Template talk:Infobox US Supreme Court case/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Templates made obsolete by this one

Template:SCOTUSCase2 Template:SCOTUSRecentCase Template:SCOTUSOpinionStart Template:SCOTUSMajority Template:SCOTUSJoin Template:SCOTUSConcurrence, now Template:CourtConcurrence Template:SCOTUSDissent, now Template:CourtDissent Template:SCOTUSOpinionEnd, now Template:CourtOpinionEnd Template:SCOTUSConcurrence/Dissent Template:SCOTUSPlurality Template:CourtPlurality Template:SCOTUSOverruled, now Template:CourtOverruled Template:SCOTUS 1789-1792 Template:SCOTUS 1946-1949 Template:SCOTUS 1930 Template:SCOTUS 1932-1937 Template:SCOTUS 1925-1930 Template:SCOTUS 1923-1925 Template:SCOTUS 1937-1938 Template:SCOTUS 1941-1942 Template:SCOTUS 1792-1793 Template:SCOTUS 1793-1795 Template:SCOTUS 1795 Template:SCOTUS 1796-1798 Template:SCOTUS 1798-1799a Template:SCOTUS 1801-1804 Template:United States Court Case, now Template:United States Supreme Court Case

Template:SCOTUS 1975-1981 Template:SCOTUS 1981-1986 Template:SCOTUS 1804-1806 Template:SCOTUS 1807-1810 Template:SCOTUS 1810-1811 Template:SCOTUS 1811-1812 Template:SCOTUS 1812-1823 Template:SCOTUS 1823-1826 Template:SCOTUS 1826-1828 Template:SCOTUS 1828-1829 Template:SCOTUS 1891-1892 Template:SCOTUS 1953-1954 Template:SCOTUS 1962-1965 Template:SCOTUS 1967-1969 Template:SCOTUS 1970-1971 Template:SCOTUS 1994-2005 Template:SCOTUS 2005-2006 Template:SCOTUS 2006 Template:SCOTUS 1993-1994 Template:SCOTUS 1991-1993 Template:SCOTUS 1990-1991 Template:SCOTUS 1988-1990 Template:SCOTUS 1930-1932 Template:SCOTUS 1903-1906 Template:SCOTUS 1969 Template:SCOTUS 1972-1975

Requested move

Template:SCOTUSCase3 → Template:SCOTUSCase – The template has been completely re-written and there are no objections to the move [1]. The new template incorporates many features and eliminates the need for many, many other templates (see list at the bottom of this page [2]. copied from the entry on the WP:RM page

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support as nominator. --MZMcBride 22:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support as this new template incorporates numerous other templates as a user-fits-all template that will assist users creating/editing a page involving an opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States. --Assawyer 13:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support; the most fully functional SCOTUS template. Postdlf 17:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support; awesome job, MZMcBride!--Kchase02 T 19:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Result: template moved. The old template is still available at Template talk:SCOTUSCase/old, and the old talk page is at Template talk:SCOTUSCase/oldtalk. Eugène van der Pijll 09:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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:

• the explanation of the phrase "citations" and/or to the reporters (what do these cryptic 422 U.S. 806 and 1975 U.S. LEXIS 83 (1975) mean??)
• writ of Certiorari (without the need to copy-and-paste this phrase in the search box)
• a description of the lower courts ("Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District")
• I don't know what a Chief Justice and Associate Justices are and I'm too lazy to browse through Supreme Court of the United States or Category:United States Supreme Court cases until I find an explanation.

Apokrif 18:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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|{{#ifexist:{{{SubmitYear|Foo}}}}} 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)

Parameter "(legal) question"

We might add a parameter "question" or "legal question" as alternative to "holding", for cases that have been argued but not yet decided (like Herring v. United States). ––Bender235 (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I can code it if you'd like. Just let me know. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

If no one else opposes, go on, code it! ;-) (also, "Case opinions" should not be displayed if there's no value for "holding") ––Bender235 (talk) 13:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Should be done now. The new parameter is {{{QuestionsPresented}}}. I also fixed some other minor quirks with the code. It could still stand for some (/cough/) serious cleanup, but I'll wait for a rainy day I suppose. ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 04:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I might have found a bug.

I see that the “Citation” parameter (for parallel cites) is not mandatory, and indeed it should not be; however, if it is left out then the main case citation (to the FindLaw copy of the U.S. Reports) does not display in the infobox.

The desired behavior is indeed to leave it out if:

• Citation: is absent AND
• CitationNew: is present OR Docket: is present,

but to display it if either

• Citation: is present OR
• both CitationNew: is absent AND Docket: is absent.

(I hope that I have covered all the logical possibilities.) 69.140.152.55 (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Italicizing litigants only?

The usual formatting in official documentation of a court cases, as well as the standard formatting in news reportage, has the litigants names in italics but with the "v." between them not italicized.

Example: Brown v. Board of Education

Is there a way this can be fixed in the template? Lestatdelc (talk) 22:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Use Template:Infobox..?

Hi. On smaller windows/screens, this template is noticeably wide while using a mixture of small and 100% font-sizes. Would it be worth my experimenting with Template:Infobox and font-sizes of either small or 90/95% to produce a thinner version, or would consensus be lacking? Sardanaphalus (talk) 13:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't really object to using Template:Infobox, but I think you'd have an incredibly hard time getting it to work properly with Template:Infobox. There's quite a bit of magic (read: hacks) hidden in this template. But feel free to sandbox an updated version and we can look at testcases. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. I only understand a fraction of what MZM has done here. Perhaps it'd be easier to sandbox this template and try to reduce the font sizes directly instead of trying to graft it into the Generic infobox?--chaser - t 05:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'm starting to look into the possibility here and so far it seems feasible. (The beginnings of the Infobox version are toward the bottom of the page.) I haven't confirmed the closing braces for {{#if:{{{ArgueDate|}}}... in the current Infobox SCOTUS case code, however; and I'm assuming it's intentional that Docket3 to 5 aren't made into URLs. My instinct is that the redundancy in the #switch: for the Court composition can be reduced, perhaps by making or adapting separate templates for reference, but I haven't tried thinking this through any further yet. I've begun wondering whether {{Sidebar}} might be more suitable than Infobox. Sardanaphalus (talk) 06:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

PS It also looks as if {{{OralArgument}}} is meant to create a URL link; is this correct? Sardanaphalus (talk) 07:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, {{{OralArgument}}} should be linked and {{{Docket3}}}, {{{Docket4}}}, and {{{Docket5}}} should be unlinked. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. Any thoughts so far on the rest of the above and/or on how the Infobox/Sidebar templates toward the bottom of User:Sardanaphalus/Template:Infobox SCOTUS case strike you? I've only seen a few instances of the current Infobox SCOTUS case template, so may not yet be aware of a problem I'm heading toward. Sardanaphalus (talk) 08:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think keeping the data in one row is better, though perhaps that's simply what I'm used to. Otherwise, it seems to be converting pretty nicely, though you've not yet hit the big nasty blocks of code, yet. Those probably could use subtemplates to be a bit cleaner... --MZMcBride (talk) 09:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• Keeping the data in one row is fine until the data becomes relatively lengthy, as I see it can with the full case name, citations and histories. For now, I think I'll push on with the Sidebar version, especially as:
• The Court membership section could transclude the following kind of {{Navbox}} within Infobox SCOTUS case (using the Navbox border parameter), thereby removing the need for the big #switch section:

These Navboxes could themselves be created via transclusion from a single template carrying the entire SCOTUS composition history. The result of transcluding something like the above within a Sidebar-based Infobox SCOTUS case would then look something like:

(The code for the examples above has been hacked together for the sake of demonstration.)

To keep redundancy minimized, I think this would mean reorganizing the {{start U.S. Supreme Court composition}}...{{U.S. Supreme Court composition court lifespan}}...{{U.S. Supreme Court composition YYYY-YYYY}}...etc...{{end U.S. Supreme Court composition}} system so it uses the above child-Navbox approach. I think this is feasible, but do you think this would be acceptable? Sardanaphalus (talk) 06:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Looks pretty good, and I like the ideas for code reduction and re-use. I do think that the sidebar version looks too Christmas tree-y with everything centered though. :-) But the use of bold middots and a reduced font size are both visually appealing. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

One more thought occurred to me. At the risk of sounding like a prat... the entire point of Template:Infobox is to standardize infoboxen throughout the project. This is clearly an infobox, so using a sidebar format seems a bit atypical. And, from all of the infoboxes I've seen used throughout the project, (almost?) all use the two column form for data (Template:Infobox Album, Template:Infobox Country, etc.). Just something to consider. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, I'll go with the standard Infobox approach. If, subsequently, something else is preferred, it shouldn't be too difficult to switch formats.
  How to store and transclude the Court composition data for here and elsewhere is a subproject I'll now start looking into. (I think the solution is somewhere in my talkpage history and/or one of the Academy Award templates, as a similar situation arose there.) Thanks for your encouragement. Sardanaphalus (talk) 08:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
• What exactly is the purpose of {{{OriginalJurisdiction}}}, e.g. why does it exist as well as the {{{Outcome}}} option..? (Sorry if I'm missing something obvious.) Sardanaphalus (talk) 21:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Certain cases were heard in "Original jurisdiction" or some such, which means that they don't have a decision date. So...:

{{#switch:{{{OriginalJurisdiction}}}|yes=Original jurisdiction<br/>}}

That code makes the area where the decision date would normally go read "Original jurisdiction." And then there were issues with exact terminology later on, so they also use some special code to change some terms. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• So far, it looks to me that {{{Outcome}}} can be used to achieve {{{OriginalJurisdication}}}'s function. I haven't worked through the end of the template code yet, though, which I guess is where I'll find {{{OriginalJurisdiction}}} is needed.
• Another (probably naive) query: Why the need for the multiple {{{MajorityN}}}/{{{JoinMajorityN}}}, {{{SeriatimN}}}, {{{ConcurrenceN}}}/{{{JoinConcurrenceN}}}, {{{Concurrence/DissentN}}}/{{{JoinConcurrence/DissentN}}}, {{{ConcurrenceDissentN}}}/{{{DissentN}}} parameters in the Case opinions section..? Seems to me only one of each pair should be needed..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 04:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Examples would probably help. If {{{OriginalJurisdiction}}} = yes, then:

{{SCOTUSCase   |Litigants=New York v. Connecticut   |OriginalJurisdiction=yes   |DecideDate=August 9   |DecideYear=1799   |FullName=The State of New-York v. The State of Connecticut, et al.   |USVol=4   |USPage=1   |Citation=4 [[Alexander J. Dallas (statesman)|Dall.]] 1; 1 L. Ed. 715; 1799 U.S. LEXIS 243   |Claim=New York moved to enjoin ejectment proceedings pending in a U.S. Circuit Court involving land over which New York and Connecticut claimed jurisdiction.   |Procedural=Injunction denied, 4 U.S. 1 (1799) (Ellsworth, C.J.)   |Outcome=The State of New York was not a party to the ejectment action and had no interest at stake, because the Circuit Court lacked the power to determine its claim of rights over the disputed lands. Injunction denied.   |SCOTUS=1799   |Majority=Ellsworth   |JoinMajority=Paterson, Chase, Washington   |NotParticipating=Cushing and Iredell }}

New York v. Connecticut Supreme Court of the United States Original jurisdiction Decided August 9, 1799 Full case name The State of New-York v. The State of Connecticut, et al. Citations 4 U.S. 1 (more) 4 Dall. 1; 1 L. Ed. 715; 1799 U.S. LEXIS 243 Claim New York moved to enjoin ejectment proceedings pending in a U.S. Circuit Court involving land over which New York and Connecticut claimed jurisdiction. Case history Procedural Injunction denied, 4 U.S. 1 (1799) (Ellsworth, C.J.) Outcome The State of New York was not a party to the ejectment action and had no interest at stake, because the Circuit Court lacked the power to determine its claim of rights over the disputed lands. Injunction denied. Court membership Chief Justice Oliver Ellsworth Associate Justices William Cushing · James Iredell William Paterson · Samuel Chase Bushrod Washington Case opinion Majority Ellsworth, joined by Paterson, Chase, Washington Cushing and Iredell took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

The reason for numbered parameters is that for each opinion written, a new parameter is used. In some cases, multiple concurrences or dissents were written, for example:

{{SCOTUSCase   |Litigants=''Grutter v. Bollinger''   |ArgueDate=April 1   |ArgueYear=2003   |DecideDate=June 23   |DecideYear=2003   |FullName=Barbara Grutter, Petitioner v. Lee Bollinger, et al.   |Citation=123 S.Ct. 2325, 156 L.Ed.2d 304, 71 USLW 4498, 91 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1761, 84 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 41,415, 177 Ed. Law Rep. 801, 03 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5378, 2003 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6800, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 367   |USVol=539   |USPage=306   |Prior=Held for Plaintiff and enjoined use of current admissions policy, 137 F. Supp. 2d 821 (E.D. Mich. 2001); reversed, 288 F.3d 732 (6th Cir. 2002) (en banc); certiorari granted 537 U.S. 1043 (2002)   |Subsequent=Rehearing denied, 539 U.S. 982 (2003)   |Holding=University of Michigan Law School admissions program that gave special consideration for being a certain racial minority did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment.   |SCOTUS=1994-2005   |Majority=O'Connor   |JoinMajority=Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer   |Concurrence=Ginsburg   |JoinConcurrence=Breyer   |Concurrence/Dissent=Scalia   |JoinConcurrence/Dissent=Thomas   |Concurrence/Dissent2=Thomas   |JoinConcurrence/Dissent2=Scalia   |Dissent=Rehnquist   |JoinDissent=Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas   |Dissent2=Kennedy   |LawsApplied=[[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|U.S. Const. amend. XIV]] }}

Grutter v. Bollinger Supreme Court of the United States Argued April 1, 2003 Decided June 23, 2003 Full case name Barbara Grutter, Petitioner v. Lee Bollinger, et al. Citations 539 U.S. 306 (more) 123 S.Ct. 2325, 156 L.Ed.2d 304, 71 USLW 4498, 91 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1761, 84 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 41,415, 177 Ed. Law Rep. 801, 03 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5378, 2003 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6800, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 367 Case history Prior Held for Plaintiff and enjoined use of current admissions policy, 137 F. Supp. 2d 821 (E.D. Mich. 2001); reversed, 288 F.3d 732 (6th Cir. 2002) (en banc); certiorari granted 537 U.S. 1043 (2002) Subsequent Rehearing denied, 539 U.S. 982 (2003) Holding University of Michigan Law School admissions program that gave special consideration for being a certain racial minority did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. Court membership Chief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy David Souter · Clarence Thomas Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer Case opinions Majority O'Connor, joined by Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer Concurrence Ginsburg, joined by Breyer Concur/dissent Scalia, joined by Thomas Concur/dissent Thomas, joined by Scalia Dissent Rehnquist, joined by Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas Dissent Kennedy Laws applied U.S. Const. amend. XIV

--MZMcBride (talk) 04:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the above; I'll look over it now. I also meant to include a query about the line code at

-->{{#if:{{{ConcurrenceDissent5|}}}|Concurrence by: {{{ConcurrenceDissent5}}}<br/>}} ...

which ends with

... <!-- Ending Holding #if -->}}<!--

So far, I'm not sure where the start of the "Holding #if" is located -- it isn't the end of the {{#if:{{{ArgueDate|}}}... mentioned much earlier above..? Seems very distant. Thanks for any help pointing me in the right direction. Sardanaphalus (talk) 04:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That "}}" ends the code "{{#if:{{{QuestionsPresented|}}}||" I believe. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• Ah yes, thanks. I also worked out where {{#if:{{{ArgueDate|}}}... ended. Thanks also for the two example templates above, which reminded me that the various possible permutations of the Court's findings need to be handled. So, here's the prototype Infobox version -- without a working Court composition section, as I'm still getting my head around handling that in a wider context. I also have the feeling that the Categorization at the end of the template may be streamlined somehow, perhaps using one or more #switches. You may already have been there and tried it, though..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 06:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Notes upon a cursory look at the template:

1. Having the text smaller next to "Submitted," etc. looks strange. One font for entire section would probably be better.
2. Full case name should probably be two-columned like all the other fields. Seems strange to distinguish it so much.
3. Docket2, Docket3, etc.: might be better to use bold middots there or semi-colons. I liked how the bold middots looked when you used them in earlier prototypes.
4. Instead of Template:SCOTUS composition, I might suggest using a subpage of Template:Infobox SCOTUS case (like Template:Infobox SCOTUS case/Composition), but only if it's only going to be used in conjunction with the infobox. If not, a separate template is fine. (Don't know what your current reuse plans are.)
5. Putting the "Joined by" text under the main author is interesting and might work well, I'm just a bit concerned how it will look with four or five (or as many as seven) names there.
6. The "Seriatim" parameter seems to not be set to valign="top" which looks strange mixed in with the other rows.
7. There looks to be some whitespace under the "Overruled" parameter which should be removed.
8. The "This box" links should probably only include "view" and "talk." As you're aware, not many people would find the "edit" link very useful. ;-)

--MZMcBride (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the above. Taking your observations in order:

1. The smaller font-size would only appear on the template page.
2. Well, I've noticed these full case names can be quite long, but, for now at least, have switched it to the two-column format. I have the feeling, though, that other as well as this might be too long for the two-column format.
3. Okay, have restored the (middot) dividers. As above, though, their length may mean linebreaks between them are a clearer presentation.
4. I've been experimenting with the possibility of the "all-in-one" template to handle the Court compositions here and in place of {{start U.S. Supreme Court composition}} etc, but currently have a design that'd simply be too bloated. For now, I could transfer the Court composition code used in Infobox SCOTUS case to a separate template in order to cut down Infobox SCOTUS case's size..?
5. I agree and will see what I think when some test examples are created.
6. Fixed by preventing the "Seriatim opinion" label from wrapping.
7. Have reduced accordingly.
8. At present, I don't think it's possible to amend the settings for the {{Tnavbar}} used here; I'll request this at {{Infobox}}.

Sardanaphalus (talk) 18:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Updates to the above:

2. Looking at the two tests (so far) here, especially Grutter v. Bollinger, I think the two-column format squeezes the data, especially in the first section (Full case name, Citations, histories, etc). Permission to implement one-column format?

3. The tests suggest to me that the middot is too insubstantial as a divider. How about ndashes?

4. I'm now thinking about an "all-in-one" template fed by 17 (!) subtemplates, i.e. one for each Chief Justice to date. An example of one of these templates (for the first CJ, John Jay) is here (the name "SCOTUS courts" will need updating) with tests here.

5. I've now amended the "Joined by" behavior.

Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Sure, try the one-column layout and we'll see how it works. (You may also want to poke Chaser or Postdlf if they're about; they'll likely have opinions on this as well.)

The middot does seem rather insignificant. An en-dash or perhaps even a <br /> might be better.

The composition boxes look fine, my only concern would be if there were periods without any Chief Justice (which is certainly possible). Again, I'd poke Chaser or Postdlf to weigh in. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• The tests page now shows the one-column format, both formats, including newlines rather than middots as dividers in the one-column version. The "all-in-one" court composition template without subtemplates is back in the frame -- same links as above -- and since it's organized by Chief Justice, a Chief Justice's name would always appear at the top. I'll now leave invites for Chaser and Postdlf. Sardanaphalus (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks excellent. Great work. Changing from the numbering above...

1. I'm not sure the single column version is strictly necessary, as Grutter v. Bollinger contains an unusually high number of citations (although the history there looks typical, where we have it). In any case, I prefer the two-column version mostly due to familiarity. You might ask at WT:SCOTUS for style opinions.
2. MZM is right about periods w/o Chief Justice. Pinkerton v. United States was decided and heard after Stone died, but before his successor took over. There are probably others (see here for the gaps). That said, anything would be an improvement on our current system of fudging it. If you do sub-templates, it doesn't matter if a "Stone" template includes the brief gap period after his death. Readers won't see the template name or care.
3. Here's how to remove the edit link [3].

Well done.--chaser - t 05:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I support the two column version as well—as well as looking better esthetically, it also functions to better visually separate the blocks of information. Postdlf (talk) 14:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Sick of scrolling section break

• Thanks for the feedback, encouragement and assistance. Looks like the two-column version will be preferred, so the remaining quandry is handling the Court composition. The current system uses years via {{{SCOTUS}}} to identify a Court composition, unlike the system here, Template:SCOTUS courts, which would need a Chief Justice's surname {{{CJ}}} and a number {{{court}}} identifying the Nth composition during his tenure. So,
  1. Using Template:SCOTUS courts (which, as above, could also supersede {{start U.S. Supreme Court composition}}...etc used elsewhere) would mean replacing {{{SCOTUS}}} in all instances of Infobox SCOTUS case with the correct {{{CJ}}} and {{{court}}}. There's also the periods without Chief Justices to accommodate.
  2. Alternatively, I could try producing a less involved version of Template:SCOTUS courts solely for use with Infobox SCOTUS case (i.e. only move the fudge elsewhere);
  3. Or something else. I realize that what I'm looking for is a way to have all the Court compositions in one place, with no particular formatting, to which templates such as Infobox SCOTUS case, Template:SCOTUS courts and/or Template:SCOTUS composition could refer and apply appropriate formatting. So far, though, I haven't worked out or seen how that can be done without duplicating the composition information or producing cumbersome-looking code. Could a computer programmer somewhere enlighten me, or am I looking to try something that can't yet be done?

Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

As a general note, parameters should generally avoid acronyms ({{{ChiefJustice}}} instead of {{{CJ}}}) to avoid confusion. The current implementation uses years rather than names, so breaking that should really probably be avoided. Using years also has the advantage of covering almost all periods, including periods where the Chief Justice was not active.

I'm inclined to leave court composition information separate, though the current code being used in Template:Infobox SCOTUS case could certainly use some cleanup / de-duplication. The best reason to keep the data separate is that the display format (I believe) is currently different. The infobox uses full names, while the court composition boxes use first initial, last name. The idea about keeping "all the Court compositions in one place, with no particular formatting" is a good one, but I'm not sure how feasible it is, especially given the limited string manipulation abilities of the current software.

Going forward, I think the best option is to just focus on this infobox and leave the other templates alone for the moment. I would cut out the large block of code from this template and use a sub-template to reduce the <br /> and bold duplication. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reminder about self-explanatory parameter names. I've now created {{Infobox SCOTUS case/courts}} to handle the Court compositions and updated the Infobox itself with the two-column version from User:Sardanaphalus/Template:Infobox SCOTUS case. Hope all okay. Perhaps the User:Sardanaphalus/Template:SCOTUS courts and its related pages may be useful someday. Sardanaphalus (talk) 13:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

My only concern with this template is that the remaining 8 members of the Court beyond the CJ are referred to as "Associate Justices", not "Associate Judges". BigD527 (talk) 19:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oops, thanks for spotting. Now amended. Sardanaphalus (talk) 04:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Code updates (May 2009)

I put up some updated test cases here: Template:Infobox SCOTUS case/testcases. Not a huge fun of the extra line-height. When there's so much information, keeping it as compact as possible seems wise. Any thoughts on re-compacting it a bit? And, please, let's try to avoid breaking anything (silly typo caused an important link to break). ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Line-height tweaked - how's that? To be honest I'd rather we didn't override it, but we can roll with this for now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks better. The one other thing I noticed is that the box no longer has the "This box: view / edit" links. Intentional? I could go either way on the links, personally. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Intentional. On infoboxes those links are usually just confusing, because editors assume that clicking them will allow them to edit the data in that page's infobox, not the template logic itself. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Superseded and overruled sections

As seen in the infoboxes in Dred Scott v. Sandford and Minersville School District v. Gobitis, the header for the superseded and overruled sections is not appearing as a red band spanning the box, but rather just as a highlight of the header text (and thereby incorrectly appearing as a subtopic of "laws applied"). It should look like it does in Template:Infobox SCOTUS case/sandbox, which seems to have an older version of the template code. Could someone please fix this? The code is currently a little beyond me. Postdlf (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I tried. And failed miserably. Apparently Template:Infobox has re-invented mathematics and no longer uses a standard numbering system. I'll ping Chris about this on his talk page. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Heh.  : ) I love your edit summary. Yeah, I had the same problem—trying to turn the superseded and overruled fields into headers just placed the red highlighted text in a blue bar, and made the "laws applied" content field disappear. I think part of the problem is the headerstyle field near the top of the template code, which sets a default color. I don't know why the other problem with the "laws applied" field is happening. Postdlf (talk) 01:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I restored the div style code to those fields, so the end result will look as it should. It doesn't look too pretty on the template page itself, however. I'm sure someone smarter than me can figure out how to fix that and to simplify the code, but this time hopefully without changing its appearance. Postdlf (talk) 02:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Tidied. To be quite honest I don't really see the value in giving these red backgrounds when we could just use standard headers - the infobox isn't like a medicine bottle where the important stuff needs special highlighting. But for now the code is clean again. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: add fields for "RespondentArgueby" and "PetitionerArgueby"?

I'd like to propose that we permit an optional field for the names of the attorneys who argued the case. If I were king of the world, this information would never belong in any USSC article, as it's rarely notable, and reeks of vanity and gossip. However, it keeps cropping up in articles, and always in the Lead (because that's where people put things that don't belong anywhere else). I sometimes delete it, but I know some confederate of the attorney or firm is going to slip it in when I'm not looking -- and I don't want to descend to an edit war.

Instead, I'd like to move this stuff to some innocuous position in the Infobox, with an edit summary like "moved attorneys' names to infobox per Policy X". Then if someone tries to slip it back into the Lead, I'll say, "hi there, Policy X says that belongs only in the Infobox." He gets to enjoy his vanity, and I get to enjoy an uncontaminated article. Agradman ^{appreciates civility}/_{makes occasional mistakes} 20:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's often unimportant, though I think incorporating it into page text isn't too difficult or awkward. I'd be inclined to not want it in an infobox. Adding the parameter actively encourages users to seek out and add the info, something I think we want to avoid. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Previous discussion here. If lawyers spamming themselves is what we're avoiding, I don't think this will be an effective solution. Instead of an "optional" field, we'll have a hodgepodge of the truly notable (Thurgood Marshall in Brown) and spam. But is this really a serious problem?--chaser (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Wow, I didn't realize I was reviving such a traumatic history. No, it's not really a serious problem, I'll cope. Agradman ^{appreciates civility}/_{makes occasional mistakes} 23:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Datelinks?

Can someone explain this to me. It appears that the template makes the articles it is used on link to the dates that are used in the template. The links are not visible in the article, but they appear in Special pages such as Special:WHatLinksHere and Special:RecentChangesLinked. Example. Special:RecentChangesLinked/Chisholm v. Georgia shows changes in the article February 5. And Special:WhatLinksHere/February shows that Febryary is linked from Miller v. Schoene. Rettetast (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The template tests several parameters to see whether there exist articles of the same name, using {{#ifexist:...|...|...}}. Even though the pages are not in fact linked, the test is sufficient for the connection to be recorded on WhatLinksHere.

If a relevant parameter is assigned a value and there exists no wiki page of that name (perhaps because a date is misspelled or badly punctuated), then the template flags the argument as invalid by categorizing the transcluding article under Category:Flagged U.S. Supreme Court articles.

The parameters tested are: SubmitDate, SubmitYear, ArgueDate, ArgueYear, ArgueDateA, ReargueDate, ReargueYear, ReargueDateA, ReargueDate2, ReargueYear2, ReargueDateA2, DecideDate and DecideYear.

— Richardguk (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Cross-referencing to User talk:Full-date unlinking bot#Template:Infobox SCOTUS case. — Richardguk (talk) 13:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:MOSDASH

Dear colleagues, this template presents a problem in that when the year-range hyphen is changed to an en dash, as has been required for some years by the style guide, the names of the judges are not displayed.

As Mackensen and User:Christopher Parham have pointed out: compare the court membership session in [4] vs. [5].

The dash bot widely used to bring articles into compliance on this matter changes this punctuation as well as that in the main text. In addition, the year ranges on the documentation page overleaf need to be changed to en dashes.

My question is: can the syntax in this template be changed to accept both hyphen and en dash in this role, since it will be a gradual job to bring these articles into line with current practice. Tony (talk) 01:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes it can be changed to accommodate both. Doing so would be mind-numbingly stupid, though. It's template code. It shouldn't be using special characters or trying to adhere to a style guideline meant for article text. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The reason for doing so is so that Greg U's excellent dash script can be run through this large category of articles, which desperately need to be updated in this respect (aside from the appalling level of overlinking). The script is not built to disregard wrongly used hyphens within infoboxes.

So, can this be done, please? Tony (talk) 13:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't say that a hyphen is "wrongly used" when it's just entered as part of a template parameter; it doesn't get displayed that way when executed, and it makes sense for template code to be based on simple keyboard strokes. So it isn't a good idea at all to remove the template's ability to accept hyphens. As for whether it should also accept en dashes...MZMcBride is more of a code expert than I am, so he'd be better able to tell whether it's worth the trouble. Why not alter your script to disregard hyphens used in template code? I don't see why that would be any more difficult. postdlf (talk) 13:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't really want to be the one to do it, but if you were going to, you'd update Template:Infobox SCOTUS case/courts with the content from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=350802821 and then update the Template:Infobox SCOTUS case#Court membership documentation. That should work, though I haven't tested it thoroughly.

Still, wiki template code is essentially a programming language. A really stupid programming language, granted, but not something to apply article text style guidelines to. That isn't to say that programming languages don't often have their own style guidelines, but in order to be as accessible as possible, nearly all programming languages rely on keys that are easiest to type. PHP would never use "→" when "->" will always work, for example. I agree with postdlf: it would be much wiser to have this script ignore template parameters. Perhaps not their values, but the parameter names themselves are easier to leave alone than not. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

No need to modify this template; I should be able to add this as a special case to my script, as I have with other templates. The only question I have is, are you aware of any other templates with the same situation – where a hyphenated number or year range is used as a key? I want to make the fix as general as possible. —GregU (talk) 06:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd recommend, if possible, writing a generic exception to touching all template parameter names. However, knowing that trying to parse MediaWiki syntax is nearly impossible, I realize this may not be doable. I don't know of any other templates that use a similar year range pattern. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It's in the value, not the name (|SCOTUS=1988-1990) and many other templates with year ranges in values like this display them instead of using them as keys. I'll probably just add "SCOTUS" to the list of prefix exception words. Assuming phrases like "SCOTUS 1998–2005" don't normally occur in prose... —GregU (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Separate opinion

I've run into a slight problem with Coates v. Cincinnati. Hugo Black issued a "separate opinion" (see syllabus here). It's neither a concurrence nor a dissent, and I don't think it qualifies as a "seriatim opinion" either. What's the best way to handle this? Mackensen (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Huh. I would've said concurrence off-hand, though oyez.org calls it a dissent. It's easy enough to add a another parameter if necessary. I cross-posted this to WT:SCOTUS for hopefully further input. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

See this AP account, which characterizes the decision as "5-3" and noted the Black refused to join either side. Mackensen (talk) 22:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

John A. Campbell

This link appears to be to a dab page, as seen at Fellows v. Blacksmith. However, the link appears to be correct at Template:Infobox SCOTUS case/courts. Could someone correct or advise? Savidan 05:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixed: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=407864252&oldid=395454647. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

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)

I just added a link to the transcripts and audio to Citizens United. A script should be able to add OralArgument links to all the cases, using the Docket= field, but I don't know where to start. There's audio going back to 1969. --Elvey (talk) 07:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

US reports volume and page should be an optional parameter

For cases in the past few years, these are simply not available, and making them a required parameter makes this look bad. The CitationNew parameter is an incomplete solution because it just encourages un-authoritative guessing. Further, CitationNew suppresses Citations, which is non-sensical, because the Supreme Court Reporter, and plenty of other reporters, will be available long before the U.S. Reports. Savidan 17:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

We always know what volume they are going to be in, just not the page at first. I think we should leave in the incomplete U.S. Reports citation for the sake of completeness (ironic, no?). The Supreme Court itself tells us that the citation for this case, for example, is 563 U.S. ___ (2011). postdlf (talk) 22:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Docket numbers

These should be de-linked for older cases that do not follow XX-XXXX. Currently, the docket numbers for old cases produce gibberish links to supremecourt.gov. Savidan 00:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you know the cutoff date? postdlf (talk) 02:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks like Bush v. Gore is the cut off. I'm not saying docket numbers shouldn't be included in the template for prior cases; only that they shouldn't be linked according to the current algorithm. Savidan 17:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

When template adds article to Category:Flagged U.S. Supreme Court articles

From discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Supreme_Court_cases#How_remove_from_.22Flagged_U.S._Supreme_Court_articles.22_category.3F:

If the SCOTUSCase Infobox contains certain errors, it will automatically add the article (that the InfoBox is within) to the Category:Flagged U.S. Supreme Court articles category. What are the errors that cause this flagging? According to user Richardguk:

Looking at the template code, I think the category gets added if one or both of the following conditions are true:

• 1. {{{SCOTUS}}} is blank or missing AND
  2. {{{Outcome}}} is blank or missing

OR

• 1. {{{USVol}}} is not equal to 1 AND
  2. any of the following parameters fail the test below: {{{SubmitDate}}}, {{{SubmitYear}}}, {{{ArgueDate}}}, {{{ArgueYear}}}, {{{ArgueDateA}}}, {{{ReargueDate}}}, {{{ReargueYear}}}, {{{ReargueDateA}}}, {{{ReargueDate2}}}, {{{ReargueYear2}}}, {{{ReargueDateA2}}}, {{{DecideDate}}}, {{{DecideYear}}}.
     A parameter in the above list fails the test if it is non-blank AND does not match the title of an existing Wikipedia article (this is a quick-and-dirty test of whether the date is in a common format, as there are article titles for years and each day of the year).

In all flagged cases, if {{{category}}} is supplied, then its contents are inserted instead of "[[Category:Flagged U.S. Supreme Court articles]]". So, for example, an alternative category could be specified; or, if {{{category}}} were specified as blank, the tests would have no effect and the invalid parameters would not be flagged at all (not recommended).

The {{{Outcome}}} and {{{category}}} parameters seem to be undocumented, so the first test in effect flags the absence of {{{SCOTUS}}}.

Hope that clarifies, or at least agrees with your own understanding! [from user richardguk]

--Noleander (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I changed the template so it ignores ArgueDate and ReargueDate, since those are often two days, e.g. "January 14, 17". However, the offending articles still appear in the Category:Flagged U.S. Supreme Court articles ... I suppose they are inserted there whenever the article is edited/saved. So, I believe that all the articles have to have some trivial edit made to them to get them removed from the category. --Noleander (talk) 15:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it would be simpler to delete the entire category; then re-create it, empty? That would be a fresh start: all future save actions will add erroneous articles to the Category. --Noleander (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I see that your template amendment has since been reverted. I've commented at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases#How remove from "Flagged U.S. Supreme Court articles" category?, as the template already has a way of dealing with date ranges. All articles and category lists should (eventually) update automatically if their templates are changed, though this can sometimes take a while if there is a backlog of server jobs (particularly for readers who are not logged in and reading cached pages). Deletion would not be simpler. — Richardguk (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Template is too rigid

I see another editor had a problem with the template: [6]. In that discussion, there is references to a Talk page discusion from 2010 that went over similar problems. To summarize what Ive seen:

• The template flags articles as "needing attention" when a valid date-range is input for the ArguedDate (described here)
• The template has problems when ndashes are used (vs hyphens) reported by others: I have not tried it

It would be nice if the template were more flexible and didn't take a RTFM approach to normal user editing practices. --Noleander (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Ignore the flagged category? The input validation is rudimentary, but I don't see any particular problems being reported. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is "Outcome" param used?

The template includes a test:

{{#if:{{{Outcome|}}}|Original jurisdiction

which builds up a header string. The "Outcome" parameter is not documented in the Documentation page; and even if it were: Why is the string "Original jurisdiction" being output? Should the above be removed since it is undocumented and, apparently, erroneous? --Noleander (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

(Cross-referencing Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases#How remove from "Flagged U.S. Supreme Court articles" category?) The undocumented {{{Outcome}}} parameter seems to have been added by MZMcBride in April 2007. I haven't attempted to work out what its meaning. — Richardguk (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

When something is undocumented, the answer is usually to document it, not call for it to be removed because you don't understand its purpose.

Template:SCOTUSCase and original jurisdiction lawsuits

Please make sure you change the "holding" section to "outcome" for OJ suit articles. Though New York v. Connecticut only had one reported SCOTUS decision, this won't be the case for all such suits, and the infobox shouldn't try to track more than what the final resolution was, especially since these are more about the consequences for the state parties, rather than to resolve questions of law as with its appellate jurisdiction cases. There also should be a way to handle Court membership changes over the course of an OJ suit, as many of these lasted for years, or even decades. Cheers, Postdlf 03:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Hope that helps. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Links to dates

There seems to be something in this template that set up links to the date fields specified as values in articles using this template. These are unnecesary date links, but I cannot find the code in this template that is doing this linking. Any ideas? Hmains (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Where are you seeing these links? In Special:WhatLinksHere or in the HTML of the infobox? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

by going to the year article and looking for 'what links here'. Hmains (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Example: 1941 and Edwards v. California Hmains (talk) 03:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Right. It's a quirk of some of the data input validation methods employed by this template. #ifexist relies on the pagelinks table, so even though a link isn't output, Special:WhatLinksHere will list the entry. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

It is not the only one; I see at least such 6 templates like this. Is there some way to 'fix' this code? I know amost nothing about template code. Hmains (talk) 03:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Multiple decisions

[moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases#Multiple decisions]

Citation Duplication

I just fixed the infobox for Egelhoff v. Egelhoff, which had been showing "{{{Citation}}}" since that field was not included. The whole confuses me, however, as it's rendered -- or it renders -- redundant the two earlier lines' mention of "USVol" and "USPage". To wit, the infobox now shows the citation twice, with the first line linking to the volumes of the reporter but not listing and the second including the year but no links. Someone who better understands SOP surrounding boxes may be able to explain or remedy this result that seems to me unhelpful. Or perhaps I've misunderstood something. Czrisher (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

"Citation" is an old alias for "ParallelCitations". I fixed up the infobox in this edit. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for Citation field

[moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases#Proposal for Citation field]