Talk:UK Supreme Court rules prorogation of parliament unlawful

Courts

Perhaps we should set up an internal Category:Courts, similar to existing Category:Legislatures. --Pi zero (talk) 12:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Though perhaps the name should be more specific. --Pi zero (talk) 13:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, Courts'll do. :-)  --Pi zero (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: Thanks! Looks excellent. --Pi zero (talk) 15:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Review of revision 4515430 [Passed]

Revision 4515430 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 14:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: No mention of the England-and-Wales ruling, I see; Scotland ruling differently than England and Wales, with the Supreme Court taking at once both appeals in opposite directions, is an interesting twist, though getting that in would hold things up and we want to get this out before the next shoe drops. We need to reform our procedure for prepared stories, so that some sort of pre-review is done; otherwise the review effort is all at the end, which kind of defeats the purpose. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4515430 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 14:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: No mention of the England-and-Wales ruling, I see; Scotland ruling differently than England and Wales, with the Supreme Court taking at once both appeals in opposite directions, is an interesting twist, though getting that in would hold things up and we want to get this out before the next shoe drops. We need to reform our procedure for prepared stories, so that some sort of pre-review is done; otherwise the review effort is all at the end, which kind of defeats the purpose. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

@Pi zero: fully concur that something is needed. Should I just submit a prepared story for review when the preparation is done, with the understanding that it will be reviewed for the content so far? --DannyS712 (talk) 18:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it would work. I've had in mind that one could set up various alternate paths, using dialog-based techniques similar to {{Assistant:Submit}}, but felt the tools needed to provide more support for keeping track of things before we got ourselves too mired in complexities of that. --Pi zero (talk) 19:47, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit

{{editprotected}} "The Supreme Court is lead by President Brenda Hale." This should be led, not lead. Heavy Water (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Done --SVTCobra 13:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)