Talk:Law of succession in South Africa

	Law portal 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.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

South Africa Mid‑importance

	South Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Law of succession in South Africa was copied or moved into Intestate succession in South African law with this edit on 3 October 2022. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Merger of the case articles etc

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To split Law of succession in South Africa#Intestate succession from this article as Intestate succession in South African law (as WP:TOOBIG), then merge the 3 cases into this main article (unwarranted split). There were no arguments against splitting other sections out. Klbrain (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What we have here looks to me like a botched WP:SPLIT. (In particular, I notice that this article says "see X v Y" (where "X v Y" is the name of the case) over and over again, and the short case articles look very much like footnotes to this article). As far as I can tell, these cases are generally included in standard works on the law of succession in South Africa (including general works that include the law of succession).

I propose we merge the said short descriptions of the cases into this article. (Caveat: some of the cases listed may be notable: I will remove the mergeto tags from these when they are detected). Then we split out Intestate succession in South African law, Collation in South African succession law and the other main sections of the article, which look like standard concepts and should satisfy GNG beyond doubt. At nearly 200kB, this article is already large enough to justify a split (see WP:TOOBIG). Complete elimination of the case descriptions, on the other hand, would have the effect of punching a series of holes in this article that would make parts of it unintelligible. James500 (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@James500: I am happy to proceed with the merge proposed with Dittmarn, Douallier, Sidelsky, provided you indicate where in the target article these merge to. I agree with splitting out Intestate succession. The article is far too big. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   HTML document size: 399 kB
   Prose size (including all HTML code): 158 kB
   References (including all HTML code): 22 kB
   Wiki text: 192 kB
   Prose size (text only): 150 kB (26217 words) "readable prose size"
   References (text only): 3991 B

- @User:Whiteguru: The articles Ex Parte Sidelsky, Ex Parte McDonald, Ex Parte Douallier and Ex Parte Dittmarn would need to merge to the section =====Alteration or variation by the court===== which is part of the section ====Revocation==== which is part of the section ===Invalid wills=== which is part of the section ==Testate succession==.
- For the avoidance of doubt, the sources available for Ex parte [Estate late] McDonald appear to be 1945 NPD 348 and [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. So I think it should be merged. James500 (talk) 16:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To split Law of succession in South Africa#Testate succession to Testate succession in South African law. James500 (talk) 00:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After the above close, I noted that was a set of cases added for merge in December. There are (at least):

As with the previous discussion, I think that it's reasonable to merge them in, but move another section out. Perhaps the very large Law of succession in South Africa#Testate succession to Testate succession in South African law, paralleling Intestate succession in South African law. Note that I've merged the November-proposed cases to a section for them at the end, but am relaxed if someone would like to move them closer to relevant places of discussion. My reading, though, is that they may overlap in scope between sections, so keeping them at the end might be simplest. Klbrain (talk) 09:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the section Law of succession in South Africa#Testate succession should be moved to Testate succession in South African law. At 170kB, this article is still WP:TOOBIG. The topic satisfies GNG, with entire books on the subject, such as Isaacs and Horwitz, The South African Law of Testate Succession (1979).
The sections on Ex Parte Dittmarn, Ex Parte Douallier and Ex Parte Sidelsky could be moved to Testate succession in South African law, as their content is concerned with the variation of wills. The article Ex Parte Estate Davies can be merged to Testate succession in South African law. I will examine each of the other cases listed above before I make recommendations, as we now have two potential merger targets, and we will presumably have another when testate succession is split out. James500 (talk) 03:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.