Open main menu

Property talk:P5826

This property is being considered for deletion. Please share your thoughts on the matter at this property's entry on the Properties for deletion page.


majority opinion by
judicial opinion agreed to by more than half of the members of a court
Representsmajority opinion (Q6738447)
Data typeItem
Domaincourt decision (Q327000)
ExampleRoe v. Wade (Q300950)Harry Blackmun (Q1323255)
Obergefell v. Hodges (Q19866992)Anthony Kennedy (Q11171)
Proposal discussionProposal discussion
Current uses2,357
Search for values
  Type “court decision (Q327000): element must contain property “instance of (P31)” with classes “court decision (Q327000)” or their subclasses (defined using subclass of (P279)). (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P5826#type Q327000, SPARQL, SPARQL (new)
This property is being used by:

Please notify projects that use this property before big changes (renaming, deletion, merge with another property, etc.)

Concurring opinion by / dissenting opinion by / plurality opinion byEdit

Hi. I came across this property, and was wondering if it would also make sense to create companion properties for dissents, concurrences, and plurality opinions? Currently, they are modeled with has part (P527) dissenting opinion (Q1092720)/concurring opinion (Q1087840)/plurality opinion (Q7205548) author (P50), but if this property exists so should they. However, I'm not sure if it would be better to keep having this and add those, or delete this - to me it seems unneeded. Before I do one or the other, I wanted to get the thoughts of the people who discussed the creation of this property. Thoughts? --DannyS712 (talk) 03:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Pings: @ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, Esbranson, ArthurPSmith, NMaia, Pintoch, Jura1: --DannyS712 (talk) 03:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Return to "P5826" page.