Talk:Re Canavan

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Re Canavan article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Australia: Law / Politics Low‑importance

	Australia portal Re Canavan is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian law (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of 2017 Australian parliamentary eligibility crisis was copied or moved into Re Canavan. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Section 44 of the Constitution of Australia#Citizenship Seven (2017) was copied or moved into Re Canavan. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Page name

Is it a usual convention to shorten this sort of lengthy case name in this way ("Re Canavan")? In any case, I feel as though it might cause confusion as a page name, given that the page deals with all 7 politicians, not just Canavan. A name like "Citizenship Seven case" may be better and would be a WP:COMMONNAME. Liguer (talk) 10:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. High Court cases get shortened in this way (in formal sources) all the time when there are many parties, and for clarity we call High Court cases by their actual name, rather than by some random pseudonym. (Not least in this case because it's looking extremely likely there will be more than one case.) The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IANAL, but the High Court itself refers to the case as 'Re Canavan Re Ludlam Re Waters Re Roberts [No 2] Re Joyce Re Nash Re Xenophon [2017] HCA 45'. See [http://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/downloadPdf/2017/HCA/45. Even that's far from ideal but far more descriptive than the abbreviated current version. That said I'm more a fan of sticking with actual case names over names for convenience sake. -- Longhair\^talk 12:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there are seven cases (the High Court lists submissions etc for each separately), but they were heard at the same time & a single judgment given. It's common for multiple cases to be heard together & to be referred to by reference to the short title of the first case, in the same way as when there are multiple parties its just the first plaintiff and first defendant that are referred to. Are you concerned that someone will be looking for it under another name? If so redirects are cheap. The problem with common names is that they can change - eg New South Wales v Commonwealth (1915) was known as the Wheat case, but is now referred to as the Interstate Commission case. If you look at List of High Court of Australia cases you will see the naming approach that has been adopted. Find bruce (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable then. Liguer (talk) 07:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that in Katy Gallagher's Citizenship Register the cases are referred to as Re Canavan & Ors. IANAL, but that would seem like it might be a better name for this page? --SnorlaxMonster 11:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be incorrect I think, because each of the cases is a separate case, whereas 'and others' would refer to a single case with multiple parties. Kb.au (talk) 12:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kb.au is right. Several cases, each of them a separate referral, were heard together. The full name is: "Re Canavan; Re Ludlam; Re Waters; Re Roberts [No 2]; Re Joyce; Re Nash; Re Xenophon [2017] HCA 45". I think "Re Canavan" will do here. Wikiain (talk) 18:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kb.au & Wikiain & note that in a subsequent decision the High Court refers to the case as Re Canavan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Find bruce (talk • contribs) 17:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]