| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the De jure article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Really confusing examples
editThe examples about the Ottomans and Egypt is really confusing and dated. It doesn't really clarify the point it should be more relatable. Eg. If the posted speed limit on a road is the De jure speed limit. But if everyone knows the cops don't patrol that street the De Facto speed limit is how fast our car can go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.181.106.116 (talk) 13:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Tone of article
editDecided to add tone maintenance flag as the lead paragraph feels very anecdotal/unencyclopaedic to me, someone more knowledgeable might be better versed to review this and then remove as appropriate The capcon (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Colloquial Example
editI know it's from a source, which makes it better, but the "colloquial example" sentence is awful. It's long, awkward, and confusing. How about, "I know it's a de jure broken escalator, but this de facto staircase is wearing me out."
"Nominally" and "de jure" overlap
editHow much of an overlap would there be between "nominally" and "de jure", or could one (I assume maybe the latter) be considered a more specific subset of the other? — al-Shimoni (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Italicization
editA discussion affecting this article is in progress at Talk:De facto#Italicization. Certes (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)