Talk:Testimony in Depp v. Heard

Move
If anyone thinks this article is not ready for the mainspace or otherwise not a proper article, use AFD. Requested moves/Technical requests is not a proper forum to have an article you don't like Draftified. No discussion is needed to create a spinoff article. Technical requests are concerning page moves not content. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk  15:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This was originally created as a temporary talk-page draft to work on the content. Apparently nobody took it up and instead of fixing this, someone just lazily moved it into mainspace. That is not appropriate; particularly when this is so obviously excessively detailed. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, we have no reason to have anything remotely resembling this shown to our readers. Patience and dedication are more useful here than needlessly moving something which is clearly not ready for mainspace. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I see you are actually taking the time to fix the article, so I commend you. ‡ El cid, el campeador  talk  12:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to chime in to say that despite the fact I moved this, I agree that RM/TR was the wrong venue. I only moved it because I saw three editors agreeing and that seemed enough to do something regardless of venue. Glad to see it's being improved, that's what I was hoping for, clearly a lot of work went into this. ASUKITE  13:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Where should the content be published?
I did a Wikipedia Special:Search on Testimony in and didn't find other titles that related to any specific legal case.

In case comparison may be considered relevant, other Wikipedia contents related to broadcast trials cover: Obviously each case is different and Depp v. Heard is relatively contentious but the lack of content on witness testimony could be noted.
 * Jeffrey Dahmer, 1992
 * O._J._Simpson_murder_case, 1995
 * Louise Woodward case, 1997
 * Trial of Oscar Pistorius, 2014, sentenced 21 October, appeal 27 October - article on 21 October and 31 October.

GregKaye 10:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposal
I've been trying to do some condensing in my sandbox, not bold enough to just copy-paste it here, but please take a look: here. I've essentially tried to cut down on detail as much as possible, and organised the text so that the plaintiff/defendant's testimony comes first, then the other witnesses, and then expert witnesses. Let me know what you think! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think losing the strength of a chronological presentation of the content as developed would be a backward step. I also like the navigability available currently as similar to that in the Trial of Michael Jackson article.  The  editorial input we give the better.  The content speaks for itself.  Additions of who's who guide/s to supplement the content might work though. GregKaye 19:54, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that the sandbox arrangement is fine, but I have not reviewed the trimming in detail.  starship .paint  (exalt) 08:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Just a note that the sandbox is missing stuff on Bryan Neumeister, Beverly Leonard and Julian Ackert. I won't have time to add all three.  starship .paint  (exalt) 08:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)