Talk:United States v. Jones

Requested move 29 May 2017

 * 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. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Although some opposition have retracted, there has been no support for this move. (non-admin closure).  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )  13:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

United States v. Jones (disambiguation) → United States v. Jones – For US cases, the Wiki naming convention has the disambiguation page as the name without the year; and the word "disambiguation" does not need to be in the title. This is consistent with other disambiguation pages for US cases with common names. See United States v. Davis, United States v. Holmes, United States v. Johnson, United States v. Mitchell, United States v. Smith, etc. Chipermc (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)


 *  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 ≠ wiser 20:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Update United 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)


 * Relisting given 's "update" above. and  do you still oppose? Thanks  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 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 ≠ wiser 17:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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.