User talk:Damvile

Whilst I'm sure you've noticed that we've had our arguments, I hope you can at least appreciate that I've provided sources to back-up my argument. As one of your main concerns is with regard to the usage of "federal", and given that my research supports removing the "federal", would you voice support for my proposal of "Austrian Government" as the title of article, as defined by sources? If so, it would be nice if you could mention your support for said title in the move discussion. It would make a good compromise. RGloucester — ☎ 21:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Done. Damvile (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

As an aside, I presume you want to move Imperial Council (Austria) to "Imperial Assembly". That simply won't happen, for a variety of reasons. It is never called that in English reliable sources. When translated, it is always called the Imperial Council. I know, because I've read lots of books on the matter. I can provide searches, if you need me to. However, I have noticed that it is frequently called "Reichsrath" (older rendering) or "Reichsrat" in English. Even the Britannica uses "Reichsrat". In that case, if you'd like to make a move for some reason, the only move that makes sense is to Reichsrat (Austria). "Assembly" is a non-starter, as it simply isn't used. Whilst I understand why you may want to use "assembly", given that describing both houses of a parliament together as "council" is not usual in English, it simply has no basis in sources. Your best bet, in this situation, is to leave it untranslated. RGloucester — ☎ 22:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't have any strong opinion regarding Assembly vs. Council. I assumed it should be Assembly by analogy with other assemblies of the type. It was effectively subconscious; article names on Austrian legal topics are such a mess it simply didn't occur to me to treat any particular existing article name as evidence for anything.

Also, thanks for fixing the wrong dates. For some reason I keep typing 19xx when I clearly mean 18xx; no idea why. Damvile (talk) 14:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem. It is nice to see someone working on these articles. I was thinking of writing the December Constitution article a while ago. "Assembly" does make more sense by analogy, but it simply isn't used for this body. As much as it would be nice to be able to have wide latitude with our translations, we simply don't have it. We have to adhere to WP:V. Moving "Federal Convention" to "Federal Assembly" was a good move, though. RGloucester — ☎ 15:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, the literature was leaving me absolutely no choice on the Federal Assembly thing; it's never been called a Convention except on Wikipedia.

Regarding the December Constitution, I'm actually quite unhappy with my article. It says far too little about the actual content. It says virtually nothing about the legal and political reasoning that informed the drafters. I just can't fix it without doing a lot of rereading first that I really don't have the time for right now. If you think you can extend the article, please do; I'm absolutely certain it'll be a year before I get around to anything. Damvile (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The word rat is always translated as "council" in English, including analogues like the Ukrainian rada. Versammlung is likewise always "assembly", so I'm not sure how it became "convention". My understanding is that the only reason that "convention" as a translation exists at all is because the German government has decided to translate it that way. I don't know how that got applied to Austria, though. Whilst I don't particularly have time at the moment, I'd be happy to work on the December Constitution at some point in the future. RGloucester — ☎ 17:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

No, Germany's Bundesversammlung has always been translated as the Federal Convention. Google Books finds plenty of examples that clearly predate the Web; the term also appears in the English version of the GG draft the Allies signed off on in 1949. I think the reason is that the Bundesversammlung of the German Confederation was called the Federal Convention by contemporary (and later) sources; Google Books has some examples of this too. Apparently they thought that if they were reusing the German term they could reuse its existing translation as well. I'm guessing it then got applied to Austria when some editor used the German article as a model – a forgivable mistake; the modern German and Austrian Bundesversammlungen really are pretty close analogues, after all. Damvile (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

That particular German entity is always translated "Federal Convention", but the word itself is not usually translated as "convention". RGloucester — ☎ 19:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I meant. No argument. Damvile (talk) 19:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)