This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
A fact from Miller v. Bonta appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 15 July 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Constitution, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Constitution of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States ConstitutionWikipedia:WikiProject United States ConstitutionTemplate:WikiProject United States ConstitutionUnited States Constitution articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles
Please amend the article due to case being remanded back to District court -
ORDER of USCA as to 117 Notice of Appeal to the 9th Circuit filed by DOJ Bureau of Firearms Director Brent Orick, Martin Horan, Xavier Becerra, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra. Appellants' motion to vacate the judgment challenged in this appeal and to remand for further proceedings is granted. The USDC's June 4, 2021 order and judgment are vacated. This case is remanded to the USDC for further proceedings consistent with the United States Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. ____ (2022). All other pending motions are denied as moot. Vacated and remanded. (akr) (Entered: 08/02/2022) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.152.10 (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Date and length OK. However, @AllegedlyHuman: the hooks offered aren't cited inline in the article. A QPQ has been done and there is no close paraphrasing. The picture is not in the article so cannot be used (plus I don't think it's wise to put a picture of the judge which made this prima facie controversial case judgement). I do also have a concern that because this case can be appealed and we are still in that 30 day stay, I would hold off running this until after that date. I'm not too sure on American practice when it comes to reporting cases that have routes of appeal. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk)10:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added the image and carried over the LA Times ref from the end of the paragraph to cite this inline. I am not aware of the DYK procedure for American court cases either, though I will note that neither hook concerns the actual decision in the case. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also not too keen on using the judge's photo in the DYK context, especially in this case. Hopefully another blurb will run at the same time with a more interesting photo anyways. It crossed my mind to include a side-by-side of an AR-15 and a Swiss army knife, but on second thought, that would give the article a sarcastic tone. Even well after the appeal is filed, I think the blurb as written would still be accurate. It just might not be the latest ruling on the case. For ALT1, consider changing "said" to "wrote". – Minh Nguyễn💬19:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done Changed "said" to "wrote", and removed the image. On second thought, I agree that the image isn't great for Main Page, for all the reasons mentioned in addition to the fact that it has a pretty low resolution anyway. I like the idea of showing both the gun and the knife but I also agree with your assessment that it may be seen as derisive. I'd really only recommend adding those in if you think there's a good chance people don't know what either "AR-15" or "Swiss Army knife" means, but even then that's what the links are for. While you're here, by the way, fantastic work on cranking out this article. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good to go then. I think for the gun-knife photo, yes many people might not know what an AR15 is but most do know what a Swiss Army knife is. I'll leave it to the promoter to decide when to promote but i'd recommend it be done after the appeal period has lapsed. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk)11:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Date and length OK. However, @AllegedlyHuman: the hooks offered aren't cited inline in the article. A QPQ has been done and there is no close paraphrasing. The picture is not in the article so cannot be used (plus I don't think it's wise to put a picture of the judge which made this prima facie controversial case judgement). I do also have a concern that because this case can be appealed and we are still in that 30 day stay, I would hold off running this until after that date. I'm not too sure on American practice when it comes to reporting cases that have routes of appeal. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Done Changed "said" to "wrote", and removed the image. On second thought, I agree that the image isn't great for Main Page, for all the reasons mentioned in addition to the fact that it has a pretty low resolution anyway. I like the idea of showing both the gun and the knife but I also agree with your assessment that it may be seen as derisive. I'd really only recommend adding those in if you think there's a good chance people don't know what either "AR-15" or "Swiss Army knife" means, but even then that's what the links are for. While you're here, by the way, fantastic work on cranking out this article. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Good to go then. I think for the gun-knife photo, yes many people might not know what an AR15 is but most do know what a Swiss Army knife is. I'll leave it to the promoter to decide when to promote but i'd recommend it be done after the appeal period has lapsed. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
