Template talk:Infobox SCOTUS case

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This template is used to create infoboxes for United States Supreme Court cases.

Archive
Archives
Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Assistance

If you find yourself confused in how to use this template or need assistance, please feel free to leave comments on this page.

[edit] Changes to the template

This template is used on more than 500 Supreme Court case articles, and it was developed using consensus for what would look and work best. If you feel changes should be made to the template, do so only with consensus among WikiProject SCOTUS Cases members and others after first discussing the changes on this page. Personally, I like the way the template currently looks, and don't see any need to change it to use class="infobox". Thanks. --MZMcBride 05:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree.--Chaser T 12:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
It is the de facto standard class for infoboxes. Using inline style should be avoided when we have a class for the job (WP:ACCESS), for consistency of appearance (the monobook skin doesn't use black borders, and all image boxes/TOCs/navboxes uses this style), accessibility (we have a hard coded white background, if a visually impaired user set their skin to white on black the box would be unreadable) and all the other benefits of separating style from content. ed g2s • talk 10:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template for state supreme court cases

Per Wikipedia:Help_desk#Supreme_Court_of_California_Template a user is looking for a template to use in articles on state supreme court cases. Seems like it would be fairly easy to modify this template for this purpose (basically, just add optional params for the state court seal image, the state name, and the court membership). Anyone have any issues with this? -- Rick Block (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not a problem at all. I would actually like to standardize all the federal and state supreme court cases using an infobox like Template:USCourtCase. It's on my to-do list, but I've been a little busy with Template:Elementbox, trying to finish that infobox up. You should feel free to write it if you feel inclined to do so. Thanks. --MZMcBride 03:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, it's at Template:USCourtCase. See in use at California v. Anderson. Note that it's currently a (separate) clone of SCOTUSCase and could be a redirect here with very minor modifications. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I happened to see this template and thought we could use it on our own wiki for other purposes, with obvious modification....are these templates specific to the current release or will they work on older releases? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.8.233.10 (talk • contribs)

You will need to have ParserFunctions installed on your wiki in order to use this specific template. It's available for download here. Thanks. --MZMcBride 23:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I added those to the installation but one thing I noticed additionally was it seems the table settings are all showing up garbled, as in the tags for <tr>, <td> etc. Not sure if that has anything to do with the parserfunctions or not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.8.233.10 (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC).
I'm not really sure what you mean by garbled, but I'd be happy to take a look at it if you'd like. --MZMcBride 22:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

--- Email me at dpalme@insightbb.com and I will provide you the URL to the site. Thanks for all the help. -- Actually I got it working, turns out I needed to add UseTidy to the LocalSettings.php file. I would however, like to thank you for the ParserFunction help! It is mucho appreciated.

[edit] Problem with Court Membership

I've had difficulties with "Court Membership" not showing up. My most recent issue came up while attaching the template to C&A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown, New York which was governed by the Rehnquist Court - 1993-1994. CheshireKatz 15:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You're problem stemmed from the type of dash used. The one employed by this template is a "standard" dash ( - ), and the one you were using was "non-standard." Generally, the minus sign on your keyboard is the correct key. Thanks. --MZMcBride 22:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing basic citations

I ran across a case (Leary v. United States) where the volume and page number were entered (fields USVol and USPage) but no other citations (field Citation), yet nothing gets displayed. The usage info above was pretty vague so I went to a random Supreme Court case to see what the proper usage of the fields should be and it had exactly the same problem. Finally, I just looked at the template code to find out what was going on and indeed the U.S. Reports volume and page number are only displayed if the Citation field is filled with not the normal U.S. cite but all the other random reporters. This seems odd since many people (like me) are lazy and don't want to fill in other random reporters. I propose that the U.S. volume and page get displayed regardless of the extra citations and that the usage documentation above gets re-written to be more clear. Pygora123 03:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The USVol and USPage values have been made visible by default. If you find the documentation unclear, please feel free to rewrite it. I looked and the sections seemed clear to me, but that's probably because I wrote them.... Cheers. --MZMcBride 04:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. Next complication: if the Citation field is included but blank, no citation seems to be displayed (Blanton v. North Las Vegas). Meanwhile, I tried to make the usage documentation a little more clear. Pygora123 05:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The infobox looks correct to me. It displays "Citations: 489 U.S. 538" in it. --MZMcBride 06:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Huh, I swear it wasn't doing that last night. Oh well, thanks for taking care of it! Pygora123 04:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why

...are there several "Concurrence/Dissent" fields and also several "ConcurrenceDissent" fields? What's the difference? --zenohockey 04:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Though admittedly it seems weird, it is not a mistake, there are actually two different classifications. "Concurrence/Dissent" is for justices who wrote an opinion that literally concurs with the majority in part and dissents in part. "ConcurrenceDissent" is for justices who concur with a dissenting opinion by writing a concurrence. Hopefully that clarifies the situation. Cheers. --MZMcBride 05:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Instructions for template

Some how I was directed to User:Postdlf/court_case_infobox (can't find the path I followed to get there) instead of here. The instructions seem to be consistent, but there are some differences. Is there a reason for two "guides?" --Tinned Elk 02:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The guide on this page is more specific to this template and should the guide that's used. --MZMcBride 03:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Right, but the project page links to the User:Postdlf page as how to fill in the info box. Should that link be redirected to this page instead? Also, the instructions on this page are not as complete as on the other instruction page. Should this page be beefed up?--Tinned Elk 04:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The instructions here are not finished; if you'd like to finish, go for it. Postdlf's page shouldn't be redirected, the links to it should just be updated. Cheers. --MZMcBride 04:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, another annoying question. Is there a reason that the Manual of style could not be on a separate page? Having it in the middle of the discussion page makes it difficult to see whether it is being kept up to date. It says it is not finished but there is no way of know as of what date, the last time anyone worked on it , etc. It appears that it was established on this page in 2006 (or before), can we break it off as something like Template:SCOTUS-Infobox/Manual of usage and style? I am not sure about the protocol for new pages like this.--Tinned Elk 01:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
If that's confusing, we could move more of the instructions to the documentation subpage, Template:SCOTUS-Infobox/doc.--chaser - t 08:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Done. Check out the current version of Template:SCOTUS-Infobox/doc. --Richard 08:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Aaghh, now all of the style manual, etc. is "transcluded" into the template page. Is that okay? It has the list of parameters in the middle of the page, and the template page includes all of the instructions. I will let you all work this out, but I think it is a good idea. Thanks --Tinned Elk 21:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Clarification, please. You think it is a good idea? Or did you leave a "not" out? Your message starts off suggesting that maybe this is not OK. Please clarify. --Richard 22:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I was just surprised that all of the documentation from Template:SCOTUS-Infobox/doc would be transcluded right into the template page. I agree with the move, I had just never see the instructions on the template page like that and thought that perhaps transclusion was not what was intended.--Tinned Elk 01:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More wikification

IMHO more words in SCOTUSCase (or in templates called by SCOTUSCase) should be wikified. For instance, in Faretta v. California, internal links could give quick access to:

Apokrif 18:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adding oyez sources to the template

How does everyone feel about possibly adding links to the actual oral arguments, briefs, and docket when available on Oyez to the template? I think it would be very helpful and informative, but that is just my opinion. (I'll also post this on the wikiproject page). Remember 17:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've added this to the template. Check out Bush v. Gore for an example. Remember 03:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Docket

I revised the docket link so it links directly to the Supreme Court and not findlaw. If someone has an issue with this or suggestions on how to make this better let me know. Remember 02:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What happened?

Why is this template not appearing in any articles it's in all of a sudden? Daniel Case 16:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The code was screwed up when someone tried to move the documentation to a subpage. WP:BYPASS or WP:PURGE as needed if the infobox still isn't displaying correctly. Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with NotParticipating

There's a problem with NotParticipating. Although it is hypertechnical, I think it is important for accuracy. NotParticipating states that they did not participate in consideration and decision. However, there are a few cases where the Justice participated in the consideration but not the decision - see Chevron, for example - http://supreme.justia.com/us/467/837/case.html. I think that a new option needs to be added for NotParticipatingDecision or some such thing. I don't have the skills to add it, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timmyboy22 (talk • contribs) 07:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Usage v Manual of Style

Is there a reason that the instructions at Template:Infobox SCOTUS case/doc are divided into the Usage portion and Manual of Style? What was the intent of the two different sections? They seem to have gotten sort of muddled. This is probably the case of people (like me) coming along and thinking - "Aha, this instruction needs to be beefed up" and does it in the wrong place (is this something for the Usage section or the Manual of Style?). I started beefing up the Manual part and then thought, no, this is an instruction of what to put there, not how it should be styled or phrased.--Tinned Elk 02:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foo

What is the purpose of all the uses of "Foo" in this template? It is causing Foo to be identified in the meta keywords as the first link in all the articles which use it, and makes the Special:Whatlinkshere/Foo tracking of links to the page wholly unfeasible. BigBlueFish (talk) 01:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Grr... see metasyntactic variable. That code is bad and should be re-written anyway. I'll go fix it. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I understood why that word had been chosen; I am just too bewildered by template code to understand what the purpose of using it is ;) Anyhow, if fixable then all is well. BigBlueFish (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Should be fixed now. It was used as Foo always exists. The template checks whether or not people are entering valid information into the parameters, however, a blank parameter gets screwy. So {{nw| says, if SubmitYear is blank, check the existence of Foo. If it is not blank (e.g., SubmitYear=1990), check the existence of the page 1990. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)