Template:Did you know nominations/Benelux Court of Justice
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Benelux Court of Justice[edit]
- ... that the Benelux Court of Justice can ask the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling when preparing a preliminary ruling?
Created by L.tak (talk). Self nominated at 18:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC).
Article of 2500 characters is certainly long enough, however it appears to have been submitted June 23 and the start of the article was June 16 = 7 days, which is outside the 5 day maximum. It was not expanded 5 fold. Perhaps I am missing something here, that needs explaining = otherwise it does not meet DYK requirements. Hook can be verified online. Inline citations adequate.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- Also to my initial surprise, the five day rule has become a 7-day rule according to wp:dyk since June.... If the implementer was too eager to see consensus for the change, i have no problems to withdraw the nom however...--L.tak (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- Surprise, surprise, surprise! Good thing I asked questions concerning this. Learn something new all the time.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- Also to my initial surprise, the five day rule has become a 7-day rule according to wp:dyk since June.... If the implementer was too eager to see consensus for the change, i have no problems to withdraw the nom however...--L.tak (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Good to go. Meets all DYK requirements.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- The hook fact doesn't have a cite after it in the article, per DYK rules. Yoninah (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- ok like this now? L.tak (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- No. The cite needs to be right after the sentence in question, which seems to be "The court therefore may request a preliminary ruling to the European Court of Justice to the application of European Union law". But I don't even see the whole hook fact in that sentence. Yoninah (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick answer. I have extended to coverage of the main court case in the matter to explicitly cover what was now mostly implicit (i) the court may ask for a prelim ruling to CJEU; ii) the court was obliged to do so in a case which it could only become within its purview if it has been asked a for a preliminary ruling itself). Feel free to further tweak... L.tak (talk) 10:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. Now all that's missing is the second half of the hook, "when preparing a preliminary ruling". Yoninah (talk) 12:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe that is just my English. I meant "in the process of deciding the case -the reference for a preliminary ruling from a Dutch court- before them" and wanted to shorten that to "preparing a preliminary ruling". As I think it is clearly referenced, could you suggest a formulation that would be ok? maybe: when "giving a preliminary ruling" or when "adjudicating a reference for a preliminary ruling". I used the shorter part hear because it is quite "hooky", but hesitate to do that directly in the article, as their the deeper explanation is helpful.
Would this be a good alternative (it certainly is cited...) ALT 1 * ... that the Benelux Court of Justice can ask the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling in order to give a preliminary ruling?
- I'm sorry, I'm not following you. ALT1 just seems to be a rewrite of the original hook, which was fine, but I don't see all of it in the article. You need to write something in the article that looks like the hook. It's fine to write a longer version in the article and then shorten it in the hook. Since this is a general statement, it needs to be phrased that way – the closest I can find in the article is "The court therefore can request a preliminary ruling to the European Court of Justice to the application of European Union law". Is this the correct place? If so, you could write (if it's true): "The court therefore can request a preliminary ruling to the European Court of Justice to the application of European Union law before it formulates its own preliminary ruling". Whatever you write has to come from a source. Yoninah (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- The rephrasing is just because I could nowhere find the term "preparing a preliminary ruling" directly referred.... The citing sentence is "In the latter case, the European Court of Justice ruled that in the interpretation of the Uniform Benelux Law on Trade Marks, both the Supreme Court of the Netherlands (where the case had been in cassation) and the Benelux Court of Justice (the authority to give preliminary rulings upon requests from the supreme courts regarding this Benelux law) were, both as "a court against whose decisions there is no remedy under national law" under an obligation to ask for a preliminary ruling in the interpretation of EU legislation (in this case: the Trade Marks Directive), although if one court had asked the questions, the other court would be relieved of this obligation". The sentence shows that those questions can (and in this case even should) be asked; and that in this type of cases the questions can come to the Benelux court are via a preliminary reference (as is clearly stated in the source, and is in the sentence "(the authority to give preliminary rulings upon requests from the supreme courts regarding this Benelux law)". L.tak (talk) 21:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- It may say that to you, but it is completely unclear to me as an average reader. The general rule in writing is to Keep It Simple. The sentence in question is also overlong and probably should be divided into two sentences for clarity. Yoninah (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- I have now changed the previous sentence to "The court therefore can request a preliminary ruling to the European Court of Justice to the application of European Union law, also when needs this in formation in order to answer requests for preliminary rulings itself." and removed some interesting, but non-necessary info of the later sentence for further clarity...Hope you feel it is ok. L.tak (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- Almost there... What does "also when needs this in formation" mean? And is the word "it" missing from "also when it needs this"? Yoninah (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- I have now changed the previous sentence to "The court therefore can request a preliminary ruling to the European Court of Justice to the application of European Union law, also when needs this in formation in order to answer requests for preliminary rulings itself." and removed some interesting, but non-necessary info of the later sentence for further clarity...Hope you feel it is ok. L.tak (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- It may say that to you, but it is completely unclear to me as an average reader. The general rule in writing is to Keep It Simple. The sentence in question is also overlong and probably should be divided into two sentences for clarity. Yoninah (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- The rephrasing is just because I could nowhere find the term "preparing a preliminary ruling" directly referred.... The citing sentence is "In the latter case, the European Court of Justice ruled that in the interpretation of the Uniform Benelux Law on Trade Marks, both the Supreme Court of the Netherlands (where the case had been in cassation) and the Benelux Court of Justice (the authority to give preliminary rulings upon requests from the supreme courts regarding this Benelux law) were, both as "a court against whose decisions there is no remedy under national law" under an obligation to ask for a preliminary ruling in the interpretation of EU legislation (in this case: the Trade Marks Directive), although if one court had asked the questions, the other court would be relieved of this obligation". The sentence shows that those questions can (and in this case even should) be asked; and that in this type of cases the questions can come to the Benelux court are via a preliminary reference (as is clearly stated in the source, and is in the sentence "(the authority to give preliminary rulings upon requests from the supreme courts regarding this Benelux law)". L.tak (talk) 21:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)