Talk:European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019

Requested move 9 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. 

The result of the move request was: Moved per WP:SNOW. (closed by non-admin page mover) B dash (talk) 02:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Cooper–Letwin Bill → European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019 – This is the name of the Act used for referencing, under Section 3(4) of the Act, and as seen on the order paper for today and on legislation.gov.uk. Jayden (talk) 08:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. – Kaihsu (talk) 09:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Bondegezou (talk) 10:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Qexigator (talk) 10:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Hammersfan (talk) 11:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: it's not a bill anymore, so of course it should be renamed, like every other Act. Richard75 (talk) 12:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Support - Wiz9999 (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

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.

84.236.27.189 (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * iNews (The UK newspaper The Independent as was), and the UK Evening Standard refer to it as the "Cooper-Letwin bill", lowercase B. I can't find any refer to it with caps B, as if it were a proper noun. There probably are, but not from my simple search. Wikipedia comes up 2nd. 84.236.27.189 (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC) — 84.236.27.189 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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)

I second the motion for early closure. – Kaihsu (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I second this a second time (Third-ed?). I really don't think there is much debate needed for this here. - Wiz9999 (talk) 21:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


 * 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. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved per WP:SNOWBALL. (closed by non-admin page mover) B dash (talk) 04:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019 → European Union (Withdrawal) (No.5) Act 2019 – The Parliament wensite and The Guardian used the WP:FULLNAME. Also User:Richard75 suggested that the "No. 5" should be included. 182.239.117.152 (talk) 05:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * Oppose as the (No. 5) only applied while it was a bill. It's not in the short title of the Act. See section 3(4) of the Act. Richard75 (talk) 18:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - it isn't the name of the Act Hammersfan (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * 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". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)


 * 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.