This category is maintained by WikiProject Stub sorting, an attempt to bring some sort of order to Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to improve/expand the articles containing this stub notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Stub sortingWikipedia:WikiProject Stub sortingTemplate:WikiProject Stub sortingStub sorting articles
This category 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
I've noticed quite a few articles in the generic "law-stub" category that fit better in the sub-categories (i.e. Canadian-law-stub, UK-law-stub, etc.). Wouldn't it be best for us to go through the many articles in the "law-stub" category and recategorize when appropriate? --Micahbrwn 05:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
absolutely. They have been sorted in the past but it always happens that the generic labels pile up and need to be sorted again. PullUpYourSocks 18:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly, I don't know a lot about edits, but could we send in a bot or two to sort out the stubs? --Micahbrwn 00:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think I must've almost halved the number today from 1500+ to 800. Time for a break...Misterx2000 (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about a "law-book-stub"? Would there be enough to justify it, including books on the Supreme Court, international law, copyright law, legal history, etc etc? Her Pegship 16:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure this discussion is long dead, more than two years old, but in case anyone is watching this, I agree. I am creating a new stub about a legal book -- Jeffrey Toobin's "The Nine" -- and this would be much more helpful than "book-stub". I see lots of other stubs for history, philosophy, politics books. Why not law? --Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
