![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Should reference be made to Judge Constance Harm Given that it parodies judge judy?-- Bacturin ( talk) 10:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
To whomever redid this article compared to like six months ago, this is fantastic. Four stars - compared to the stub it used to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.134.107.133 ( talk) 02:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
This article needs a major cleanup. There is a lot of non-encyclopedic text in it; the content could probably be cut in half (or even down to one-third of its current length.) Furthermore, there is a fair bit of overlap between the show and the show's star. I'll try to give it a pass over the next few days, but I just wanted to post a note so that others can have a go at it as well. -- Ckatz chat spy 05:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
You seem put off that you're involved in the heated argument you were asking for which confuses me. Anyway, if you were as familiar with the page at all like I am, you'd know that it's obvious that the info you added to that section is already in the opening. Also, it's not copy right infringement whatsoever. The very info points out it is from youtube. EverybodyHatesChris 10:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
EHC, I have removed the text describing the show's availability on YouTube as it is contrary to established procedure to describe such illegal activity for several reasons. One, we can't verify it. External links policy bans the linking to copyright violations, and the only way to verify the availability of the material is to link to it. Two, there is nothing exceptional about the fact that JJ is available on YouTube - many shows are, in some form or another - so it fails the notability guideline. Three, the text essentially explained how to find the copyright-violating material; even without a link, this is against established procedure. Therefore, the text has to come out. If there is a strong desire to argue for its inclusion, the subject should first be brought up for discussion at a talk page with a wider scope - the television project, or more properly a higher-level policy page. (I can point you in the right direction is desired.) This isn't something unique to this page - there have been many television articles that have had to deal with the whole Bittorrent/YouTube availability issue. -- Ckatz chat spy 06:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The run time has to be written as 22 minutes (or whatever it actually is, 23, 24, etc.) instead of 30 minutes. While the show fills a thirty minute time slot, it does not contain that much content due to ads, promotions, etc. Wikipedia television articles only describe the actual content. (For reference, please see Heroes, Scrubs, Lost, and so on.) Hope this helps. -- Ckatz chat spy 08:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I know for a fact the show isn't 22 minutes. It is around 27 minutes, but I am not sure. Until I find out for sure, it goes back to 30, standard time. You can't just throw any old time down because you don't know. EverybodyHatesChris 08:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
It's around 27 minutes or so, but as I said, I am not sure if that is exact. I know for sure it is longer than 22 minutes and because neither of us know, it's best to put it back to 30 as that at least describes the length it takes up time even though it includes commercials. The other numbers (22 / 27 ) might not describe anything. EverybodyHatesChris 08:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Court shows are different. And by the way [ [1]] EverybodyHatesChris 08:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
There is a specific page dealing with Television Infoboxes. It specifically states that the running time is not to include commercials and is to be approximated since commercial length may vary from one day to the next. "22-24 minutes approx." might be appropriate. MplsNarco ( talk) 00:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the following text:
"The show also isn't aired on the same network for every U.S. state. For example, while the program is shown on FOX in Wisconsin, it is shown on KCBS in Los Angeles, California."
It is unnecessary as the term "syndication" (along with the existing link to Broadcast syndication) covers exactly the same point. To quote from the linked article:
"...syndication is the sale of the right to broadcast radio shows and television shows to multiple individual stations, without going through a broadcast network."
"When syndicating a show, the production company, or a distribution company or "syndicator," usually attempts to sell the show to one station in each media market or area."
"Syndication differs from selling the show to a television network; once a network picks up a show, it is usually guaranteed to run on all the network's affiliates, on the same day of the week and at the same time."
-- Ckatz chat spy 08:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, then you oughta be blocked for taking ownership of articles because everything I have done is something you have done. you've reverted and debated as well, so you should be blocked. How's that?! As I said, syndication can mean a lot of different things and it may or may not be describing what I am talking about. Besides, syndication can mean hundreds of different things and being specific like I have is probably best to do anyway EverybodyHatesChris 09:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Yep! See ya later! Bye! EverybodyHatesChris 09:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. They are based on this version of the article.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ckatz chat spy 10:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I've assessed this article for WP:TV as requested here. I have rated this article as start class because of the lack of important sections like critical response and for the problems with original research, informal tone and non-notable information. I have rated it as mid importance because of the longevity and apparent influence of the show. These categories are subjective and may be reviewed by any member of WP:TV who feels confident to do so. Please note that a more formal assessment by other editors is required to achieve good article or featured article status. I used criteria from the television wikiproject guidelines here, article about TV series guidelines here and the assessment guidelines here.
Specific suggestions and comments:
-- Opark 77 11:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't see what's wrong with the article and why does the chats guy get to change everything. he is being a real asshole if u look at history link on this article , he is making everyone come here and look at his stupid argument before they make any edits as far as I can see. show is also 30 mins and needs citing according to above 198.150.96.50 ( talk) 21:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
This reference desk discussion is much clearer on the legal status that the article. Rich Farmbrough, 14:42 8 February 2008 (GMT).
If anyone has a problem with my edit, feel free to explain why. I reverted back on Ckatz (who's had his share of tiffs here) who reverted some other anon with some reason that the info was clearly sourced. \ =/ I can source an elephant has a trunk to, but that doesn't mean it belongs on this article. He criticized some anon's edit summary so I criticized his and reverted it. 143.235.215.92 ( talk) 22:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The edit summary "the other guy" left was intentionally deceitful, claiming to only remove "SNL crap" (which in and of itself is a bad summary) and then removed a whole lot of other stuff. Ckatz is right in his observation. If you and your "friends" (who just happen to share the first 3 IP numbers) are gonna keep edit warring, it will probably end up being semi-protected. Again. JuJube ( talk) 22:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed! How the fuck could anyone confuse this with a criticism?! I'm sophomore in highschool and even I can tell this isn't example of a criticism. Perhaps you should worry less about friendships and more about how accurate the material is on the page Jujube! 143.235.215.6 ( talk) 22:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
This article has been fully protected. It is clear that there is an open dispute between two users of the inclusion of certain information in the article. Please discuss and achieve compromise on this issue before protection expires. If the same problems arise in the future, blocks rather than protection may be used to stop the editwarring. Also, please keep the following things in mind:
Please try to reach a consensus on this article, and do not continue to needlessly revert each other. Thank you and good luck. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 17:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
"It should be noted that although the show refers to Ms. Sheindlin as a judge, neither she nor Mr. Bird is not acting as an actual court officer on the show. She is acting as an arbiter, and Mr. Bird is acting as a private security guard."
I placed the part at issue in bold. It seems that the writer lost their train of thought for a moment, and so the sentence seems to imply that Ms. Sheindlin and Mr. Bird are acting as court officers when the writer meant to say that they are not.
I figured an established user can take care of this, without running the risk of having the alteration reversed.
Judge Judy has been widely accused of sexism and favoring women. It should be mentioned in the article that she has been accused of these things. YipYapYop ( talk) 17:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Neutrality - this article needs major rework because it is NOT neutral. The tone is way too laudatory, and doesn't point out Judge Judy's caustic demeanor and erratic hostile behavior. She demonstrates no capacity for logical reasoning and issues judgements arbitrarily. She regularly jumps to unwarranted conclusions, and then dismisses plausible arguments from the opposing side with contempt and self-righteous insults. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.51.185.45 ( talk) 19:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello to the poster above - I can understand why you feel that way, and while I do believe she can be arbitrary, I think for the most part she appears arbitrary because she has already obtained a lot of information through reading the litigants answers', and comparing them to what they say in court. So unless you have respectable sources to back your claim, I think it will just have to remain as is, since I feel adding your opinion to a an article that seems to be focused entirely on the facts would make the article more, rather then less, biased. Thanks for your thoughts. 65.244.175.99 ( talk) 12:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
This material is so long, wordy and full of minute details that Judge Judy would cut it to shreds if anybody went on like this in front of her. Who cares (for example) about the minutiae of the taping schedule? How about cutting out two thirds of it? APW ( talk) 18:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Apart from the fact that the article does not differentiate how the show is shown in the U.S. and how it is syndicated abroad (given how long the article is, this is surprising), when it says that she is shown giving an “alluring” wink is *surely* just conjecture, not suitable for an encyclopaedia entry? Jock123 ( talk) 09:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Why has the information that I added on this program's distribution been deleted? It is totally relevant anduge information was correct. I added a sentence of information about its broadcast in Australia and I was hopeful that others from other countries where the show airs or has aired could add that information in the future so that this programs international distribution is covered. If you were refering to this when you wrote that 'this is not a tv guide' then I don't get what you're trying to say. Please elaborate. Cpandilo 09:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to hyperlink the dollar sign in front of the number 100 under the "Structure" heading? It seems rather silly, and it isn't even the first dollar sign used in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.235.68 ( talk) 08:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove minor typo under "Lawsuits": "...he objected to the this decision..." (excess "the")
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Should reference be made to Judge Constance Harm Given that it parodies judge judy?-- Bacturin ( talk) 10:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
To whomever redid this article compared to like six months ago, this is fantastic. Four stars - compared to the stub it used to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.134.107.133 ( talk) 02:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
This article needs a major cleanup. There is a lot of non-encyclopedic text in it; the content could probably be cut in half (or even down to one-third of its current length.) Furthermore, there is a fair bit of overlap between the show and the show's star. I'll try to give it a pass over the next few days, but I just wanted to post a note so that others can have a go at it as well. -- Ckatz chat spy 05:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
You seem put off that you're involved in the heated argument you were asking for which confuses me. Anyway, if you were as familiar with the page at all like I am, you'd know that it's obvious that the info you added to that section is already in the opening. Also, it's not copy right infringement whatsoever. The very info points out it is from youtube. EverybodyHatesChris 10:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
EHC, I have removed the text describing the show's availability on YouTube as it is contrary to established procedure to describe such illegal activity for several reasons. One, we can't verify it. External links policy bans the linking to copyright violations, and the only way to verify the availability of the material is to link to it. Two, there is nothing exceptional about the fact that JJ is available on YouTube - many shows are, in some form or another - so it fails the notability guideline. Three, the text essentially explained how to find the copyright-violating material; even without a link, this is against established procedure. Therefore, the text has to come out. If there is a strong desire to argue for its inclusion, the subject should first be brought up for discussion at a talk page with a wider scope - the television project, or more properly a higher-level policy page. (I can point you in the right direction is desired.) This isn't something unique to this page - there have been many television articles that have had to deal with the whole Bittorrent/YouTube availability issue. -- Ckatz chat spy 06:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The run time has to be written as 22 minutes (or whatever it actually is, 23, 24, etc.) instead of 30 minutes. While the show fills a thirty minute time slot, it does not contain that much content due to ads, promotions, etc. Wikipedia television articles only describe the actual content. (For reference, please see Heroes, Scrubs, Lost, and so on.) Hope this helps. -- Ckatz chat spy 08:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I know for a fact the show isn't 22 minutes. It is around 27 minutes, but I am not sure. Until I find out for sure, it goes back to 30, standard time. You can't just throw any old time down because you don't know. EverybodyHatesChris 08:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
It's around 27 minutes or so, but as I said, I am not sure if that is exact. I know for sure it is longer than 22 minutes and because neither of us know, it's best to put it back to 30 as that at least describes the length it takes up time even though it includes commercials. The other numbers (22 / 27 ) might not describe anything. EverybodyHatesChris 08:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Court shows are different. And by the way [ [1]] EverybodyHatesChris 08:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
There is a specific page dealing with Television Infoboxes. It specifically states that the running time is not to include commercials and is to be approximated since commercial length may vary from one day to the next. "22-24 minutes approx." might be appropriate. MplsNarco ( talk) 00:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the following text:
"The show also isn't aired on the same network for every U.S. state. For example, while the program is shown on FOX in Wisconsin, it is shown on KCBS in Los Angeles, California."
It is unnecessary as the term "syndication" (along with the existing link to Broadcast syndication) covers exactly the same point. To quote from the linked article:
"...syndication is the sale of the right to broadcast radio shows and television shows to multiple individual stations, without going through a broadcast network."
"When syndicating a show, the production company, or a distribution company or "syndicator," usually attempts to sell the show to one station in each media market or area."
"Syndication differs from selling the show to a television network; once a network picks up a show, it is usually guaranteed to run on all the network's affiliates, on the same day of the week and at the same time."
-- Ckatz chat spy 08:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, then you oughta be blocked for taking ownership of articles because everything I have done is something you have done. you've reverted and debated as well, so you should be blocked. How's that?! As I said, syndication can mean a lot of different things and it may or may not be describing what I am talking about. Besides, syndication can mean hundreds of different things and being specific like I have is probably best to do anyway EverybodyHatesChris 09:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Yep! See ya later! Bye! EverybodyHatesChris 09:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. They are based on this version of the article.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ckatz chat spy 10:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I've assessed this article for WP:TV as requested here. I have rated this article as start class because of the lack of important sections like critical response and for the problems with original research, informal tone and non-notable information. I have rated it as mid importance because of the longevity and apparent influence of the show. These categories are subjective and may be reviewed by any member of WP:TV who feels confident to do so. Please note that a more formal assessment by other editors is required to achieve good article or featured article status. I used criteria from the television wikiproject guidelines here, article about TV series guidelines here and the assessment guidelines here.
Specific suggestions and comments:
-- Opark 77 11:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't see what's wrong with the article and why does the chats guy get to change everything. he is being a real asshole if u look at history link on this article , he is making everyone come here and look at his stupid argument before they make any edits as far as I can see. show is also 30 mins and needs citing according to above 198.150.96.50 ( talk) 21:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
This reference desk discussion is much clearer on the legal status that the article. Rich Farmbrough, 14:42 8 February 2008 (GMT).
If anyone has a problem with my edit, feel free to explain why. I reverted back on Ckatz (who's had his share of tiffs here) who reverted some other anon with some reason that the info was clearly sourced. \ =/ I can source an elephant has a trunk to, but that doesn't mean it belongs on this article. He criticized some anon's edit summary so I criticized his and reverted it. 143.235.215.92 ( talk) 22:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The edit summary "the other guy" left was intentionally deceitful, claiming to only remove "SNL crap" (which in and of itself is a bad summary) and then removed a whole lot of other stuff. Ckatz is right in his observation. If you and your "friends" (who just happen to share the first 3 IP numbers) are gonna keep edit warring, it will probably end up being semi-protected. Again. JuJube ( talk) 22:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed! How the fuck could anyone confuse this with a criticism?! I'm sophomore in highschool and even I can tell this isn't example of a criticism. Perhaps you should worry less about friendships and more about how accurate the material is on the page Jujube! 143.235.215.6 ( talk) 22:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
This article has been fully protected. It is clear that there is an open dispute between two users of the inclusion of certain information in the article. Please discuss and achieve compromise on this issue before protection expires. If the same problems arise in the future, blocks rather than protection may be used to stop the editwarring. Also, please keep the following things in mind:
Please try to reach a consensus on this article, and do not continue to needlessly revert each other. Thank you and good luck. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 17:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
"It should be noted that although the show refers to Ms. Sheindlin as a judge, neither she nor Mr. Bird is not acting as an actual court officer on the show. She is acting as an arbiter, and Mr. Bird is acting as a private security guard."
I placed the part at issue in bold. It seems that the writer lost their train of thought for a moment, and so the sentence seems to imply that Ms. Sheindlin and Mr. Bird are acting as court officers when the writer meant to say that they are not.
I figured an established user can take care of this, without running the risk of having the alteration reversed.
Judge Judy has been widely accused of sexism and favoring women. It should be mentioned in the article that she has been accused of these things. YipYapYop ( talk) 17:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Neutrality - this article needs major rework because it is NOT neutral. The tone is way too laudatory, and doesn't point out Judge Judy's caustic demeanor and erratic hostile behavior. She demonstrates no capacity for logical reasoning and issues judgements arbitrarily. She regularly jumps to unwarranted conclusions, and then dismisses plausible arguments from the opposing side with contempt and self-righteous insults. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.51.185.45 ( talk) 19:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello to the poster above - I can understand why you feel that way, and while I do believe she can be arbitrary, I think for the most part she appears arbitrary because she has already obtained a lot of information through reading the litigants answers', and comparing them to what they say in court. So unless you have respectable sources to back your claim, I think it will just have to remain as is, since I feel adding your opinion to a an article that seems to be focused entirely on the facts would make the article more, rather then less, biased. Thanks for your thoughts. 65.244.175.99 ( talk) 12:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
This material is so long, wordy and full of minute details that Judge Judy would cut it to shreds if anybody went on like this in front of her. Who cares (for example) about the minutiae of the taping schedule? How about cutting out two thirds of it? APW ( talk) 18:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Apart from the fact that the article does not differentiate how the show is shown in the U.S. and how it is syndicated abroad (given how long the article is, this is surprising), when it says that she is shown giving an “alluring” wink is *surely* just conjecture, not suitable for an encyclopaedia entry? Jock123 ( talk) 09:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Why has the information that I added on this program's distribution been deleted? It is totally relevant anduge information was correct. I added a sentence of information about its broadcast in Australia and I was hopeful that others from other countries where the show airs or has aired could add that information in the future so that this programs international distribution is covered. If you were refering to this when you wrote that 'this is not a tv guide' then I don't get what you're trying to say. Please elaborate. Cpandilo 09:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to hyperlink the dollar sign in front of the number 100 under the "Structure" heading? It seems rather silly, and it isn't even the first dollar sign used in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.235.68 ( talk) 08:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove minor typo under "Lawsuits": "...he objected to the this decision..." (excess "the")