This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Years 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.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
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.
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all
list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to
Supreme Court cases and the
Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the
project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Yeah, this one's interesting. It's (arguably) a concurrence in substance but not styled as such, and we ordinarily follow however the Court/each justice has designated their own opinion. Normally we would only see opinions filed as "statements" only as relating to orders, not to any opinion of the Court as we have here. Still thinking it through... One option would be to make white "statement" as we use "other" in the justice-specific lists, and then make grey the color of "did not participate." But then I don't know what the best color would be for "joined statement", though that's not a problem we are yet facing so maybe save it for another day... postdlf (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Why not use white for did not participate, gray for statement/other, and light gray for joined statement? That would make sense with this rare bench statement respecting the decison.
Kart2401real (
talk) 23:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Anyone know why there's an ugly blank line under the case, and how to get rid of it? I cannot find anything different in the code. Thanks.
Jdavi333 (
talk) 22:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Do you mean opinion #38 in this table? I'm not seeing an extra blank line, and I tried viewing it in three different desktop browsers and on a mobile device. I also don't see any issue with the code. postdlf (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Yes it's case #38. In all browsers I tried and in-private mode, the case has a blank line under the boxes for the opinions. I will try to attach a screenshot.
Jdavi333 (
talk) 14:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Am I the only one who sees this?
Jdavi333 (
talk) 15:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)reply
I see...note that in your screenshot, the case name and citation together are occupying three lines of text. The table code is designed to keep a minimum width for that column, no matter how you resize your browser window, so that the case name does not extend beyond two lines, because that blank space is what results. So something in how your preferences are set (I don't know if in Wikipedia or your browser(s)) is disregarding that table/style parameter. postdlf (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Yes. When I zoomed out to 80% text size, the case name only took up 2 lines and was all good. I guess it's just my small screen. Thanks.
Jdavi333 (
talk) 02:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)reply
It will be a blue link if there was a page to link to. You are more than welcome to create the page yourself.
Jdavi333 (
talk) 16:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Hi, wise editors, can anyone help me know whether a Supreme Court case on this list is by default considered meeting
WP:N?
Yes, any modern SCOTUS case in which a full opinion is handed down is presumed notable, and you should have no problem finding multiple secondary sources covering it and commenting on it (though not necessarily mainstream media attention). postdlf (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Years 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.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
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.
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all
list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to
Supreme Court cases and the
Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the
project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Yeah, this one's interesting. It's (arguably) a concurrence in substance but not styled as such, and we ordinarily follow however the Court/each justice has designated their own opinion. Normally we would only see opinions filed as "statements" only as relating to orders, not to any opinion of the Court as we have here. Still thinking it through... One option would be to make white "statement" as we use "other" in the justice-specific lists, and then make grey the color of "did not participate." But then I don't know what the best color would be for "joined statement", though that's not a problem we are yet facing so maybe save it for another day... postdlf (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Why not use white for did not participate, gray for statement/other, and light gray for joined statement? That would make sense with this rare bench statement respecting the decison.
Kart2401real (
talk) 23:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Anyone know why there's an ugly blank line under the case, and how to get rid of it? I cannot find anything different in the code. Thanks.
Jdavi333 (
talk) 22:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Do you mean opinion #38 in this table? I'm not seeing an extra blank line, and I tried viewing it in three different desktop browsers and on a mobile device. I also don't see any issue with the code. postdlf (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Yes it's case #38. In all browsers I tried and in-private mode, the case has a blank line under the boxes for the opinions. I will try to attach a screenshot.
Jdavi333 (
talk) 14:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Am I the only one who sees this?
Jdavi333 (
talk) 15:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)reply
I see...note that in your screenshot, the case name and citation together are occupying three lines of text. The table code is designed to keep a minimum width for that column, no matter how you resize your browser window, so that the case name does not extend beyond two lines, because that blank space is what results. So something in how your preferences are set (I don't know if in Wikipedia or your browser(s)) is disregarding that table/style parameter. postdlf (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Yes. When I zoomed out to 80% text size, the case name only took up 2 lines and was all good. I guess it's just my small screen. Thanks.
Jdavi333 (
talk) 02:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)reply
It will be a blue link if there was a page to link to. You are more than welcome to create the page yourself.
Jdavi333 (
talk) 16:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Hi, wise editors, can anyone help me know whether a Supreme Court case on this list is by default considered meeting
WP:N?
Yes, any modern SCOTUS case in which a full opinion is handed down is presumed notable, and you should have no problem finding multiple secondary sources covering it and commenting on it (though not necessarily mainstream media attention). postdlf (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)reply