This article follows the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Legal. It uses the Bluebook legal referencing style. This citation style uses standardized abbreviations, such as "N.Y. Times" for The New York Times. Please review those standards before making style or formatting changes. Information on this referencing style may be obtained at: Cornell's Basic Legal Citation site.
This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles
This disambiguation page 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 disambiguation page 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 disambiguation page 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
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose. United States v. Jones (disambiguation) has only one valid entry on it, United States v. Jones (2012); one entry on the page is solely a redlink, contrary to WP:MOSDAB; the rest have no link at all, obviously also contrary to MOSDAB. Although several cases exist with the caption, United States v. Jones, only one case has a Wikipedia article; there is no disambiguaton needed. United States v. Jones (disambiguation) should be deleted, and United States v. Jones (2012) should be moved to United States v. Jones. If a second article on a case with the same name is created, we should still avoid a disambiguation page, per WP:TWODABS. Only if there are three cases should we have the disambiguation page at all. How it should be configured will depend on which of that hypothetical set of three cases is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.
I note that the proponent has a few other similar RMs going, and in one case, has written a fine article to bring that discussion's article count from two to three, thus justifying the disambiguation page. If the same happens here, I will change my !vote. TJRC (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move at present, at least until additional articles are written and it can be established that the 2012 case is not primary merely due to RECENTISM. Oppose deleting this page, as all of these cases are mentioned in list articles that provide additional links to sources for the cases. Nb, I have just added links to the list articles after the move was nominated. While the redlinks I added may (barely) satisfy WP:DABRL, I have no objection to unlinking the cases until articles are written for them. older ≠ wiser20:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
UpdateUnited States v. Jones (1883) has been added as an article. This case is important as it provides the process when the US government initiates their right of eminent domain. It has been cited over 600 times in US Federal Court cases. There are over 250 published Federal Court cases with the title, United States v. Jones. Each published case typically establishes a precedent, and therefore could conceivably be important enough to have its own Wiki page. With the addition of this article, I hope this will overcome the objections raised in this discussion. chipermc (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've no particular familiarity with any of the cases, so I've no basis to think there is a primary topic no that there is more than one article. older ≠ wiser17:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The 2012 case seems to be a legitimate WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It's getting about 100 views per day and it seems like an important subject that will continue to attract the interest of the public. The article about the 1883 case didn't even exist until a week ago and is getting very few page views since its creation. Let's come back in six months and see whether that has changed. In the meantime, the 2012 case should be at the base name. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
