Talk:Judge Judy

Archives

Talk:Judge Judy/Archive 1

Talk:Judge Judy/Archive 2

Note about improved article

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)

Cleanup, once again

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)

I cancelled out your reversion back to the old page. It's been archived for two weeks with no with no objection. I archived the page at the end of a long argument that was clearly over as people had said it was resolved and it was going on two months without being commented on. Also, if you have all these problems with the article, you're going to have to be way more specific here on the discussion page. As it stands, you're asking to get yourself caught up in a heated argument by getting rid of half the page and encouraging others to, on the basis you've just provided. EverybodyHatesChris 07:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not "asking" for anything. The article is, among other things, far too long and filled with non-encyclopedic trivia and observations. You've obviously put in a lot of work here, but the simple fact is that it needs a major overhaul. I could easily have slapped on a half-dozen different maintenance templates for all of the problem areas, and brought in other editors. By posting the note, I've instead presented the opportunity for the article's regulars to address the problems themselves. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The talk page has been restored, and talk page guidelines discourage your actions when page size doesn't warrant archiving, and (more importantly) when older discussion are related to new ones. Furthermore, there was objection to the archive; your initial action of blanking the page (via an alternate account) was reverted. Please, let's not argue over something so unimportant, and instead address the problem at hand in a constructive manner. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I've reworked one section as an example of what is needed. The DVD section has been rewritten to clean it up, and the YouTube material has been removed. (references to availability on YouTube pop up on television-related articles, but they are not permitted under Wikipedia's guidelines due to copyright infringement.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

EHC, I'm certainly not going to edit war over a talk page. However, you did just delete my new comments, which I've had to restore. I've also restored the edit I made to the page. If you wish to argue that Wikipedia allows links to copyright-infringement postings on YouTube, you'll need to take it to a different talk page. (As well, I'll revert myself at the archive page, since you've effectively just deleted the talk page contents.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:17, 5 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)

To clarify, I'm not suggesting that you are violating copyright rules with regards to the clips. However, the material that is posted on YouTube is an infringement of the intellectual property rights of the creator, as it constitutes an unauthorized use of the material. Wikipedia policy prohibits linking to such material. --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Availability on YouTube

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)

There aren't any rules against informing people of something regardless of whether or not it is illegal. Robbery is illegal too, but you can still come to wikipedia and tell people all about it, along with all about what was robbed if it has to do with someone notable. As long as the link wasn't in there, it was fine. You really only provided 1 reason which it couldn't be verified, which only requires a citation needed. The rest of your reasons were "for several reasons" EverybodyHatesChris 08:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, take it to the television project. You'll get the exact same answer I've been giving you. We can't verify the availability of YouTube downloads without linking to pages with YouTube downloads - therefore, no verifiability. The availability isn't notable, as it is not exceptional or unusual. It also explains how to find copyright-violation material, which is avoided. If you like, I can point you to at least ten other television articles that have removed mentions of Bittorrent availability - even with references - over the same concerns. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Run time

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 doesn't go back to thirty... and there is no way the length is 27 minutes. That would mean there is only room for three minutes of commercials, and that would be a guarantee for disaster as far as sales go. (No stations would even consider purchasing it.) Typically, a broadcast "half hour" actually contains about 22 to 24 minutes of content, depending on the network. An hour-long show clocks in at 42 to 46 minutes, again depending on the broadcaster. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:23, 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)

For heaven's sake, look at the other shows I linked for you. Look at just about any TV-related article on Wikipedia. Do a search on lengths of TV shows. Get a copy of the show, and time exactly how long it is without any commercials. A 27-minute syndicated show would not sell - and if it did, the purchasers would almost certainly chop it down in-house to fit in the amount of commercials they are legally entitled to show within a half-hour period. (Believe me, series producers do not ever want to hand over the responsibility for editing content to a broadcaster.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:36, 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)

Syndication

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)

Don't u know what syndication is?! Please quit adding syndication back in there as it is not the same thing. Syndication is when shows air on several different stations simultaneously in one place, like Friends being on TBS, CBS, etc. This is describing something totally different from that in which two shows aren't even on the same channel for the same state. That has NOTHING to do with syndication obviously. EverybodyHatesChris 08:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read the article... syndication is where a series is sold, basically, to whomever will buy it. There's generally no network affiliation, no guarantee of sales in all markets, and no consistency of air time. Depending on the contract, a station might have exclusive rights for a market, or non-exclusive. (In my market, one station recently acquired the rights to Scrubs repeats and as such the previous holder had to stop airing them. Other shows, such as Seinfeld, air on a number of different channels.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You need proof of all that. Verify that the show was sold and all of that took place. My edit simply states the facts clearly that the show isn't aired on all the same stations in each state , not all this unproven it's been sold and stuff EverybodyHatesChris 08:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

How about "syndicated series", from the Judge Judy web site? Or this article from Broadcasting and Cable magazine. The series is syndicated, and trying to argue that it isn't is just a waste of time. Come on, this is why you keep getting blocked - for taking ownership of articles. I'm trying to help you here - you obviously have a lot of interest in JJ, but the article needs a major overhaul to fit within Wikipedia's standards. Why not work together? --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Debating over an issue on a talk page doesn't constitute as a reason for being blocked and by saying that debating over an issue on a talk page constitutes for me being blocked is insane. What I am telling you is that what you are talking about does not have anything to do with what I am talking about. Syndication can mean a variety of different things and it usually means that one show is coming on, on several different stations in one area, not what I am describing where the show is on two totally different stations as between 2 locations. My edit is very specific EverybodyHatesChris 08:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I never mentioned getting blocked for discussing an issue on the talk page; it was in reference to taking ownership of articles, wherein an editor refuses to accept changes to his or her material. Furthermore, with regards to syndication, your comments indicate that you really do not understand what the term means. Syndicated shows are, by definition, not network shows, and thus to state that a syndicated show "isn't aired on the same network for every U.S. state" is pointless. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:55, 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)

I'm not going to argue pointlessly over this, nor am I going to edit war with you. I'd hoped to help you clean this article up, but it's obvious that isn't going to work. Good day. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep! See ya later! Bye! EverybodyHatesChris 09:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

For starters, Ckatz is correct about the definition of syndication. Beyond that I will also add that the article as it currently stands needs some editing. It's full of unsourced original research. I will also add that if editors here can't work together in a congenial manner, then it is time to request a 3rd opinion or request for comment.--Isotope23 ^talk 14:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Ckatz and Isotope23 are correct. Their definition of syndication is accurate. In addition, the Judge Judy page does need quite a bit of revision, as it is not written in a manner consistent with Wikipedia standards. Although it would be nice if we could list each issue specifically, there are simply too many errors to list. I do not mean this as an insult; instead, I am saying that the page needs major revisions that are too lengthy in nature to list here. EHC, if you can show that this page meets Wikipedia standards, then please post a link referencing the part of the MoS that supports your claim. We have provided examples and links to supporting "evidence" here, yet you still have become upset. We are simply here to help improve the page, not to criticize you. Please stop taking our suggestions so personally. MplsNarco (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Peer review (automated)

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.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.^[?]
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • it has been
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: behaviour (B) (American: behavior), neighbor (A) (British: neighbour), defense (A) (British: defence), realize (A) (British: realise), criticize (A) (British: criticise), counsellor (B) (American: counselor), program (A) (British: programme).
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• The script has spotted the following contractions: aren't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ckatz^chat_spy 10:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Article assessment for WP:TV

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:

1. The lead is short compared to the length of the article
2. Good job on the infobox
3. The section "Court Show Background" contains information that doesn't fit under this header. Perhaps it could be re-titled "production".
4. The overview sub-section contains a lot of unreferenced material. See WP:OR for guidance on avoiding original research. "Origins" or "Conception" would probably be a more appropriate title for the first paragrah. The rest would more accurately fit into "structure" or potentially "format".
5. The structure sub-section contains a lot of unreferenced material. Where sources are used they are often from unreliable sources e.g. a tv.com user profile. See WP:CITE for guidance on the type of sources that are appropriate.
6. Working out the number of claims in "Recordings and airings" is original research unless you can cite a source.
7. Generally the same references are cited often but not given a "ref name" so the list of citations is a mess. Try using wikicite to create references for the websites you are using. The references throughout need a cleanup and to be assessed in terms of reliability.
8. The location section contains a lot of speculation, original research by inference and unsourced material.
9. The alterations section is entirely unsourced and some of the information does not seem notable.
10. The Judge Judith Shenlein section contains some information that would be better placed in the article about the person. A {{main article}} template should be used to link to this article at the start of this section. A summary style account of the content of the article that is relevant to the Judge Judy article is all that should remain here.
11. The Trademarks and Habits sub-section is a list with no references. It should be sourced and re-written as prose or deleted.
12. Byrd should have his own article with a main article link and a short summary
13. The ratings section should focus on the ratings of Judge Judy solely - its performance compared to other court shows should be noted only when a third party source comments on it. Much of this information would be more appropriately placed at an article on the Court TV genre.
14. There is no critical response section with reviews of the show. This should be included.
15. There is no awards section. This should be included.
16. The parodies sub-section is unreferenced.
17. There are problems with statements about the show "currently" that will date quickly throughout.
18. There are problems with informal tone throughout.

--Opark 77 11:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Per Opark 77's comments, I'm going to begin to address the recommendations for improving the article over the next week or so. If anyone wishes to join in, please do - let's trade notes and approach it in unison. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:41, 18 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)

Please be civil, and read through the two independant assessments. (I didn't write either of them, and you're certainly welcome to get further opinions from the television project as to what needs fixing.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

As for Oparks comments and suggestions, I have to say that I don't think the article is informal at all. In fact it is one of the most remarkably formal toned articles I have ever read in my life. Also I changed the criticism section from list to prone. It was a little bit of a hack job, but it really does read like prose now, though there is room for some tidying up. Oh and I deleted the claims of racism, after clicking on the citation it was just someones personal blog on a blog hosting site. JayKeaton (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Clarity on status

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 your friendships and more about how accurate the material is on the page Jujube! 143.235.215.6 (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)