Talk:Wunsiedel decision

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 4 May 2017 by reviewer DGG (talk · contribs).

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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on BverG v. Rieger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304075359/https://www.bundestag.de/blob/284870/ce0d03414872b427e57fccb703634dcd/basic_law-data.pdf to https://www.bundestag.de/blob/284870/ce0d03414872b427e57fccb703634dcd/basic_law-data.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 December 2020

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.

It was proposed in this section that BverG v. Rieger be renamed and moved to BverfG v. Rieger.

result:
Moved. After numerous suggestions, consensus settled on the concise title Wunsiedel decision. Thanks to all for their input. (closed by non-admin page mover) -2pou (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Links: current log • target log

This is template {{subst:Requested move/end}}

BverG v. Rieger → BverfG v. Rieger – No evidence of the name using a nonstandard abbreviation for the Bundesverfassungsgericht. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --Yhdwww (talk) 12:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or better BVerfG v. Rieger.--pistazienfresser (talk) 13:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't even see that. Of course, even more strictly speaking, BVerfG vs. is nonsense too, because it isn't the court against the complainant, but that might go too far for now. --Yhdwww (talk) 13:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This should be titled either 1 BvR 2150/08 or Order of the First Senate of 4 November 2009. The current title is totally contrived. That said, if consensus is that the "v. Rieger" title should be kept, I agree that the spelling of BVerfG must be fixed. BegbertBiggs (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking more like Rieger decision of the BVerfG or something along these lines. 1 BvR 2150/08 is hardly a common name. --Yhdwww (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The aricle on the german wikipedia is called Wunsiedel-Entscheidung (Wunsiedel-Decision). I would propose Wunsiedel decision of the BVerfG. German case names generally don't include the names of the parties. As second choice i would be ok with Rieger decision of the BVerfG. --Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wunsiedel decision of the BVerfG (just one 'd') seems the best choice. --Yhdwww (talk) 16:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for spotting the typo. --Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 16:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Asmodea for fixing the Wikidata, I hadn't seen that there is a dewp article. I'd even say that simply Wunsiedel decision is enough to be WP:recognisable and more WP:concise. BegbertBiggs (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wunsiedel decision is even as better. It is hard finding aricles in other languages when they have completly different names. --Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 13:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed again. --Yhdwww (talk) 13:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.--pistazienfresser (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.