Talk:Supreme Court of the United States: Difference between revisions

:I also think the partisan shading was a useful addition. Pinging @[[User:Aréat|Aréat]], who made the reversion. [[User:Marincyclist|Marincyclist]] ([[User talk:Marincyclist|talk]]) 05:51, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

:I also think the partisan shading was a useful addition. Pinging @[[User:Aréat|Aréat]], who made the reversion. [[User:Marincyclist|Marincyclist]] ([[User talk:Marincyclist|talk]]) 05:51, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

::I don’t think it is needed. There’s already the party in the columns, and there never was such font colors for years, which show it’s not necessary. While on the other hand, the addition of colors ”under” the text make it difficult to read and should be avoided.–[[User:Aréat|Aréat]] ([[User talk:Aréat|talk]]) 07:01, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project’s importance scale. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken 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.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia

The redirect Court packing has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 21 § Court packing until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Justice positions has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 22 § Justice positions until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 06:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Circuit justice has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 22 § Circuit justice until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 06:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Str1977:Many sources had specificlly stated Scotus to be 6-3 conservative majority and partisian line. This should be noted in the article [1][2][3][4][5][6] AINH (talk) 07:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This can be stated – as opinion – in the article but it neither solid fact nor is this information of such a nature that it should be noted in the list of judges, akin to party membership with elected politicians. Str1977 ^(talk) 00:00, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“partisian line” Do you mean partisan? Dimadick (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Remsense, I noticed the revert removing the current SCOTUS composition in the lead and for adding back the “Excessive examples” tag. I’m open to the idea that these edits may not be improvements. But in the case of the lead content, the fact that it is already covered at length in the body of the article seems actually like an argument for keeping it, since the lead aims to summarize the rest of the article.

For the “Excessive examples” tag, the tag was added here. @Superb Owl, do you think the tag is still warranted? If so, feel free to remove the excessive examples. Alenoach (talk) 20:27, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is incongruous with every other group of people of roughly this size or longevity. It’s fine to have the lead be timeless—the reader will easily navigate to the dedicated section displaying current members with all the conveniences of the format. A comma-separated list of nine is never really ideal, if I can get that level of handwringing about it. Remsense 🌈 论 20:31, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would need to be updated, but on the other side, the rest of the article too, and the lead would be the easiest part of the article to update. I think the question is more about whether this is useful information that fits well in the lead. Alenoach (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

why did you um put semi auto protection? thanks I think can you let people edit please? Ooson1 (talk) 03:15, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can people edit?
materialscientist why did you put semi auto correct can you Unblock it please thnak so much if you can? Ooson1 (talk) 03:20, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, people can edit… provided their account is at least 4 days old and they have made at least 10 edits elsewhere in Wikipedia. This is because this page is subjected to a lot of vandalism by anonymous or newly created accounts. Magidin (talk) 15:35, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the recent reversion of an edit, I do not support that reversion, as having the party’s colour is good for the reader, as we cannot assume that they will know which party it is (R or D) at first glance without resorting to the link, so having the colour, especially for non-American readers, will give them an idea of what party or give the incentive to research what the colour means instead of having to use the link. Psalm 27:1 (talk) 03:33, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also think the partisan shading was a useful addition. Pinging @Aréat, who made the reversion. Marincyclist (talk) 05:51, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think it is needed. There’s already the party in the columns, and there never was such font colors for years, which show it’s not necessary. While on the other hand, the addition of colors under the text make it difficult to read and should be avoided.–Aréat (talk) 07:01, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]