Talk:NAACP LDF v. Trump

	United States portal 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

PACER Suggestion[edit]

It strikes me that there is a lot of territoriality in WP. The box above seems to be a bot-generated. WikiProject Law seeks to take control and apply reviews.

A similar article ACLU v. Trump and Pence attracted no such attention, but it was originally dinged.

The Law Project would be well served to look at this suggestion User_talk:Dakleman#PACER.

Just my two cents. Rhadow (talk) 12:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gee. "It might or might not cite adequate reliable sources." The records of the S.D.N.Y and the White House? The New Hampshire Union Leader and CNN? Gimme a break. The article is of low importance. So are 19,728 others. Does this tag add anything to the discussion? Rhadow (talk) 12:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhadow: Please WP:Assume good faith. WikiProject templates are frequently added to talk pages by editors to bring attention to the articles, not to "take control" of them. I added multiple WikiProject templates, including WikiProject Law, to the talk pages of both Trump lawsuit articles I created (D.C. and Maryland v. Trump and Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump) even though I am not active on any of those WikiProjects myself. Few of the articles I've created have gotten anything higher than a "low" assessment initially, if they were assessed at all. Funcrunch (talk) 23:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Funcrunch: I don't doubt WP:Assume good faith. I just find the classifications heavy-handed. It make me feel better to hear that your initials are poorly rated, too. This is the predictable result of a faceless bureaucracy. I will learn to live with it. Thanks Rhadow (talk) 12:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhadow: Low importance and start class are reasonable assessments for many new articles, not comparable to "poor ratings", and I'd hardly call that evidence of Wikipedia being a "faceless bureaucracy" as any editor can assess any article. I'm sorry you have that impression. If you disagree with the assessments you might consider joining WikiProject Law yourself, or perhaps leaving a message on the talk page of that project. Funcrunch (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]