Talk:Attorney General for Hong Kong v Reid

Requested move 28 April 2021

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Attorney General for Hong Kong v Reid (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 10:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

---

A-G for Hong Kong v Reid → Attorney-General for Hong Kong v Reid – Unnecessary abbreviation. The target's history is trivial but still blocked an unprivileged move. Hairy Dude (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Lord Bolingbroke: queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• @Hairy Dude: The case uses "Attorney General" without a hyphen ([1]), and Attorney General for Hong Kong v Reid was the original title of the article before being moved to the current title. Any particular reason you want to include the hyphen? – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• FWIW, I support moving to Attorney General for Hong Kong v Reid (no hyphen). Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Legal#Article titles says that cases decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council "may be titled according to OSCOLA format or the format for the jurisdiction from which the case originated". The New Zealand Law Style Guide advises against abbreviating "Attorney General", and I think it's preferable for an encyclopedia for general readers to avoid esoteric abbreviations. (I, for one, did not know what "A-G" stood for.) – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment My only reason for the hyphen was for consistency with other articles on cases brought by an Attorney General. But it seems the sources vary: the reports of two British cases on Wikipedia from 1990 and this one from Hong Kong use a space, while all the others - older cases, except some from New Zealand - use hyphens. I have no special insight into legal styles and so no strong opinion either way; I just think the abbreviation "A-G" is unwarranted (because, as Lord Bolingbroke alludes to, Wikipedia is written for a general audience - I expand US state abbreviations for the same reason). Hairy Dude (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

  Looking through the search results for All pages with titles containing Attorney General v, there doesn't appear to be much consistency regarding "Attorney General" vs "Attorney-General". I personally think it makes sense to just mirror whatever punctuation is used in the case, but it might be worth having a discussion about this at a more general forum to establish some consistency. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support Attorney General for Hong Kong v Reid (no hyphen). Should never have been moved from that title. Andrewa (talk) 18:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Previous move

23:17, 4 December 2014‎ Good Olfactory talk contribs block‎  54 bytes +54‎  Good Olfactory moved page Attorney General for Hong Kong v Reid to A-G for Hong Kong v Reid: name of case per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Legal#Article_titles; following OSCOLA

That is certainly a well presented rationale and food for thought! But OSCOLA seems irrelevant. The application of the MOS is unclear to me here, but if it supports that move then IMO it is just plain wrong and needs tweaking. Andrewa (talk) 18:52, 5 May 2021 (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.