Talk:2019 term opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States

Opinion table entry color for "other" bench opinions needed

The table keys for 2019 term opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States do not have colors for "other opinion" and "joined other opinion". In Thompson v. Hebdon, Ginsburg filed a rare opinion like this. Please add colors for these types of opinions. Kart2401real (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

Davis v. United States is not showing up

Please fix this. Thanks. Kart2401real (talk) 15:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Puerto Rico Case

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)

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)

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)

Am I the only one who sees this? Jdavi333 (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

Can this be fixed? Kart2401real (talk) 22:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I shorted the title of case 38 so it looks fine for my mobile device. --Frmorrison (talk) 03:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Trump v. Vance

Please turn Trump v. Vance from a redlink to a bluelink. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

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)

Done. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 18:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Notability of RedLink

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)