Talk:Protection Court

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

I think it is ready now.

North8000, per our conversation at User_talk:Huggums537#Your_draft_article,_Draft:Protection_Court I think I will try to move this to mainspace now. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 02:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK I think I moved it and cleaned it up correctly. Pretty simple. Let me know if I missed anything. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 02:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cielquiparle (talk) 15:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Huggums537 (talk). Self-nominated at 14:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Protection Court; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • @Huggums537: I'm counting 455 prose characters on April 1 and 2726 prose characters in the current revision so it qualifies as a fivefold expansion and the hook is interesting. However, before this is approved the excessive quote, citation needed, etc. tags will need to be taken care of.--NØ 17:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • MaranoFan, I've prepared an alternate nomination with better sourcing and a shorter quote. I also want to point out this is a recent move from draft space so it is double qualified since it meets the criteria for two of the requirements (expanded and "new"). Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even better, and I just caught the discussion on the article talk page. Just waiting for the excessive quote/cn banners to be resolved now.--NØ 18:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok. I think we got it cleaned up. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • I can now approve this.--NØ 20:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • Great. Thanks very much. There is another editor who has been helping me improve the article, but likes to use templates a lot, and I left them a note on their talk page letting them know the templates are affecting the situation, so maybe the article will become more stable from here on out. The page view counter isn't working either, so I have no idea what's going on with that. Thank you for your patience. Huggums537 (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
              • DYK is generally wary of hooks about people being accused of criminal offences per WP:DYKCRIT #4a: "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided." ALT0 might be alright, since it says the charges were dropped, but I'm going to boldly strike ALT1. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
                • @Huggums537 and MaranoFan: Sojourner in the earth is absolutely correct that DYK takes a very close-to-the-vest approach to hooks about living people – I'd go so far as to strike ALT0 as well. We'll need some new hooks to move this nomination forward. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 17:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
                  • theleekycauldron, Sojourner in the earth, and MaranoFan. It was a super easy fix to turn this into something that is not about any one living person at all. I've made the hook ALT2 I hope you all will be pleased with. Thanks! Huggums537 (talk) 02:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
                    • ALT2 would be fine I'd guess since it omits the mention of any specific person. I'll leave it to the experts.--NØ 16:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake

Moved from DYK nomination

  • Comment not review the article appears to have been expanded more than five fold, from 422 characters to 2,827 characters, between 08:16, 12 April 2023‎ and 14:40, 16 April 2023‎. 15:04, 16 April 2023 (UTC)TSventon (talk)
    • Hi, TSventon. I thought the rule was new pages were supposed to be at least 1,500 characters, and the five fold rule was for old pages? This is a new page just moved to article space from draft space. WP:DYKCRIT 1.,a. says an article is considered new if it has been moved from draft to article in the first 7 days, and 2.,a. says 1500 characters is sufficient length without citing any timeframes the length must have been added. Please verify that it is in fact a new page and update the review status so that it may get a proper review. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 15:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait a minute. I've just now realized you penalized me by not reviewing this for expanding the article even more than I might have been required to do under rules that didn't even apply to me? I am begging someone to please intervene here for the love of all that is good and holy. Please, and thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huggums537 (talkcontribs) 16:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC) My mistake not yours. Huggums537 (talk) 00:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Huggums537, apologies, I missed the move to article space among the numerous other edits. I haven't reviewed the article because I don't have time at the moment. Comment not review means that the commenter does not intend to review the article, so any other editor is welcome to do so. I have struck my comment and moved it and your reply to the talk page so other editors don't wrongly get the impression this is a complex nomination. TSventon (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Ok. Sorry for the confusion. I thought it was closed, but you took care of it so we are golden. Thank you. Huggums537 (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Closing a nomination takes two people, one to add a cross icon and then another editor to close the nomination. All I did was say that the nomination looked valid as the prose had been expanded fivefold. TSventon (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        I understand. Pardon my ignorance. Huggums537 (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HTML comments in Synopsis section

HotMess, I support your idea to merge the two similar statements, and approve of any ideas you have to incorporate that. Thank you for your help to improve the article. Huggums537 (talk) 00:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(it's late so I'm just gonna mention these things here now before I lose my train of thought)
  • Duplicate statements in the synopsis
    • Kelly and Sternberg's statements about the show are pretty much saying the same things about the show (real courtroom, ordinary people, 'hey look america did you know you have rights? the courts say you do!', etc.).
    • Maybe just merge the duplicate info into something along the lines of 'Kelly, along with the producer, Scott Stenberg, stated that the show blah blah real courtrooom blah blah real people blah blah we want viewers to know they have rights etc.'
      • might be best if you do that.
  • Overall promotional tone
    • the article currently gives off a somewhat press release-y vibe about it. not sure how to put it into words. but seeing as the synopsis mostly consists of statements that were clearly tailored for press releases to promote the show, and the 'controversy' section does come off as a bit defensive of Kelly and the show, I guess that a bit of an WP:NPOV-y rewrite might be warranted.
But, again, it's like 1am, and I probably should stop procrastinating on getting some sleep.
🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talkedits) 00:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I'll have to tackle it later since I have a long drive ahead of me. Thanks again for the help. Have a good rest. Huggums537 (talk) 00:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Huggums537 (talk) 05:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]