Template talk:UnitedStatesCode

How to use this

Cornell University has the United States Code online in its entirety: this template adds a URL to titles and sections of the code.

{{UnitedStatesCode|title|section}}

Template:Usc redirects here, so you may also use the shortcut {{usc}}.

{{usc|title|section}}

Example

• {{usc|18|2702}}
• this becomes 18 U.S.C. § 2702

See also

• Template:UnitedStatesCode2
• Template:Usc-clause
• Template:Usc
• Template:Usc-title-chap
• Template:Usc-title-part-chap

Discussion

Why not use Cornell's site (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode) instead?

I'm working on a new template, Template:USCode, that will implement it.

However, I'm not good at these things, so any (all) help would be greatly appreciated.

--Markles 21:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

U.S. Code

The following comment was copied from my talk page to here, to make it easier for people to follow the discussion in the future. Markles has been notified on his talk page. --Arcadian 20:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

You've made a great template, Template:UnitedStatesCode. It uses FindLaw. I'm an attorney and I use and like Findlaw. On the other hand, Cornell's site is a lot cleaner, slicker, and more attractive to the common user & Wikipedian. So I'm looking into trying a Template that uses Cornell's site: Template:USCode. However, I'm not having much luck because I'm not good at this stuff. Can you give me some advice? You can answer here instead of my user page. --Markles 21:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. Unfortunately, I think that it might be beyond my ability to create the needed template. I did a little research on the format of the URLs. Here are two examples, to contrast FindLaw with Cornell:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=28&sec=1350

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00001350----000-.html

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=922

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000922----000-.html

As you can see, Cornell's site requires padding of the zeros, while FindLaw's site does not, and unfortunately the Cornell site crashes if you leave the extra zero out, and I don't know how to get the template feature to provide this padding. But the door isn't necessarily closed -- we'll leave this discussion here, and if somebody with better skills than me comes along, or if new features are added to the MediaWiki software to support padding, then we may be able to switch over in the future. --Arcadian 20:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

OK. I found some of the same problems at the Cornell site (the leading zeros, etc).  :( I am undaunted. Can someone figure this out? Maybe we need to contact the Cornell people. --Markles 21:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I just discovered this template... as I was working on the USA PATRIOT Act I have actually sorted out this issue independently. You might want to look at {{usc}} and {{usc-clause}}. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

(Recently discovered and conformed these templates.) Cornell does have title-section (and, for that matter, title-chapter, etc.) links: cut everything after the "uscode/" and replace with titlenumber/sectionnumber.html, e.g., http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1350.html. (Chapters are coded as titlenumber/chchapernumber.html, e.g., http://www.law.cornell.edu/17/ch1.html and so forth.) -User:Sisyphe

Other Sources

Washingtonwatchdog.org

http://www.washingtonwatchdog.org/documents/usc/ttl5/ptIII/subptE/ch61/subchI/sec6103.html, used by Holidays of the United States (as of 20:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)). This is nice because it allows linking to specific titles, parts, subparts, chapters, subchapters, or sections. I think Template:USC only allows linking to the section. I generally prefer the Cornell links, however. Just thought I'd pass this along. —Markles (markles) 20:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Formatting

I removed the italics. —Markles (markles) December 28, 2005

I also removed <span class=plainlinksneverexpand>. I think the reader should know (at least in this case) that they're going outside of wikipedia. —Markles (markles) 18:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

You just broke the article when it is printed. I'm putting it back in - when you print I really don't care about the URL in the text. Try printing one of my USA PATRIOT Act articles and you'll see what I mean. The link, incidently, is a slightly different colour and this indicates that it's not an internal wikilink. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I know that this is an old conversation, but I was surprised just now when I clicked on a USC section link and ended up at Cornell's web site. I agree with Markles that these links to Cornell should indicate to the reader that clicking on them will take them away from Wikipedia. While I can sympathize with Ta bu shi da yu that it might not look good when printed, the primary use of Wikipedia is to be online and interactive, not printed. I rarely print anything. I think this printing argument for not including the external link indicator is very weak. Incidentally, I tried printing an article that included external links with indicators and the indicators were not printed. I believe that's because Wikipedia specifies different CSS for printing, which hides the indicators. I think that the span should be removed from the template again. --Lance E Sloan (talk) 14:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with your new points. I've removed the span. How's it look to you now?—Markles 11:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I changed spaces to   (non-breaking spaces) so now the citation will all stay on the same line. —Markles (markles) 01:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I brought the title number into the wikilink to result in only 2 colors in the output as opposed to 3 colors. --G1076 00:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The periods

Ta ba shi or whatever his name is took out the periods in U.S.C. on March 15. I put them back in on March 18 because that's the way the U.S.C. is always cited in Bluebook style, which most federal and state courts adhere to. --Coolcaesar 01:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Should I feel insulted you can't get my username right when it's right in the page history? Anyway, I see what you are saying and agree with your decision. It's just that most other sources that I read don't use this, however THOMAS does and as you say Bluebook style wants this. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Footnote trouble

After looking at the 80ish footnotes of redundant listings I figured why not actually put the links into the text and have a real reference for the cornell site. That reduced the footnotes down to a reasonable size but someone should go back and look over it to make sure I didn't put something out of context.-Darkwraith 19:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with what you did to USA PATRIOT Act, Title III. It makes the text harder to read. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

how to cite entire title (no sections)?

Suppose I simply want to refer to an entire Title sans chapters/sections/etc. Can I do this with one of these templates? For example, I want to state that the mission of the U.S. Census Bureau is defined in Title 13 U.S.C.. Any suggestions? older ≠ wiser 20:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)?

I just found and made my first use of the UnitedStatesCode tempate. Thanks for it! Now, is there a similar template for the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)? The US GPO has an electronic version posted at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html . In searching Wikipedia, I've not found any appropriate templates. --Jdlh | Talk

CFR means 'category for renaming' on Wikipedia so they don't use the normal abbreviation, which is why a search might be fruitless. You're probably looking for "Template:CodeFedReg" (Although (slightly not unrelatedly) Fed. Reg. can also stand for the Federal Register) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.65.109.10 (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

switch from Cornell to a non-commercial site?

It appears that Cornell is now requiring cookies and asking for donations. Would it be possible to like to a non-commercial site instead? It appears that http://law2.house.gov/search/criteria.shtml may let us construct appropriate URLs and that would be to a more authoratative source anyway. Wrs1864 20:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

They do that once or twice a year. It's no big deal. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with TBSDY, but if anyone can find a better way to link to a better site, then I'm all for it. I've been having trouble, for instance, making {{Usc-title-chap}} work right.—Markles 14:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected

This is a high visibility template because that it is used on {{PD-USGov}}. Cburnett 02:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

New template: USCSub

I wrote a new template {{UnitedStatesCodeSub}} because the cornell pages have anchors embedded for each subsection, subparagraph, etc. I'm not sure of the precise wording that would go best in the docs so please correct if needed.

Example: {{uscsub|21|811|d|2|B}} yields 21 U.S.C. § 811(d)(2)(B). Note the "d_2_B" anchor in the URL which will jump the browser to the appropriate clause.

Cburnett (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Why does this not use the Office of the Law Revision Counsel?

Great template! Thanks a lot. I'm curious though, why are we not using the Office of the Law Revision Counsel instead? It may not look as cute, but it's somewhat of a more direct source I believe. WDavis1911 (talk) 08:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law/Archive 6#Why use Cornell.edu instead of us.gov?. Cheers! bd2412 T 08:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't <ref> be used?

I think that the link should generate a note and a link in the references section, i.e. <ref> should be used. 167.107.191.217 (talk) 13:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps a new template could be used for that. Right now, however, this template is useful for putting the citation directly into the text.—Markles 14:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

USSG

Is there no template for U.S. Sentencing Guidelines? Tisane (talk) 01:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Looks like there is none. Do you want to make one? Do you know how? I can help; let me know. —Markles 13:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I created Template:USSG and Template:USSGSub. So, {{USSG|3A1.1}} produces U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1 (2012) and {{USSGSub|3|A|1|1}} produces U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1 (2012). What do you think? At least this way, we won't have to update urls on every page that quotes the USSG every time the U.S. Sentencing Commission issues a new guidelines manual. We can just update the template. Tisane (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Looks like your 5th & 6th paramenters aren't working. (As of now.) Can you fix that?—Markles 22:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This template violates the Bluebook

Where multiple sections are cited, §§ should be used instead of §. For example, 1 U.S.C. §§ 1-2, not 1 U.S.C. § 1-2. Don't know how to fix this technically, but I estimate this has created thousands of inaccurate citations. Savidan 19:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• The Bluebook is not the Wikipedia style guide, the citations are accurate. They are just not formatted the way the editors of that style guide think it should be edited. Nevertheless, I have made the change to the code. Does it work now?—Markles 20:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The double §§ is good. That is not just used by the Bluebook, but basically every system of legal citation in the US. Another change that would be in accordance with those style guides, but perhaps difficult to achieve technically is to drop repetitive digits, except for the last two, and except when all the numbers are the same. For example, instead of 1 U.S.C. §§ 100-125, it should be 1 U.S.C. §§ 100-25. But, 1 U.S.C. §§ 100-100aa should be left as is. Savidan 15:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Appendices unsupported?

How does one link to this? http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode46a/usc_sec_46a_00000723----000-.html  Sandstein  22:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Alas, we haven't (yet) found a way to work it into this template.—Markles 01:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks anyway,  Sandstein  14:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems like we should be able to support the idea that LII has pages with an "a" for the Appendices, i.e. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18a. Would this be better done in a different (new) template? The deeplinks to sections appendices give me the willies, since they kind of scream "not a durable URL," but I guess linking to them with an html link without a template is better than nothing. jhawkinson (talk) 01:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit request: §§ as "sub-section"

{{edit semi-protected}} Template does not correctly render ranges of sections. Cf., i.e., Sherman_Act. The *sections* 1-7 are erroneously labeled as *sub*sections. BUG! 207.22.49.29 (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see the problem. "§§" means "sections" as the plural of "section." Am I wrong?—Markles 20:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

No external links within article text

Please see discussion at Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive_33#Template:UnitedStatesCode regarding the use of this template in article text (as distinct from the references or external links section). Cnilep (talk) 03:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

This could easily be resolved by defining a new parameter such as |inline=1. When specified, the wikilink would remain intact, and only the external link would be suppressed. In this mode, editors would be able to utilize these templates to properly format inline mentions of regulations, etc. within article texts. If one really wanted to be precise, one could also define another parameter such as |nowikilink=1, which could be used to suppress subsequent internal links for multiple mentions of the same title within the same article. Personally, I think the latter option might be overkill. —grolltech^(talk) 23:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Sea of blue

Consistent with WP:Sea of blue, wouldn't it be better to not link the section (§) symbol, so the internal link to the title and the external link to the actual code don't appear to be a single link? --205.254.147.8 (talk) 13:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

New notitle parameter

I have added a "notitle" parameter to prevent display of the title, for use when multiple citations are desired but without repeating superfluous title information, as is demonstrated on Template:UnitedStatesCode/testcases. Int21h (talk) 23:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

In the documentation, I've expanded "Usage" section, and have added an example to the "Examples" section. Thanks! —grolltech^(talk) 07:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Handling usc|ch|sec(1)(A)(i) type invocations, or a bot to autocorrect; transferred codes; https for links

I just manually corrected a bunch of citations at Paperwork Reduction Act that were made using the format "usc|ch|sec(1)(A)(i)", e.g. 44 U.S.C. § 3506(c)(1)(B)(iii)(IV) -> 44 U.S.C. § 3506(c)(1)(B)(iii)(IV).

1. Could the template itself handle this style of invocation?
2. If not, could someone please make a bot to autocorrect as I did (preferably doing a validation check against the Cornell site to ensure that the page and anchor are present)?
3. Could a bot check the Cornell site to check whether a code has been moved, e.g. 42 U.S.C. § 1971 -> 52 U.S.C. § 10101 or the entire FECA transfer, eg 2 U.S.C. § 437f -> 52 U.S.C. § 30108 (which Cornell has with a dash at the end for some reason)
4.  Done Could the template change all Cornell links from http to https? Their full site is https now, and linking to http first presents a security & privacy vulnerability.

Thanks! Sai ¿?✍ 11:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Saizai: I'm not sure what you mean by "this style of invocation". It looks like there's a separate template, Template:USCSub, for linking to subsections. Changing the protocol used should be as easy as changing "http://" to "https://" in this template. Are you asking for a bot to change all instances of {{usc|<A>|<B>(<C>)(<D>)}} to {{USCSub|<A>|<B>|<C>|<D>}}? That and checking whether they've moved should be pretty easy. KSFT^C 22:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@KSFT: I don't have edit rights to the template, so I can't change http -> https. It should be a trivial change, though. [ETA: looks like I was wrong. Changed.] Re. bot: yup, exactly that — or have {{usc|<A>|<B>(<C>)(<D>)}} just work directly, which would be more robust than having separate templates. Sai ¿?✍ 16:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Link no longer working

I'm concerned that the external link to the Cornell site generated by this template may no longer be working. I made an edit to Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban to use this template for 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) and was surprised to see the link got sent to a "Lost and Found" page at Cornell. The issue was not just with the new link I added--for example the existing link to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) is no longer working either. It appears that Cornell has redesigned their site such that many of the old links no longer yet, but I haven't yet been able to figure out what--if any--new links may be appropriate. Dash77 (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

You need to use USCsub, like so: 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8). Sai ¿?✍

Template points to 404

See edit summary. Should I bring (minor) Template:CRS issue up at that talk page, separately?

42 U.S.C. § 1973gg(b) is not valid because there is no section "1973gg(b)" of title 42. See {{usc|42|1973gg}}: 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 04:58, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 March 2020

Remove the dots from "U.S.C." as per MOS:US. Getsnoopy (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Remove dots as per MOS:US

The MoS currently states that any abbreviation/initialism that is 3 letters or more shouldn't have dots, but this template still outputs it as such. This should change. Getsnoopy (talk) 23:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 08:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 12 June 2020

Could a non-breaking space be added between the title number and "U.S.C."? Currently something like "12 U.S.C. § 123(a)" can end up with "12" at the end of a line and "U.S.C." at the start of the next line. I think keeping those elements together would help readability. It appears that the rest of the spaces are already non-breaking. Brad (talk) 04:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

If they are all non-breaking spaces, is there any danger that this will be rather long and have no breaking spaces? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

To editor Martin: length of template rendering is 42 U.S.C. § 12101, so a nbsp would work better than no nbsp. So...

To editor Brad:  done. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 17:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Restore periods per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Legal

User:Getsnoopy's request above to drop the periods from this template should never have been implemented. I request that the periods be restored immediately.

User:Jonesey95 correctly pointed out that such a controversial change requires consensus. User:Getsnoopy has done nothing of the sort to try to reach such consensus.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Legal under "Citations and referencing" indicates that "it is recommended that editors use the referencing style for the jurisdiction that heard that case or for which that legal subject applies." For the United States, it is recommended that one uses the Bluebook or ALWD systems, both of which use periods.

User:Getsnoopy is advocating a difficult-to-read style of citation that would get an attorney fired for cause from any legal job in at least 47 states, one federal district, and all inhabited federal territories. (The exceptions are New York, Michigan, and Oregon.) Anyone who has attended any decent law school--or for that matter, any decent graduate school--knows that U.S.C. is always spelled with periods. This can be easily verified by looking at, for example, Cornell Law School's guide to legal citation.

Also, anyone with basic computer science or computer programming training would know that U.S.C. is just a lot easier to parse and read. (The man who taught my freshman introductory computer science course is famous enough that he is the subject of his own Wikipedia article.) --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

To editor Coolcaesar: since the consensus for removal of the full stops is a community consensus found at MOS:US, and since MOS:LAW asks editors to "consider using..." outside style manuals, you are asked to first seek a consensus change for putting the full stops back before using the edit template-protected template. Thank you for your contributions! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 23:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Did you actually read my statement above? User:Getsnoopy didn't bother to get consensus in the first place. The consensus was in favor of periods all along. It is an appalling indicator of bad faith on your part to ask me to obtain consensus when User:Getsnoopy did not bother to comply with that process and was therefore acting in bad faith.

You should not be editing citation templates if you do not understand Wikipedia policy or proper citation practices. I work in an profession where I am judged on my ability to correctly cite legal authority every day and I started editing this encyclopedia five years before you. --Coolcaesar (talk) 00:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't use Bluebook style. There's no reason why style that would "get an attorney fired" (a gross exaggeration, btw.) from a job that requires to them to use a particular stylebook ought to be determinative here at Wikipedia. Or course it's factor, but there are lots of instances of style conflict. We resolve them without absolutism, and certainly not in the fashion that the argument is made above. It's not about yelling, it's not about bad faith, it's not about what the legal profession does. Let's all please handle this in a different and more collegial fashion. Thanks. jhawkinson (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I can read and I did read your post... every word. The reason I granted this edit request is that there was already a standing consensus, a community consensus, an agreement by editors that articles in this encyclopedia should follow a particular style. In this case the consensus that the requestor most certainly mentioned was the consensus that supports the MOS guideline cited by the requestor. That has already been explained, and the requestor has acted in good faith to point out the error that was in this template. Now if you would be so kind, I wonder if you can explain why you appear to refuse to follow an important Wikipedia behavioral guideline as can be seen by how you refer to the requestor and by how you react to my editing. I respect and celebrate that you have been editing this reference work for nearly sixteen years, and I congratulate you for your obvious passion on this issue. I hope you will understand that the underlying community consensus has already chimed in on this issue, and that consensus can change. Rather than to fight uphill against the MoS, all that is needed is a Local Consensus here on this talk page that can determine if we should follow the MoS guideline cited by the requestor, or if we should do as the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Legal guideline tells us to "consider using Bluebook, ALWD, or an official state system" instead of the MOS:US Wikipedia style guideline. That's all you are asked to do... garner a consensus to override MOS:US and be guided by the legal MoS guideline instead. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 08:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

 Undone: further research yields that Coolcaesar's position has merit; therefore, I have reverted my previous removal of the full stops. This was determined by an above discussion from 2006, as well as the fact that consistency is warranted by other similar templates such as {{UnitedStatesCode2}}, {{UnitedStatesCodeClause}}, {{Usc-title-chap}}, {{UnitedStatesCodeSub}} and {{CodeFedReg}}. This depicts an obvious long-term consensus to use Bluebook, THOMAS, etc., as style guides for this issue. So Jonesey95 was correct to require that Getsnoopy garner a new consensus to override MOS:LAW and the existing long-term consensus that supports "U.S.C." instead of "USC". P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 10:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, it would have been preferable if you had recognized that in the first place, but better late than never. Thank you for recognizing your error and reverting your edit. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Great Caesar's ghost! Always a pleasure to do the right thing, no matter how much cool crow another editor makes me eat. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 16:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)