- The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: moved. Arguments in support far stronger than those in opposition. Will provide a full rationale on request. Jenks24 (talk) 11:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v United States of America) → Oil Platforms case – There's little consistency in the way cases of the International Court of Justice are named on Wikipedia, and as far as I know it's never been discussed much. I think it's time to start renaming some of these to conform with WP:COMMONNAME. The official name of the case is "Case concerning Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America)", and the ICJ states that the full legal citation for this case is "Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America)", which is what this article uses. I believe that this case is most commonly known as simply "Oil Platforms case". Sure, there are no doubt other cases about oil platforms, but I don't think any other cases are known by this shorthand name. Searching google for "Oil Platforms case" turns up hits about the ICJ case, not other cases. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
- Support Generally speaking, the descriptive element of the case name (i.e. the part that isn't in brackets) is how a ICJ case is commonly referred to, and the names of the parties (in brackets) are only used in formal contexts such as citations. There are exceptions - some cases are commonly known by the names of the parties (not in brackets and without any descriptive element to the name). Nicaragua v. United States is an example (though it is sometimes known simply as "the Nicaragua case"). But I think that usually when a descriptive element of the case name is used in the article title, it is unnecessary to also include the party names in brackets. That is obviously less concise, it will usually be less common and no less recognisable. Neljack (talk) 02:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
- Oppose there are many oil platform cases, and there are many lawsuits in various jurisdictions about them. The proposed title does little to distinguish between them. If you want a shorter title Oil Platforms case (Iran v U.S.) would do it. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
- Name one for which there is a WP article and for which the common name is "Oil Platforms case". You won't, because there are none. Even if there were any, the ICJ one would be the clear and overwhelming primary meaning. You're taking the idea of "ambiguity" to ridiculous extremes. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
- Oppose. I think the current name is the most clear and descriptive. A redirect from the more common, vernacular usage is fine; later, if/ when there are multiple, similar articles, a disambiguation page can be established. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
- Looking at Category:International Court of Justice cases, it looks like a majority of cases utilize the full name although some do not. My preference is for the full name; I think it will better stand the test of time. Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
- That's a poor reason to keep the current name. As I mentioned in the nomination, none of the other article names about ICJ cases seem to have been discussed much and there is no overall consistency, and this is the first in what will likely be a series of discussions about them. I see no reason to depart from WP:COMMONNAME and use the "official name". As the guideline says, "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." In this case, that is clearly "Oil Platforms case". Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
- 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.
.jpg)
