Talk:German cannabis control bill

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Language?[edit]

Since this is English Wikipedia, should the name of this article be in English or German? ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Category:German law, it's a mishmash. I figured this should be German as with Betäubungsmittelgesetz. - Brianhe (talk) 14:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer and Brianhe: See "Proposed rename" below. Mathglot (talk) 01:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reping as Bri after name change. Mathglot (talk) 02:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed rename[edit]

I propose that this article be renamed to:

There is no reason for the title of this article to be in German, which few here at en-wiki will understand, when a perfectly good, descriptive title is available in English, is understandable in English, and gives the reader of the title a good understanding of what the article is about before reading it. There is insufficient coverage in English sources to determine a common name so an English descriptive title is ideal here. We should pick one of the ones above, or find a better one.

How it's done at other articles (like Betäubungsmittelgesetz) is a subject for discussion at the talk page of the other article, whose common usage may be different, and also other stuff happens so they might have it wrong, and WP:CONSISTENCY does not apply here.

The decisive point, imho, is this one from WP:AT: In deciding whether and how to translate a foreign name into English, follow English-language usage. If there is no established English-language treatment for a name, translate it if this can be done without loss of accuracy and with greater understanding for the English-speaking reader. It seems clear to me that this can be done, and with no loss of accuracy.

A note on capitalization: were this the name of an enacted law, English convention would be to capitalize it, so, e.g., "Cannabis Control Law of 2018" (or whatever); but this article is about a draft of a law, and there may be any number of drafts proposed, before it coalesces into enacted law (or doesn't). I'm not sure if there is a MOS recommendation on capitalization of bills before they become law, but if there is, the proposed article titles above (or any others) should be adjusted to conform. Mathglot (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 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: Move. There is clear consensus here that the proposed descriptive title is more recognizable. Cúchullain t/c 21:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Entwurf eines Cannabiskontrollgesetzes → German cannabis control bill – 1. No common name available; 2. descriptive title is available and clearer; 3. English title can be given with no loss of accuracy, per AT guideline. See Talk:Entwurf eines Cannabiskontrollgesetzes#Proposed rename. Mathglot (talk) 01:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Listed at: Wikipedia talk:Article titles.   Mathglot (talk) 02:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listed at: WT:POLITICS.   Mathglot (talk) 02:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listed at: WT:LAW.   Mathglot (talk) 02:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. If it were just the law itself, then maybe the article would simply be "Cannabiskontrollgesetz" (which to me is more acceptible, being a proper noun as opposed to, at most, a phrasal noun), but as Mathglot rightly points out, it is only at bill stage currently. For now, better to have it in English, and then if a common name emerges in English literature (especially after its deliberation), then the article can be moved at that point. For now, better to stick with English for the English article in the absence of any common name. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 13:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait for sources to establish a common English name. No need to move it to a made-up title; redirects from common search terms will suffice. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Although the odd reference to it can be found here and there in the English press from news reports of the time,[1] there will never be new news reports in English about an old German bill from two years ago, so you can forget about waiting for a common name for this one. And it's not a "made-up title" it's a descriptive title, something used by countless Wikipedia articles, and which forms a part of Wikipedia's policy on article titles. Sasuke alludes to an additional problem which is that in the current form, it's in the genitive case per German grammar requirements, so the law, if it ever came out, would not even be spelled that way. The real question here, Bri is, what argument do you have for keeping it in its current form and overriding title policy, which clearly states: If there is no established English-language treatment for a name, translate it if this can be done without loss of accuracy and with greater understanding for the English-speaking reader.? Mathglot (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The same policy states If there are too few reliable English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject. So I prefer to wait to see what develops. I see the adoption of different approaches to German law articles (e.g. Betäubungsmittelgesetz, Strafgesetzbuch, Verfassungsbeschwerde, etc.) as reflecting these different takes on the policy and there's no need to rush to change this one. ☆ Bri (talk)
  • Support the descriptive title, since the current title is not ideal in terms of the article naming criteria (recognizability, naturalness). For any editor or reader not familiar with German, the current title is opaque, and the proposed title remedies this. It isn't necessary for us to wait to see what develops; if something else develops, it is no problem to move the page again. Dekimasuよ! 21:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination, Sasuke Sarutobi, Dekimasu and WP:UE.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Knodt, Michael (6 November 2017). "Why Germany's "Jamaica Coalition" Will Not Legalize Cannabis". The Greens, on the other hand, have been working intensively on cannabis policy over the last few years, introducing a 70-page 'cannabis control law' in 2016.
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.

Merge proposal[edit]

A merge from a much more fully developed article – 2022 German cannabis legalization framework – is proposed to address the notability concern. This one may be preserved in light of the discussion that has already occurred on the best name to describe the topic. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is done. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:German_cannabis_control_bill&oldid=1215061690"