Talk:Headnote

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 May 2018. The result of the discussion was keep.

This page was proposed for deletion by 65.126.126.215 (talk · contribs) on 9 January 2018 with the comment: (none given) It was contested by TJRC (talk · contribs) on 12 January 2018 with the comment: No reason given for deletion. While short, this is not a dictionary definition, it's a stub; the part about Detroit Limber and Timber could not be carried over to Wiktionary

	This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Law Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This belongs, IMO, on Wiktionary. - Jeeny ^Talk 02:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Tay's ear (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No; see recent discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Headnote. TJRC (talk) 21:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed references to headnotes authored by the court and the example from Roe v. Wade. Headnotes are written by editors at legal publishers, and the example given as a headnote authored by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade was a headnote written by a Lexis editor and published in the United States Supreme Court Reports, Lawyer's Edition. Further cleanup is undoubtedly necessary. Polytheme (talk) 05:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a sandbox whereby this feature can be tested without undue distraction? 73.127.112.246 (talk) 01:32, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]