Talk:Beck v. Eiland-Hall
Appearance
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Beck v. Eiland-Hall article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
| ||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 19, 2009. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
When will this case be decided?
As far as I can tell from the article, this case has not yet concluded. Assuming that's correct, when will it be decided? This makes a good story, but it feels a bit 'unfinished' at the moment. :) Robofish (talk) 00:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think that unless Beck's attorneys file any subsequent documents, the next event will be the ruling by the WIPO court, and then probably there will be some secondary source commentary on that development. Cirt (talk) 01:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- And it is likely such documents would appear at Citizen Media Law Project. Cirt (talk) 02:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know that these things have any set timelines, it could take awhile to get a result.--Milowent (talk) 02:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- And it is likely such documents would appear at Citizen Media Law Project. Cirt (talk) 02:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Could shorter lead summarize the status??
It was too long for me to figure it out and I gave up. Did notice the web site is down, but haven't the faintest idea why. Please work on this someone :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- The lead is too long - see WP:LEAD. Morphh (talk) 1:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Suggestions on what should go?Cptnono (talk) 01:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Summarize the article - go one section at a time. Limit the lead to about three paragraphs (and not the size of the jumbo paragraphs currently there). Morphh (talk) 1:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- So you would rather complain than do it yourself :P (screwing with you). It looks like Cirt was going for making the lead worthy of standing on its own and summarizing each aspect of the article as is seen in all good articles. Some trimming is needed, though. I don't think I would cut anything form the first paragraph and would focus on the length of the third and fourth. Thoughts? Cptnono (talk) 03:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Per WP:LEAD, I have made the lede be able to function as a stand-alone summary of the article's contents. I am open to more specific suggestions, however. :) Cirt (talk) 06:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Update: I trimmed the lede a bit, [1]. :) Cheers, Cirt (talk) 07:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Trimmed a bit more, [2]. :) Cirt (talk) 07:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Update: I trimmed the lede a bit, [1]. :) Cheers, Cirt (talk) 07:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Per WP:LEAD, I have made the lede be able to function as a stand-alone summary of the article's contents. I am open to more specific suggestions, however. :) Cirt (talk) 06:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- So you would rather complain than do it yourself :P (screwing with you). It looks like Cirt was going for making the lead worthy of standing on its own and summarizing each aspect of the article as is seen in all good articles. Some trimming is needed, though. I don't think I would cut anything form the first paragraph and would focus on the length of the third and fourth. Thoughts? Cptnono (talk) 03:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Summarize the article - go one section at a time. Limit the lead to about three paragraphs (and not the size of the jumbo paragraphs currently there). Morphh (talk) 1:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Per the original comment by Carolmooredc (talk · contribs) expressing confusion about the website's status, I made this a bit clearer in the lede. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 07:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Categories:
- Wikipedia Did you know articles
- Biography articles of living people
- All unassessed articles
- C-Class law articles
- Low-importance law articles
- WikiProject Law articles
- C-Class Internet culture articles
- Low-importance Internet culture articles
- WikiProject Internet culture articles
- C-Class Media articles
- Low-importance Media articles
- WikiProject Media articles
- C-Class Comedy articles
- Low-importance Comedy articles
- WikiProject Comedy articles
- Articles with connected contributors