This article is within the scope of WikiProject Panama, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.PanamaWikipedia:WikiProject PanamaTemplate:WikiProject PanamaPanama articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain 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.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
Hi. The simple answer is because none of the English-language scholarship does. Audiencia is a very specific kind of legal court (with certain executive functions), unique to traditional hispanic jurisprudence. We could translated it as "court"—as someone recently did to the Audiencia of Charcas article (a move I disagree with)—but that would replace a specific name for vague, general one. Some have proposed translating it as "audience" (see my discussion—again—on the Audiencia of Charcas talk page, but that would be inventing a meaning for the English word "[audience]" that it does not currently have. I don't think Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, should be in the business of coining new terms just to adhere strictly to the rule that articles should use English words. If historians and legal scholars have felt it useful to retain the term "audiencia" when addressing an English-speaking audience, I think Wikipedia could too. As to "royal," I would dispense with it, as most historians do. We are not addressing the audiencias so there's no need for this nicety, but most of the Wikipedia editors have insisted on keeping either "royal" or "real," and I will not oppose them even if this creates a hybrid term. TriniMuñoz (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
