Talk:People v. Murray
(Redirected from Talk:Trial of Conrad Murray)
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Born2cycle in topic Requested move 21 April 2021
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the People v. Murray 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: 1 |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 14 June 2016. The result of the discussion was keep. |
| 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 is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Requested move 21 April 2021
edit | This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 8 June 2021. The result of the move review was Overturned to move. |
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: No consensus -- there are a couple of alternative targets. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
California v. Murray → People v. Murray – Per MOS:LEGAL, "unless needed for specificity, leave state names out of the title, e.g., use State v. Elliott, not State of Vermont v. Raleigh Elliott, et al., and redirect the latter to the former." Official title seems to be People (of the state of CA) v. Murray Natg 19 (talk) 03:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Support: The short title of this case is People v. Murray. If it went up to the U.S. Supreme Court it could be retitled to California v. Murray, but I don't think that's happening. MOS:LAW plainly applies here and there's no rationale I've seen to depart from that guideline. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 01:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- Support rename as People v. Murray (2011): Per MOS:LEGAL "Ambiguous titles like "People v. Superior Court", or "United States v. Smith", are written with the full name of the state and distinguishing name of individual or entity, or distinguishing year, in parenthesis. If still further clarification is needed, then a comma and the year may be added after the identifying individual name." Requested move is too ambiguous and confuses readers of this page with People v. Murray (1859). Phillip Samuel (talk) 07:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I was unaware of this other article. I support this rename to avoid confusion. Natg 19 (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- Support move to the originally-proposed People v. Murray, not to People v. Murray (2011); as between the 2011 trial and the 1859 criminal case that's the subject of the People v. Murray (1859) article, the 2011 case appears to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The {{redirect}} hatnote currently on the article should be changed to a the usual WP:TWODABS disambiguation hatnote (probably {{about}}) to point out People v. Murray (1859). It also makes sense to create a redirect at People v. Murray (2011). TJRC (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- Support per TJRC. This case is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for People v. Murray which is already established by this title currently being a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to this article. I see no argument for this case not being the primary topic. --В²C ☎ 20:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Move review
editI asked for a Move review at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2021_June#California_v._Murray. —В²C ☎ 05:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)