Talk:2024 Mexican judicial reform

This article was nominated for deletion on 3 September 2024. The result of the discussion was keep.

A news item involving 2024 Mexican judicial reform was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 18 September 2024.

Wikipedia

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

Mexico Mid‑importance

	Mexico portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico 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.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Mid‑importance

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

Draft:2024 Mexican judicial reform protests

i need help on draft in a protest please JNOJ1423 (talk) 00:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, here I just created it, feel free to edit it, thank you

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_Mexican_judicial_reform_protest&redlink=1# Theasiancowboy (talk) 04:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

State congress ratification and infobox

Is there a way to separate the state congress ratification to its own section in the infobox? (the Chamber of Deputies and Senate have their own sections). Visually, it currently looks like the state congress ratification is part of the Senate vote. EchoLuminary (talk) 21:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or state ratification can be removed from the infobox if we can't get it to work out... EchoLuminary (talk) 00:40, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very intimidating infobox, that one. And no, it doesn't let you use 3 sets of variables. Maybe best to omit if it can't be solved? Moscow Mule (talk) 01:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Am leaning towards removing it... would be nice to have (having votes in favor and against in the infobox is useful info), but as of right now, the information in it is incorrect because of the infobox's limitations (conference committee bill, etc). EchoLuminary (talk) 01:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What if we only include in the infobox the state congresses that have ratified and rejected the amendment? That's what I did initially but then they modified it and it was confusing Alejocat19 (talk) 09:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Substitution? (see User:Moscow Mule/sandbox) Then the parameters could be edited directly. Lot of work though (I don't understand all that syntax), and perhaps a lot of WP:IAR, for potentially very little benefit (couple of extra lines in the infobox). Moscow Mule (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amparo to injunction

Should the word amparo be replaced with injunction in the article? The first use of amparo is fine, specifying that it refers to an injunction, but in its other mentions, switching to injunction could be clearer (especially since injunction is an English word). EchoLuminary (talk) 21:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning no on that. But willing to hear other voices. I left amparo on the subsequent references because it's such a context-specific mechanism. Sui generis and that, whole books written about what it is and does. Injunction's a lot broader (which is why I qualified it as a "constitutional relief injunction"). The link to recurso de amparo is there in case anyone wants to read further (before their eyes glaze over). Moscow Mule (talk) 22:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, honestly, only reason I'd be in favor is because it's an English word (or English phrase) and might flow better (which is why I suggested). EchoLuminary (talk) 00:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh: nice work on expanding the lede, btw. Moscow Mule (talk) 22:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Placement of protests

Should the mention of the judicial reform protests be in the Reactions section or in the Background section (as it part of the context of the bill's opposition)? EchoLuminary (talk) 22:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say wikilink it in the text in the background section but leave the main article link below in "reponses" or "reactions" (which I've just merged with the stray "analysis" section, which wasn't doing much on its own). And bits of that article could/should be used to flesh out the rather thin "domestic reactions" subhead here. Moscow Mule (talk) 06:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]