Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:55, 3 June 2015

• WT:SCOTUS

Welcome to WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases!

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

U.S. Supreme Court cases NA‑class This 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 NA This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. United States Project‑class This 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 Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Law Project‑class This 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 Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Resources	Members	Style guide	Plan
Article alerts	Reports	Accomplishments	Feedback

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

SCOTUS articles needing some attention

(I posted this at WikiProject_Law, where it was pointed out that this would be a better venue.)

I'm working on a CCI and see a few articles involving SCOTUS cases. I ran the copyright question for one Follett v. Town of McCormick by user:Newyorkbrad, because I wasn't sure whether the material coming from the Findlaw reference was original by Findlaw (which would be a problem) or simply material copied from the case (which should be public domain). While I can use his answer to help me with some of the others, I note some other concerns, and I am hoping there is someone interested in articles about Supreme Court cases who might want to do a little article improvement.

I realize wikiprojects often design their own standard formats for articles, but I think a general rule applying everywhere is that the lead is supposed to summarize material in the body. In each of these articles, I think this is not done, and in my opinion is not a trivial omission. The lead states the Supreme Court conclusion but the body typically does not, and further, I see nothing indicating the reasoning for the decision, which I would think should be a fairly important piece of information.

In at least one case, there is no reference, so some help in adding a reference would be appreciated.

Some of the cases are:

• Follett v. Town of McCormick
• Holmes v. United States
• Davis v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts
• Simmons v. United States
• Saia v. New York
• Poulos v. New Hampshire
• Falbo v. United States
• Prince v. Massachusetts
• Dickinson v. United States

My guess is that the editor was using a cookie-cutter approach, not necessarily bad if the format is sufficiently robust, but many seem to be lacking important aspects.

My narrow concern is to make sure there are no copyright issues, (so if you see any, please ping me so I can address them) but I'm also hoping that some member of this Wikiproject will want to beef up some of these articles.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Per curiam Links in SCOTUS-list Template

Is there any way in the SCOTUS-list template to link to a section of a term's per curiam opinion page for a case which does not have or warrant its own standalone page? For example, on the 2013 opinions page, many opinions have red links, but they have sections on the 2013 per curiam opinions page. I see Ford Motor Co. v. United States links automatically through a redirect, but, directly above it, Stanton v. Sims does not even though it's right above it on the per curiam page. Aaronjbaylis (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

As the exisitng links show, you can redirect to a specific section. I just created one for Stanton. postdlf (talk) 12:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Redirects are a bit annoying to create and edit, but a link such as <https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Stanton_v._Sims&action=edit> should show the basic idea. --MZMcBride (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion

There is currently a discussion at Talk:AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion#Harder to file class actions about whether or not the article has appropriate reliable references for including this sentence at the end of the lead section: "By permitting contracts that exclude class action arbitration, the high court's decision will make it much harder for consumers to file class action lawsuits." Interested editors are encouraged to contribute their opinions there. Thanks. — Mudwater 11:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

FA review for Sonia Sotomayor

This page is currently at GA since 2009 which was well-written then but lacking a Supreme Court section to justify an FA nomination. Sotomayor now has 5 years experience on the Court and 3 new books on the Roberts Court have added new light to her full biography. During the past month a new Supreme Court section has been written for the article, and all 300 references in the article have been brought up to date as to link status. Other users have already started assisting with other refinements. Welcome to all comments and critiques either to the Sotomayor Talk page or my Talk page. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 01:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:United States Supreme Court justices by party

An editor has recently created this category scheme. We discussed it briefly on his talk page, from which I repost the thread below for wider input. postdlf (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Not a good idea. The office itself is legally nonpartisan, and we already categorize by the nominating president, whose political orientation the justices may satisfy or frustrate in their later jurisprudence. So this scheme can only be confusing if not misleading. postdlf (talk) 00:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

It's all very well documented by reliable sources. Even Black's Law Dictionary indicates the party of each justice in its Time Chart of the court. Presidents have appointed justices from parties different from their own, so it's not quite the same thing as categorizing by appointing president. I don't think it's any more confusing or misleading than categorizing senators of governors by party: the political stances of the parties have changed quite a bit over time, and politically, a Democrat from the 1850s is not the same as a Democrat from the 2010s. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't categorize by party, IMO. Good Ol’factory 00:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Let me put another way, there are justices who were appointed by Republican presidents, there are justices who vote Republican, and there are justices whose decisions Republicans tend more to like. Any of those three may coincide in one justice. But there's no such thing as a "Republican Party United States Supreme Court justice". Senators are actually elected on a party's ticket and then caucus with party leadership, so the comparison is completely inapt. Another issue is that this is yet another potential scheme for ghettoizing SCOTUS justices if someone decides the parent category is "redundant" with the party one. postdlf (talk) 00:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand the nuances, but the sources do this division all of time. That doesn't mean it's a shorthand for figuring out what "kind" of justice the person was or who liked their decisions. It doesn't ghettoize because all the articles are left in the parent category, which is the normal practice of avoiding ghettoization concerns. We don't need to avoid subcategorization altogether to avoid ghettoization. Good Ol’factory 00:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I've given it some thought. I wouldn't object to a nomination for deletion so that we can get broader input on this. (Of course, it doesn't matter whether or not I would object to a nomination, as it could be done regardless—but what I'm saying is that I think it would be useful to get other views on this, and if there is consensus that it is a bad categorization, I can go along with that and would understand why users would feel that way.) Good Ol’factory 22:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. I've agreed with this being posted here and would appreciate some further input. I'll go with what consensus is on this issue. Good Ol’factory 04:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• Against. I get what Good Ol’factory is saying, but on balance I think it's a bad idea. The key point is as Postdlf says: There is no such thing as this category is assigning. Just because some sources make this association doesn't mean we should. You could also create categories for Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff by party, but there is no such thing as that either. Party-based categories should be restricted to ones where it is an essential part of the position, such as running in a party primary or being elected on a party line or caucusing with a party once in office. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I see the nuances. Former President Taft had an unambiguous party. Justice Stevens' supposed Republicanism seems inconsequential, and the only mention we have of it is where he slyly declines to confirm he still belongs to that party. That said, that nuances are lost in a categorization scheme doesn't mean categories won't aid the reader, and there are enough intersections between law and politics to make me more interested in a Justice's party than I would be in J. K. Rowling's partisan identification. The other issue is, as Good Olfactory points out, whether we've got some reliable sources, and Black's clearly qualifies (I wonder what they say about Stevens?).

In the above spirit, I "wouldn't object" to a CFD. Some input from the regulars that grok (deeply understand) wiki's categorization scheme may help. But somebody who actually wants these deleted ought to make the nom. Since I'm pretty inactive, I'd request they link to or cross-post this discussion.--Chaser (talk) 02:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Black's lists Stevens as a Republican. (The only justice's party for which Black's is even someone ambiguous about is Brandeis: it lists him as a Republican, then in a footnote quotes Henry Abraham's statement: "Many—and with some justice—consider Brandeis a Democrat; however, he was in fact a registered Republican when nominated.") Good Ol’factory 03:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

But that's to say that Stevens was a Republican, and also a U.S. Supreme Court justice. Not that he was a Republican U.S. Supreme Court justice. The problem is the intersection and what it wrongfully implies. postdlf (talk) 04:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the distinction is a terribly meaningful one, unless one is trying to parse something out of the phrase that's not there. If he was a Republican and a Supreme Court justice, it's probably fair to most observers to call him a Republican Supreme Court justice. (Indeed, the phrase "Republican Supreme Court justice" gets quite a number of g-hits. It's certainly not an obscure phrasing or a neologism.) I don't think stating that necessarily implies anything as to how he voted or wrote on the court. It just means he was one of the several Supreme Court justices that were registered Republicans. That said, I can understand how this is different than categorizing politicians who run as a member of a particular party and when elected caucus with other members of that party. Good Ol’factory 04:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Postdlf again. This category makes it sound like the party is choosing and nominating them to the court. When really what the category should be called is something like Category:United States Supreme Court justices who had some kind of association with the Republican Party prior to being nominated. And when the semantics of a category are that weak, it doesn't really need to exist. Wasted Time R (talk) 09:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's one interpretation, but it's not how the designation is being used in sources that I see using them, anyway. Good Ol’factory 10:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

But that's the designation you created in these categories. You have the party identification modifying or qualifying the position. postdlf (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the name of the category has to carry all the weight of the meaning associated with the category. Category pages frequently have explanatory text at the top of them. This seems like one where that would be a good idea.

I personally think that, as long as a reliable source, especially a highly reliable source like Black's, draws this line, it's acceptable -- and useful -- for Misplaced Pages to do so. TJRC (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that a category description can help in some cases, and would help in these. I disagree with the blanket position that if the semantics of a category are open to more than one interpretation—some of which could border on pushing the feature to insignificance—then that automatically means that the category doesn't need to exist. As stated, the chosen name doesn't always bear the entire weight of the categories value—sometimes names are selected to be reasonably brief rather than fully expository on the topic. This happens all the time. (And just to be clear, I didn't "create" the designations that were used—I adopted them from sources which use them.) But here, those who object to the category seem to me to be arguing that the category should not exist at all in any form, not that the category names need reworking. Good Ol’factory 23:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Against. I agree with the statement that these categories should not exist at all... on Misplaced Pages. The media is free to refer to Roberts as a Republican Chief Justice, and people who read to the bottom of this talk page would understand the nuance, but I fear that a general audience would assume that this represented an official designation. I respect that Good Ol'factory is not the one making the distinction, but my view is that just because the media (including Black's) has assigned a party based on how a justice was appointed, how s/he voted in elections, or how s/he ruled from the bench, doesn't make it worthy of inclusion. Mjforbes666 (talk) 15:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. I feel that there has been some good input on this above, and based on what has been said, I am happy to formally nominate the categories for deletion. I will link the CFD to this discussion, but those who commented here please feel free to comment again and lodge your "formal !vote" in the discussion. The discussion is HERE. Good Ol’factory 01:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Some drafts.

I have thrown up some of my very brief law school briefs for the following titles, if anyone wants to work on them:

• Draft:Pacific Employers Insurance Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission, 306 U.S. 493 (1939)
• Draft:Hughes v. Fetter, 341 U.S. 609 (1951)
• Draft:Watson v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp., 348 U.S. 66 (1954)
• Draft:Clay v. Sun Insurance Office, Ltd., 377 U.S. 179 (1964)
• Draft:Allstate Insurance Co. v. Hague, 449 U.S. 302 (1981)
• Draft:Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts,, 472 U.S. 797 (1985)
• Draft:Sun Oil Co. v. Wortman, 486 U.S. 717 (1988)

Cheers! bd2412 T 18:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed this. I am interested and will work on a few of these, though I may not be able to get to them right away. I recently had a case with some conflict-of-laws issues so the last couple in particular are fresh in my mind. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co.

I corrected and updated several related entries. This item has been rated as a low priority but it is very important to Securities litigators. In the speciality, this is as important as Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International is to patent law--Lfrankblam (talk) 05:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Hall v. Florida

I would like to request someone with experience in this type of article to begin this one on a recent court decision about capital punishment. Rmhermen (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Lincoln's habeas corpus suspension / Ex parte Merryman

Hi!

You are invited to participate in an RfC on Lincoln's habeas corpus suspension (Talk:Abraham_Lincoln#habeas_corpus_section) pertaining to the section of the Lincoln article (Abraham_Lincoln#Beginning_of_the_war). I know this was not a Supreme Court case, but it is closely related (and featured the Chief Justice!)

We'd appreciate having some editors with legal interest joining the discussion!

Thanks.

Piledhighandeep (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Category name

Hello, I would like to know if I have named this category correctly. Specifically, should it be "by chief justice" or "by era" instead, or is this OK? (Frankly, I am confused because of the various names used here, here, and here.) Good Ol’factory 05:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

While "by court" is accurate, I would prefer "by chief justice" as the term more likely to be understood by laymen. – Philosopher  01:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Yates v. United States

I am planning to write a short article on Yates v. United States, decided today, opinion here. However, we already have an article Yates v. United States, discussing an unrelated case from 1957. How should we handle this? Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• I moved the prior one to Yates v. United States (1957). You can create the new one at Yates v. United States (2015). — Cirt (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Anyone else feel free to change my move please. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
• I think it would've been fine to leave the older case at the undisambiguated title per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and just add a hatnote to the 2015 case. It's hard to imagine that a case about whether undersized fish are "tangible objects" within the meaning of a federal statute about impeding an investigation will ever be of equal prominence to a First Amendment case. postdlf (talk) 18:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, upon thinking it over, I agree with Postdlf, would an admin please move the old page back to its original location? Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Done. postdlf (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd personally prefer that in the case of needing disambiguation, we treat cases equally. So Yates v. United States could be a redirect to Yates v. United States (1957), while Yates v. United States (2015) would exist and we'd have either a cross-referential hatnote or there would be a disambiguation page (Yates v. United States (disambiguation)). --MZMcBride (talk) 01:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd support either method (leaning towards the disambiguation), as long as it results in an article getting written for the 2015 case; it's pretty interesting. I'll create a stub, at least, for the 2015 case, if I could get someone to expand on it once I've started it... Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 23:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

...and my browser crashed while I was in the middle of writing it, meaning I lost all my progress... I give up, someone else can write it... Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 00:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. If possible, you may want to switch to a more modern Web browser. Newer versions of Google Chrome and Mozilla Firefox should be able to crash without losing work (usually out of the box, but if not, with a plugin or extension). In any case, Yates v. United States (2015) now exists. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Unless there's a third notable Yates case out there, I would think that WP:TWODABS applies. Remember, disambiguation pages are merely a midly inconvenient navigational tool, and one that is not needed if navigation can be accomplished in a hatnote. bd2412 T 20:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, in thinking about it again last evening, I came to the same conclusion. A hatnote is sufficient for now. I still personally think that Yates v. United States could easily live at Yates v. United States (1957) for consistency, but I understand and appreciate the "primary topic" argument. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

More substantively, as the person who opened this thread, I'm sorry I haven't gotten to this case yet. I hope to in the next couple of days. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Lambert v. Yellowley

I started an article on Lambert v. Yellowley earlier today. I just threw up the bare bones - I haven't even added refs yet. Anyone who wants to jump in would be welcomed! Nwlaw63 (talk) 03:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Haven't added refs yet either, but I did add an infobox. Feel free to adjust the basics as you see fit! Bomberjacket5 (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that! Please do jump in elsewhere on the article if you have the time. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Menominee Tribe v. United States nominated for TFA

Menominee Tribe v. United States has been nominated for Today's Featured Articles, if interested, please visit and register your support or opposition to the nomination. GregJackP Boomer! 17:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Infobox handling of opinions that are of the Court only in part

Take a look at the opinion section in the infobox in Virginia v. Black. The complicated situation it's trying to address is, as the opinion syllabus describes:

"O'Connor, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and III, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Stevens, Scalia, and Breyer, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Parts IV and V, in which Rehnquist, C. J, and Stevens and Breyer, JJ., joined."

The infobox is dealing with this by labeling the portion of O'Connor's opinion that did not command a majority as if it were a separate concurring opinion, which we cannot accept. There was obviously only one opinion delivered by O'Connor, not two separate opinions, nor did the Court itself label any portion of it "concurring" (and we always follow the Court's/justice's own designations, not our own sense of what an opinion is de facto). We need a way to handle this in the infobox that will be concise yet accurate. postdlf (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Primary topic?

United States v. Jones (2012) should be moved to United States v. Jones. This is indisputably the primary topic by this name, as it's a recent and major SCOTUS decision involving the applicability of the Fourth Amendment to GPS tracking of a suspect's vehicle. As United States v. Jones (disambiguation) shows, there is apparently only one other SCOTUS opinion with this short name, which doesn't even have an article and is from the 1890s, so is likely a historical footnote at best and can easily be dealt with in a hatnote (based on a quick read, it's merely about the per diem pay to which a Circuit Court commissioner was entitled). And would we even presume every opinion from this time period is notable?

Yes, this is the same issue as was raised in an earlier thread, but as I just came across this article I thought it would be an ideal test case for finally resolving this, and for demonstrating the undesirability of a rule that would automatically treat all SCOTUS opinions equally. postdlf (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• I disagree. United States v. Jones can refer to any of the eleven cases listed at the dab page, even though only two are currently visible due to the other cases being commented out by Josve05a (). If it is our intent to complete articles on SCOTUS cases, we should leave it as it currently is rather than having to come back later and return it to its present state. GregJackP Boomer! 23:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It never even occurred to me to look for commented out entries, nor do I understand why all but one redlink would be commented out. But I don't think that changes anything; we just have more than one completely obscure opinion of the same name (most from the 1890s), with the 2012 case as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. And recognizing that one of the cases is much more well known and important than the others doesn't in any way impede the project of making sure all have articles (but again, have we even decided that all 19th century opinions merit articles?). It just means the hatnote would be to the disambiguation page, not to any single (still nonexistent) article. postdlf (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• It didn't occur to me either—I did a WL search and was going to add the additional cases, but when I opened up the editing window, they were there, just commented out. Apparently there is a dab page policy that says only redlinks that are mentioned in an article somewhere else can be listed on a dab page. I don't necessarily disagree that the 2012 case is primary, I just haven't had time to look at the other cases and form an opinion. GregJackP Boomer! 15:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• Well, United States v. Jones (2012) is certainly the PRIMARYTOPIC among those articles we actually have with the title United States v. Jones. If future articles are written and one of these 19th century cases turns out to be more important then we can revisit. I agree with Postdlf; preemptive disambiguation isn't helpful and isn't warranted here. Mackensen (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Peer review request

Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock has been submitted for peer review in preparation for a run at featured article. If you are interested, please go the the peer review page and help out. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 19:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed U.S. Constitution WikiProject

Hi participants at WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases! I am posting a proposed WikiProject called United States Constitution. This project will focus on articles related to the original text of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights; it should include the articles on all 27 amendments, clauses, Supreme Court cases interpreting constitutional provisions, the drafters, and so forth. We can't get the proposed WikiProject without your help! Since you are in this group, I think you would also be interested in this WikiProject. We need 6-12 members to get the WikiProject active. Please join and support today. Please put your name in the "Support" tab here: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council/Proposals/United States Constitution. Thank you! CookieMonster755 (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Menominee Tribe v. United States is Today's Featured Article

Menominee Tribe v. United States is Today's Featured Article and was brought to featured status by members of this project. GregJackP Boomer! 01:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

• What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
• When? June 2015
• How can you help?

  1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here

  2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Misplaced Pages articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)

  3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Misplaced Pages, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

• NA-Class U.S. Supreme Court pages
• NA-importance U.S. Supreme Court pages
• WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases articles
• Project-Class United States pages
• NA-importance United States pages
• Project-Class United States articles of NA-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• Project-Class law pages
• NA-importance law pages
• WikiProject Law articles