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 Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin 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.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums 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
Hey, folks, I know that this might shape up to be a major case in the next term, but I cannot help but feel that this article is "jumping the gun" somewhat, insofar as its existence before the decision has been made by the Court pertains to its possible landmark status, and not its status as it is currently.
To paraphrase, I'm just not sure it's our duty, exactly, to create pages for cases that are currently before the Court, even if oral argument is within a week, and the case looks to be like a landmark case. That's all, I suppose. Just my two cents. All in all, though, I suppose having the information laid out already significantly reduces the additional work needed in finding background information, etc.Javert2113 (talk) 03:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most SCOTUS cases are notable, some more than others. There are some that happen with a whimper until the actual decision is published, but there are others that have notable histories. To that end, we do need to judge what the sources are speaking to about a case, and there's no question from the coverage of this specific case that regardless of which way it falls, its result will have an impact on future redistricting. It is not necessarily "landmark" yet (I think if they do find against the redistricting, then that will make it landmark, but we'll wait for commentators to call it that), but it is notable. --MASEM (t) 16:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'll stand aside for now, then. (And, yes, it was premature for me to call it landmark.) Javert2113 (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
