# Talk:Make It 16 Incorporated v Attorney-General

Just noting my intention to chuck in a judgment section at some point over the coming days which will go through the Supreme Court's judgment. Will have to make sure that responses section is kept tidy since once the bill is introduced, I can imagine it will have quite continuous developments after that point. Carolina2k22 • (talk) • (edits) 02:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

In her GA review, Sammi Brie didn’t comment on how this article refers to judges. The article uses the legal convention of naming them as "Surname J" and I’m unaware that the MOS confirms this as acceptable. It’s certainly not a reader-centric approach. Firstly, you have to be aware of the convention or somehow figure out what the "J" (or "CJ" or "JJ") stands for. Secondly, and more importantly, readers would probably more interested in the judges common names than just their surnames. Thirdly, once the common names are used, it becomes more obvious that wikilinks from the prose section to their articles are missing (currently mostly just linked linked from the infobox). Schwede66 18:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Schwede66 Good catch. I thought that was acceptable, but Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Legal#Names of judges does say to write them out (the example is US-centric, but this is probably a good change for our readers). This isn't my topic area of expertise. Wikilinks would be good too. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I hadn’t looked it up and was just going by what felt right. Schwede66 18:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I did initially wonder about this but wasn't entirely sure. I'll go through and update this now. Carolina2k22 • (talk) • (edits) 02:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I would like to call in to question how relevant it is to have a section on "Public opinion on the voting age" when it does not relate to the court case and subsequent judgement. Including opinion polls makes the article more about voting age reform overall and it distracts from the actual court judgment itself and it's implications; such information belongs more in an article such as Electoral reform in New Zealand or an article about the voting age. I think it would be far more prudent to have the article examine the implications of the judgement (e.g what a declaration of inconsistency actually means and what it's effect is) rather than opinion polling that relates to the subject matter of the judgment but not the court case and judgment itself.  MangoMan11 (talk) 08:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

A detailed explanation of declaration of inconsistency is better suited for New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and Taylor v Attorney-General rather than this those are where that is sourced from. I haven't read this article in detail in a while but there should be enough information to at least gauge what a declaration means or at least the information linking off to another article that explains this in detail as listed above.
I would say it might not be essential for relevancy and I can absolutely see what you mean, but it does add further social context to the court case. It is important to understand that court cases like these aren't purely just matters of the actual court judgment and its implications but are relatively significant beyond this socially. Extreme detail of what you're describing would probably be beyond the scope of relevancy, but a brief summary of the social support for the thing the court decision very much advocated for is definitely not a negative to keep in the article and will absolutely provide additional insight to readers reading this article years or decades from now who want to understand more about the court judgment itself and the social circumstances that the judgment was made in. Carolina2k22 • (talk) • (edits) 10:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)