Talk:Wunsiedel decision

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.

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

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. 

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)


 * Agreed. --Yhdwww (talk) 12:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Or better BVerfG v. Rieger.--pistazienfresser (talk) 13:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * Wunsiedel decision of the BVerfG (just one 'd') seems the best choice. --Yhdwww (talk) 16:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks for spotting the typo. --Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 16:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Agreed again. --Yhdwww (talk) 13:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed.--pistazienfresser (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.