Template talk:SCOTUS URL Docket
Latest comment: 5 years ago by MZMcBride in topic Different URLs
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Different URLs
edithttps://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-1150.html
v.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-1061.htm
There are different URL forms and they don't appear to be interchangeable. Bleh. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- @MZMcBride: Fixed! The template now merely splits the docket number in two and invokes another template that determines what URL format to use. BenbowInn (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hi BenbowInn. Thank you for your efforts! It looks like en dashes now cause the template to break (example below). Can we please fix this? I'm also perplexed by the creation of Template:SCOTUS URL Docket New. Is there a reason that Template:SCOTUS URL Docket couldn't be edited directly? The indirection is a little aggravating when you go to edit Template:Infobox SCOTUS case, find out the docket number is controlled by Template:SCOTUS URL Docket, and then find out that the real logic is at Template:SCOTUS URL Docket New. Removing a layer might be nice. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- @MZMcBride: I did it that way because I do not have permission to edit {{Infobox SCOTUS case}}, so I cannot remove its many uses of {{SCOTUS URL Docket}}. As it stands I've just been changing en dashes to hyphens whenever I find them. I don't have the energy to fix the template right now. What I can tell you is: (1) this template as I have modified it relies on {{First word}}, which seems unable to handle multiple separators; (2) my solution doesn't work for every case, as there are cases in the 2015-2017 terms using the "wrong" format, and original jurisdiction cases don't work at all. Maybe the template should be reworked to construct the URL according to a provided parameter indicating its format, or maybe we should just provide the URL outright. BenbowInn (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Meh, I fixed the hyphen/en dash bug. Edit permissions aren't relevant since another user can make the edit if needed. And because Template:SCOTUS URL Docket was edited to use Template:SCOTUS URL Docket New rather than being a totally separate fork of the template, you already edited every use of the former. Shrug. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- @MZMcBride: I did it that way because I do not have permission to edit {{Infobox SCOTUS case}}, so I cannot remove its many uses of {{SCOTUS URL Docket}}. As it stands I've just been changing en dashes to hyphens whenever I find them. I don't have the energy to fix the template right now. What I can tell you is: (1) this template as I have modified it relies on {{First word}}, which seems unable to handle multiple separators; (2) my solution doesn't work for every case, as there are cases in the 2015-2017 terms using the "wrong" format, and original jurisdiction cases don't work at all. Maybe the template should be reworked to construct the URL according to a provided parameter indicating its format, or maybe we should just provide the URL outright. BenbowInn (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hi BenbowInn. Thank you for your efforts! It looks like en dashes now cause the template to break (example below). Can we please fix this? I'm also perplexed by the creation of Template:SCOTUS URL Docket New. Is there a reason that Template:SCOTUS URL Docket couldn't be edited directly? The indirection is a little aggravating when you go to edit Template:Infobox SCOTUS case, find out the docket number is controlled by Template:SCOTUS URL Docket, and then find out that the real logic is at Template:SCOTUS URL Docket New. Removing a layer might be nice. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/12–1234.html