This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Politics of the United Kingdom 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.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
European Union 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.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union articles
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Support since it's no longer a Bill and should be given the title of its official name. If Cooper–Letwin Act is also a term that is used then there should be a redirect from that.
This is Paul (
talk)
14:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Support, snowball vote I would think. But as an aside, usually we would talk of a UK Bill as the name of the Bill, not as the names of the proposers (unlike US law where we have both Acts and Bills frequently in the names of the proposers).— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
84.236.27.189 (
talk •
contribs)
15:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)reply
I am thinking, for example, of
Sarbanes-Oxley Act or
Volstead Act in the US, wherease I think
WP:COMMONNAME they would not have been called that even at first reading as Bills. It is a UK/US distinction, I think (I am not sure about Canada or Aus or other English Law jurisdictions what is more common). The US has an occasional tendency to name Bills (and so Acts, when passed) for acronyms (or
backronyms), such as the
PATRIOT Act, which the UK rarely if ever does.
As a UK resident living in another EU country, with some political nous, I have been following this rather tawdry saga of Brexit more diligently than many, but even I have never heard this be the
WP:COMMONNAME. I have not seen it on any news broadcast from BBC, ITN, Sky News, Euronews, I don't get the UK press here.
It was an extremely unlikely,
WP:SURPRISEing title to begin with. Bills should be named with their names. Not some arbitrary naming of their proposers.
Quite. It should have been the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill (No. 5) all along. I propose that we close this debate early and get on with the move. It's already a day since royal assent; what are we waiting for? It's not as if anyone is going to make a persuasive argument to keep calling it a bill. Surely we don't really have to wait seven days?
Richard75 (
talk)
18:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this
talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Requested move 10 April 2019
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose - It is no longer a Bill, so that name is irrelevant - that is not the name that the Act became. A redirect from that name makes sense, however. It is clearly seen that
in law, that it is the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019. Also refer to the last discussion where I cited the order paper from Commons business yesterday, where it was also referred to by its actual name.
Jayden (
talk)
09:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose: The Bill was numbered 5 to distinguish from other Bills, but the Act is not numbered because it does not need to be. –
Kaihsu (
talk)
10:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Jayden and Kaihsu - the article name is the act's title in law. Yes, while the act was a bill being debated, it was "European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill", but the bill has been passed into law, so that title exists as a redirect to the current article, as is correct. —
Sasuke Sarutobi (
push to talk)
11:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose - The name of the Act is the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019 -
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/16/enacted - and this is also the name that the Act has in law as a result of its own section 3(4). Adding "(No. 5)" into its title would therefore make the title inaccurate and would break Wikipedia's goal of creating a "...reliable encyclopedia".
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines Wikipedia would not be reliable if it gave the Act a name that it does not have. Therefore, whilst I assume good faith as the suggestion to rename the article could have been made before the Act came to be named it way it is, I think any agreement to rename the article would itself be wrong and, even if consensus was reached to change the article name, the consensus to do so should be overruled and be invalid as such an agreement would break Wikipedia's policy.
aspaa (
talk)
22:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this
talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.