Talk:Lex loci

Law Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Latin Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin 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.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Proposed merge

I propose merging in Lex fori, Lex loci protectionis, Lex patriae, Lex loci solutionis, Lex loci rei sitae, Lex loci delicti commissi, Lex loci celebrationis, Lex loci arbitri, and Lex loci actus. These are all stubs or very short articles that are just variations on the concept of Lex loci. BD2412 T 07:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Lex causae and Lex domicilii to this request. BD2412 T 07:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that this makes sense. Some are stubs, but some are rather long. The resulting article might be overlong. Sandstein 07:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I could see this merge happening, but the resulting article needs to be more than a dictionary entry, and more than a bunch of short articles lumped together, but instead needs to describe how courts decided the relevant jurisdictions for all of these scenarios. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 07:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a wealth of sources addressing the interconnections between these concepts. BD2412 T 22:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge; most of these stub articles have been around since 2005, suggesting that there is little appetite for expansion by the practitioners; so, best consolidated in one place, helping each stub by providing context. Klbrain (talk) 08:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support: It is much more useful for the reader to have all this information in one place (when the alternative is a baker's dozen stubs). ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 22:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I am fine with this. Bearian (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think at this point consensus is very clear. I am going to go ahead with this. BD2412 T 03:49, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]