legally applies to this (I'm pretty sure he obtained the boxes by either buying them or getting stuff FedExed to him). Part of the reason I don't get the (alleged) connection is actually that this article needs a "plain language" explanation. To most people who aren't in the law profession or studying it, I don't think it would necessarily be all that clear what, when, where and to whom this applies to. 4.238.8.243 18:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it refers rather to American law and is no correct statement of English law! Cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detinue#England_and_Wales --129.67.116.167 (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page name

Since this page is about a specific term, used in law, I moved it to the page with the simple title of conversion, and put a disambiguation link to pages for other uses. Wik idea 09:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the process of moving it back. Almost all of the links to conversion were not about this subject. David-Sarah Hopwood (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We'd prefer you didn't. There is nothing wrong with people being able to find what they want through the disambiguation. This is a major topic for lawyers, and it's a very well written page. The other uses of conversion are not as important. Wik idea 01:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I dispute that other uses of "conversion" are not much more common and important, but in any case, the main problem was that convert and converted redirected to conversion. Now they redirect to religious conversion, which fixed almost all of the links. Some remaining links, for example those intended to be conversion (marketing), I fixed individually. David-Sarah Hopwood (talk) 02:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, why is the Talk page duplicated (Talk:Conversion and Talk:Conversion (law)? One should be deleted. David-Sarah Hopwood (talk) 03:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, yes, you really shouldn't have convert and converted go to this smelly old law page! Sorry I didn't change that. Don't know about this page. Maybe just delete it? I think I put the important stuff on the other talk page already. :) Wik idea 13:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Conversion_(law) has been deleted now.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion 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 proposal was restore to previous versions, as nothing was moved here. An improper cut/paste "move" was executed against policy. JPG-GR (talk) 17:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Disambiguation is clear about the rules, the move has to be reverted V8rik (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- reversal scheduled within 48 hours V8rik (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But V8rik doesn't that page you say as one of the rules is if there is a dominant usage, then the page can go here first? I don't think you need to change it back. Just so long as there's the disambiguation page at the top - the others seemed to agree with that, didn't they? Wik idea 23:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion (law) isn't a primary topic for the term "conversion". I don't think there should really be much dispute about that. For example, in the New Oxford Dictionary of English, which orders meanings by frequency of usage, the generic definition "change from one form into another" is first (with religious conversion as a subentry), followed by the definition in rugby, followed by that in law. David-Sarah Hopwood (talk) 03:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with David-Sarah Hopwood. The disambiguation page reads like a novel. Joeldl (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care what title this article ends up under. I think conversion (law) is cumbersome. It was under this title for a while before Wikidea and I rewrote it. But if there is a concensus that it should be moved to that title, I don't have a problem with it. The disambiguation page seems self-evident to me. Joeldl, what kind of novels are you reading? A E Francis (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Requested move Conversion to Conversion (law), per Wikipedia:Requested moves.

Support moving Conversion to Conversion (law). Also support moving Conversion (disambiguation) to Conversion. --Una Smith (talk) 22:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.