Talk:Re Kevin

Untitled

Surely this article deserves a better title! DJ Clayworth 16:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more - but what? Ambi 14:39, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2001-02/02rn16.htm. I don't think we'll be able to do any better :) -- Ash Lux ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Requested move 15 October 2024

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. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 23:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

---

Re Kevin – validity of marriage of transsexual → Re Kevin – No need for a longer title, which also sounds wrongly decapitalized or missing a letter/word. --MikutoH ^talk! 22:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Australian law, alian Wikipedians' notice board, WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, and WikiProject Law have been notified of this discussion. --MikutoH ^talk! 22:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Strong support Re Kevin — it is WP:CONCISE,WP:PRECISE and WP:COMMONNAME (per Google Scholar). It's also sufficiently unique on its own, as far as I can tell. Re Kevin (Validity of Marriage of Transsexual) (2001) (with brackets, caps and date) is more commonly used than the current title, but is still used less than Re Kevin (and I'm sure Ngrams will show the same). If we need to differentiate it somehow (perhaps at a later date), adding (2001) would probably be sufficient at that point. Lewisguile (talk) 06:57, 16 October 2024 (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.