Talk:Judiciary of Austria

Austria High‑importance

	Austria portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AustriaWikipedia:WikiProject AustriaTemplate:WikiProject AustriaAustria articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

Requested move 26 April 2016[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move the article has been established within the RM time period and thus defaulting to not moved. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 17:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Courts in Austria → Judiciary of Austria – Seems to to be the standard naming for this series of article, see also template present in the bottom of this, and compare main articles for Category:Judiciaries and [[:Category:Courts by country ]]. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC) relisted --Mike Cline (talk) 13:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC) --Relisted. Steel1943 (talk) 23:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose ambiguous naming wikt:judiciary means the body of judges. While "court system" clearly refers to the court system and not the body of judges -- 70.51.46.195 (talk) 11:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear anon, rather the commenting based on unreferenced wiktionary entry, I suggest you take a look at Judiciary, which is the main article for this, and more aptly named then "Court System". You are welcome to suggest it is renamed - but I doubt you'll find much support for that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The same definition is provided by Merriam-Webster . Your proposal makes the name ambiguous, there being multiple meanings for "judiciary", so should not be used when we have perfectly usable unambiguous ones. -- 70.51.46.195 (talk) 07:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as ambiguous, and as an attempt to force American English usage of the word "judiciary" onto the relevant articles. RGloucester — ☎ 15:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per standard in most other jurisdictions. The terms are virtually synonymous. Consistency in naming conventions is to be preferred. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - since "Judiciary of Austria" is already a redirect here, and for consistency with other articles for other countries. Judiciary is a broader term than Courts, and if there's one article it should be about the whole thing, not just Courts. — Amakuru (talk) 09:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Judiciary" usually only refers to a body of judges in Commonwealth English, so this amounts to an ENGVAR issue (i.e. Americans construe "judiciary" as the entirety of a judicial or court system). For that reason, a consistency is not supported by WP:TITLEVAR, which allows us to have titles like color gel and colour gel without considering that to be an inconsistency worth remedying. However, generally speaking, I would agree that the current title is lacking in scope, and would prefer "Court system of Austria" or "Judicial system of Austria". RGloucester — ☎ 14:47, 2 June 2016 (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 3 May 2018[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 20:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Courts in Austria → Judiciary of Austria – This is an article about the judicial branch of the Austrian state apparatus. (Actually it's just a stub but I'm expanding it.) "Courts" is a problematic lemma for this kind of thing − partly because of the way "Court", "Gericht", and "Gerichtshof" are almost but not quite synonymous; partly due to some historical accidents regarding the translations established by the Austrian and international scholarly literature. Luckily for us, practically every WP:RS writing about Austrian constitutional law in English refers to the judiciary as "the judiciary" or some variant thereof. Examples: "legislature, administration, judiciary" (Heller, Outline of Austrian Constitutional Law); "the administrative system and the judicial system" (Stelzer, The Constitution of the Republic of Austria); "the judiciary" (Arnold, Rule of Law); "The Three Powers: Legislature, Executive, Judiciary" (Austrian Parliament); "The Judicial Power (Judiciary)" (Parliament again); "The Austrian Judicial System" (Ministry of Justice, twice); "judiciary in Austria" (European Court of Human Rights, International Association of Judges); "legislature, administration and judiciary" (Province of Vorarlberg); "the judiciary system" (Center for Economic Studies). Bonus: The corresponding article for 30 out of 35 other European countries already follows the Judiciary of X pattern. Kramler (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). –Ammarpad (talk) 14:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this request from Technical Requests, because the page has been moved and counter-moved previously. Also, unarchived move request above found no consensus, therefore it is better to discuss again. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Standard terminology used throughout our other articles on a similar subject all over the world. WP:CONSISTENCY. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support for sources cited above. Note that when User:Piotrus requested the move in 2016 the one and only counter"argument" was almost indistinguishable from "American English is tacky". Maybe so, but can't be helped. Austrians publishing in the area strongly tend towards AE. Partly because it's the language of Cornell, Harvard, Princeton, and the Vienna UN Building. Partly because they themselves publish with houses like Yale University Press, the University of New Orleans Press, or Springer NY. We have to work with the sources, not against them. Damvile (talk) 16:58, 9 May 2018 (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.

No offense intended[edit]

Yo Kramler, hope you don't mind. Damvile (talk) 12:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Want me to add some links to BGBl and RIS pages as inline citations like I used to do for my own contributions? Damvile (talk) 12:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother, I'm going to add plenty of cites in a few days when I'm back home and have access to my bookshelf again. I'm going to use Öhlinger and Brauneder for the B-VG stuff; Kienapfel and Bertel (probably) for procedure; Stelzer, Lijphart, Erk, and the Bischof "Austrian Studies" book for the translations. I don't want to use the BGBl or the RIS because they're primary sources and two biggest problems we have here are

funhouse fantasy translations of technical terms, some of which appear in English-language texts written by idiots in Austrian government employ (primary sources!) and some of which were evidently made up ad hoc by Wikipedia editors (original research!);
bullshit legal fictions that, while unequivocally bullshit, often appear to have the support of the black letter of the statutes (primary sources!), and that politicians with agendas (POV!) sometimes even manage to sneak into EU translation style guides (primary sources!).

The only way to clean up around here is to be a stickler about the WP:RS rules, especially about the principle that secondary sources outrank primary sources. I need to set every precedent possible, starting with this here article, or this particular corner of Wikipedia will remain a joke forever. Kramler (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Why Brauneder though? Assuming you mean Verfassungsgeschichte? Damvile (talk) 03:42, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why not, because it's a history book notionally? Final chapters are very useful, partly because of his broad idiosyncratic streak. (How many chambers of parliament again?) Anything that Öhlinger and Brauneder unequivocally agree on can be safely considered herrschende Lehre. Kramler (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

so when you gon add sum sauce Damvile (talk) 04:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Starting Wednesday when I'm back to where the books are Kramler (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History section where?[edit]

Straw poll: History section on top or at the bottom? Can't make up my mind. Kramler (talk) 13:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]