![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Second opinion please. I had added an infobox to this article because it was listed in the "Category:United States Court of Appeals case articles without infoboxes." The infobox was removed by Masem, a veteran editor: "(Reverted good faith edits by Oceanflynn (talk): Techncially not at Circuit yet. nearly everything is related to proceedings before the district trial is heard."
Please confirm that this U.S. Courts of Appeals case article does not merit an infobox. I am fine with the decision either way. Thanks. Oceanflynn ( talk) 20:10, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
{{Infobox U.S. Courts of Appeals case |Litigants= |Court=United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit |CourtSeal= |ArgueDate= |ArgueYear= |DecideDate= |DecideYear= |FullName= |Docket=18A-410 |Citations= |Prior= |Subsequent= |Holding= |Judges= |Majority= |JoinMajority= |Concurrence= |JoinConcurrence= |Dissent= |JoinDissent= |LawsApplied= }}
This web page gives the details of the case. [1]
References
Thanks Masem} and AyaK. That was very helpful. Oceanflynn ( talk) 14:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
I just changed the name of one of the individuals listed. I saw this mentioned over at this board, that's what brought me here.
First, the guardian's a tabloid, everyone knows this (on Wikipedia the discussion's still raging on as to whether it's notable or not) . Second, the reference itself is a commentary not an article , so it fails notability guidelines. Second, the individual is known by their birth name, not by their new name, so that too fails notability guidelines. Yes, I'm aware we want to be fair and if someone says they changed their name, use it. However, there's no clause in the notability guidelines for this to occur.
Yes, actors use stage names, and they're known and notable under their name, even then , their birth names are also listed. In this case, the individual is known under their birth name but not under their new name at all, so listing the new name can't be done per notability guidelines.
On top of that, there was no consensus to change the name anyway. Necromonger... We keep what we kill 13:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
You realize that would be WP:OR right ? (Also, it might fail WP:NEWSORG). As to the second site, not so sure, there's no editorial oversight, and it's self-published so there's that. There's also the issue that this individual's not noteable under their new name as well, if that new name can be reliably sourced. Necromonger... We keep what we kill 15:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Since the dissent is not controlling law, it doesn't make sense to quote about 60 words from the majority opinion and about 115 words from the dissent. So I cut the quote from the dissent down to the main quotes cited by the AP and by CNN, which is also about 60 words. It seems to me that the discussion now feels more balanced. AyaK ( talk) 20:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
The lede should summarise the article William M. Connolley ( talk) 15:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
@ William M. Connolley: What about this graphic violates WP:NPOV? It contains objective temperatures and objectively described generations, similar to Climate Central's chart titled "Born in a warming world". — RCraig09 ( talk) 20:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Apologies for missing this. The problem is that the infographic is irrelevant. The undoubted warming is not at issue. NPOV problems arise because the graph implies "look its warming so they must be right" William M. Connolley ( talk) 08:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Second opinion please. I had added an infobox to this article because it was listed in the "Category:United States Court of Appeals case articles without infoboxes." The infobox was removed by Masem, a veteran editor: "(Reverted good faith edits by Oceanflynn (talk): Techncially not at Circuit yet. nearly everything is related to proceedings before the district trial is heard."
Please confirm that this U.S. Courts of Appeals case article does not merit an infobox. I am fine with the decision either way. Thanks. Oceanflynn ( talk) 20:10, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
{{Infobox U.S. Courts of Appeals case |Litigants= |Court=United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit |CourtSeal= |ArgueDate= |ArgueYear= |DecideDate= |DecideYear= |FullName= |Docket=18A-410 |Citations= |Prior= |Subsequent= |Holding= |Judges= |Majority= |JoinMajority= |Concurrence= |JoinConcurrence= |Dissent= |JoinDissent= |LawsApplied= }}
This web page gives the details of the case. [1]
References
Thanks Masem} and AyaK. That was very helpful. Oceanflynn ( talk) 14:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
I just changed the name of one of the individuals listed. I saw this mentioned over at this board, that's what brought me here.
First, the guardian's a tabloid, everyone knows this (on Wikipedia the discussion's still raging on as to whether it's notable or not) . Second, the reference itself is a commentary not an article , so it fails notability guidelines. Second, the individual is known by their birth name, not by their new name, so that too fails notability guidelines. Yes, I'm aware we want to be fair and if someone says they changed their name, use it. However, there's no clause in the notability guidelines for this to occur.
Yes, actors use stage names, and they're known and notable under their name, even then , their birth names are also listed. In this case, the individual is known under their birth name but not under their new name at all, so listing the new name can't be done per notability guidelines.
On top of that, there was no consensus to change the name anyway. Necromonger... We keep what we kill 13:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
You realize that would be WP:OR right ? (Also, it might fail WP:NEWSORG). As to the second site, not so sure, there's no editorial oversight, and it's self-published so there's that. There's also the issue that this individual's not noteable under their new name as well, if that new name can be reliably sourced. Necromonger... We keep what we kill 15:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Since the dissent is not controlling law, it doesn't make sense to quote about 60 words from the majority opinion and about 115 words from the dissent. So I cut the quote from the dissent down to the main quotes cited by the AP and by CNN, which is also about 60 words. It seems to me that the discussion now feels more balanced. AyaK ( talk) 20:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
The lede should summarise the article William M. Connolley ( talk) 15:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
@ William M. Connolley: What about this graphic violates WP:NPOV? It contains objective temperatures and objectively described generations, similar to Climate Central's chart titled "Born in a warming world". — RCraig09 ( talk) 20:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Apologies for missing this. The problem is that the infographic is irrelevant. The undoubted warming is not at issue. NPOV problems arise because the graph implies "look its warming so they must be right" William M. Connolley ( talk) 08:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)