Talk:Apostille Convention: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:24, 12 April 2011

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject International law.

Law C‑class 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
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

29 May 2007: Have added denmark to the list of countries that are party to the convention

Why isn't Canada a party?

Why isn't Canada a party to the convention? As far as I can see, it's the only major Western nation that isn't. This needs an explanation, not just a bare statement of fact. Loganberry (Talk) 14:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Since their creation in 2004, this article and Apostille have covered exactly the topic, although the text of the articles has been different. They were even created by the same person. I can't imagine why they were not merged long ago. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the lack of objection, and that the topic of the two articles in question is virtually identical, I have carried out the merge. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

move proposal

The name now is very long an certainly not a common name. I propose to move to Apostille treaty]] per WP:common name. L.tak (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest leaving the title alone and petitioning your government to negotiate a shorter name for the treaty. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that suggestion (but i will not do that). At wikipedia, not the formal name, but the most use name is used, as is explained in WP:common name. I cannot imagine that this name is the name most people would use to refer to it.... Most well-known treaties go by their shorter name (e.g. Chemical Weapons Convention).L.tak (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked this document of the site of the hague convention:. It calles it the "apostille convention". It is therefore even used as a common name within the official documents (here. I will propose the move shortly and invite to comment... L.tak (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. ukexpat (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hague Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents → Apostille convention — The page now has the formal name, which is too long to be also a usefull WP:common name. Documents on the website regarding the convention (here) use the name Apostille convention. ...As do thousands of websites (according to a google search), including several ministries of foreign affairs (e.g. here) (NB: see also the previous discussion directly above this section).--L.tak (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:COMMONNAME, seems like a no-brainer to me and if there are no significant opposes in a day or two, I'll move it. – ukexpat (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Write this for lay people

Why does the Procedure section start out with a technical phrase: "states parties" ? Especially at the start of a paragraph it is very difficult to understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.225.34.68 (talk) 09:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed it a bit; hope that helps! L.tak (talk) 10:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison with Notarization

I don't like the following sentence: "It is an international certification comparable to a notarisation in domestic law." This is imprecise ("notarization" is not a single thing) and not really accurate. The classic examples of "notarization" are: (1) taking an acknowledgment; and (2) administering an oath. Part of the notary's job is verifying the identity of the person making the acknowledgement or the oath, but that's only part of the job. The only purpose of the apostille is to certify the identity and authority of the notary or other person whose signature is to be certified. So I would just take this out. Tfolkman 14:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

@@ Line 37: / Line 37: @@
 Why does the Procedure section start out with a technical phrase: "states parties" ?  Especially at the start of a paragraph it is very difficult to understand.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/211.225.34.68|211.225.34.68]] ([[User talk:211.225.34.68|talk]]) 09:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 :I have changed it a bit; hope that helps! [[User:L.tak|L.tak]] ([[User talk:L.tak|talk]]) 10:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
+== Comparison with Notarization ==
+I don't like the following sentence: "It is an international certification comparable to a notarisation in domestic law." This is imprecise ("notarization" is not a single thing) and not really accurate. The classic examples of "notarization" are: (1) taking an acknowledgment; and (2) administering an oath. Part of the notary's job is verifying the identity of the person making the acknowledgement or the oath, but that's only part of the job. The ''only'' purpose of the apostille is to certify the identity and authority of the notary or other person whose signature is to be certified. So I would just take this out. Tfolkman 14:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)