Template talk:Ussc

This template was considered for deletion on 2016 May 25. The result of the discussion was "merge".

Archives

justia reference doesn't work for recent cases

545 U.S. 748 for example (see here) redirects to https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/545/748/case.html which is a 'page not found'. Removing the 'case.html' at the end does link to the case though. Old cases like 410 U.S. 113 seem to work both with 'case.html' and without. So I'll take a chance and update the template. Olivier Diotte (talk) 03:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, test it out and report any errors here. — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably put it back for the simple reason that I doubt the pin citations (e.g., 296 U.S. 1, 68 <--- the bolded second page cite pointing to a particular page within the opinion) will work if "case.html" is removed. Or, if you can verify the pin cites still function, I don't see a problem. However, the template documentation should probably mention that it won't work for U.S. Reports volumes 558 and greater, since that's where Justia stopped organizing their cases by the U.S. Reports case citation. --- <3 the original pincite template developer, Foofighter20x (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bah. Fatfingered it: corrected Justia's U.S. Reports max above. Also, it appears the file directory structure there no longer requires the "case.html", so good call. ---- Foofighter20x (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So far, from what I can see, it seems to work even without "case.html". — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about merging "scite" with "ussc"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Not done – no consensus. — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion about whether {{scite}} should be merged with {{ussc}} at "Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 June 28". Do take part in the discussion. — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Confusing

I think this template is confusing, especially when the number after the characters U.S. is a low number. See for example this version of Loving_v._Virginia, a case which happens to be on page 1 of volume 388 of the United States Reports.

If you make an external link without a clear description, the wiki software make automatically a numbered description, for example [1]. The template in the mentioned case is {{ussc|388|1|1967}}, resulting in 388 U.S. 1 (1967). Although the first number 1 has brackets around it and the second one not, the external link caused by this template still looks like the many bad-formatted links also found at Wikipedia.

Also it is confusing that U.S. links to the Wikipedia article about the United States Reports instead of the article on the United States. A blue hyper-linked text should be a good description of the article it links to.

The alternative template Scite is less confusing in this regard: the whole citation is blue (and clickable) instead of only the characters U.S. Bever (talk) 21:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My responses:

{{Scite}} should be used if you intend the citation to be in the main text, as it does not create an external link. Generally, external links are to be avoided in the body of an article: see WP:ELPOINTS #2. {{Ussc}} should be used in footnotes to create references.
I am not following what you mean by "Although the first number 1 has brackets around it and the second one not, the external link caused by this template still looks like the many bad-formatted links also found at Wikipedia." There is only one number 1 in the citation you gave as an example – 388 U.S. 1 (1967) – and that is the first page number of the citation. It is not in brackets. You don't mean the 1 which is clearly part of the year 1967, do you? How is that confusing?
The "U.S." in a citation does not mean "United States"; it is a reference to the United States Reports. Thus it is correct that the link should be to that article.

— SMUconlaw (talk) 12:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removing bolding of references to the article's case

I recently made this edit which checks to see if title is the same as the current page name. If it is not the same, it creates a wikilink as normal. The change is that if it is the same name, it does not create a wikilink. This is so that the case name does not become bolded as a wikilink to the current page is always bolded like this: Template talk:Ussc. The Bluebook style doesn't say to bold the case name, and further having a mix of bolded and non-bolded titles in the reference section is distracting so I changed it. I tested it in the sandbox first and it seemed to not break anything, but if it does, revert first and it can be worked on more. Wugapodes (talk) 00:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, thanks. — SMUconlaw (talk) 07:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Short form citations

@Wugapodes: regarding your recent change to the template so that it can be used to create short form citations – wouldn't it be easier for editors to just type those manually? — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. Obviously the gains from typing it in a template are minimal compared to just typing the citation. The benefits I see are that editors who don't know bluebook style can easily create short form citations, that they can also learn about short form citations and how to use them in articles, and finally it allows easy conversion from one form to another. Since references moving around is easy and common (which is why we don't usually use supra, id, etc), being able to simply add or remove |short=yes to a template makes moving citations around easier and less breaking. Wugapodes (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I was just wondering whether anyone would use the template in this way, since the resultant text is so short! — SMUconlaw (talk) 21:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template not properly handling URL and name

The template is adding the vertical bar and first word in the name parameter to the end of the URL and not displaying the first word of the case name as part of the case name. For example:

{{ussc|name=OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs|link=http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/13-1067_onkq.pdf|volume=577|year=2015|docket=13-1067|slip=3}}

Creates:

[Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs], No. 13-1067, 577 U.S. ___, slip op. at 3 (2015)

AHeneen (talk) 01:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AHeneen: It seems you're using the link parameter wrong. The link parameter is for the wikipedia page name, not a url. External links are automatically created to the opinions. So for example:

{{ussc|name=Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.|link=Burwell v. Hobby Lobby|docket=13-354|volume=573|year=2014}}

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., No. 13-354, 573 U.S. ___ (2014)

Notice how the external link is automatically created, and the wikilink points to Burwell v. Hobby Lobby rather than Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 16:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is supremecourt.gov worth adding as a source for full-text judgments? — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be, but I can't discern a pattern to their urls for the links to be automatic. And I'm not sure adding another parameter would be that useful. This might be something for a larger discussion. At the TfD for this and scite, MZMcBride talked about looking at the template and seeing what might be worth getting rid of. I think it might be worth having a larger discussion on ways to overhaul the template. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 18:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wugapodes. Thanks for the ping.

It's simple enough to have the "link" parameter support both external and internal links. But what's the use-case? In most contexts, I would think you'd either not want an external link (inline prose) or you'd just use a citation template. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be wary of adding that functionality in right now. Part of why I think parameters keep getting added is that we don't want to break existing transclusions or change the way the template functions so things keep getting added. I decided to create Template:Ussc/rewrite to get some ideas on ways to improve it and come up with a new version. Basically come up with a better version and then TNT this one so we at least break everything at once. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 02:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a suggestion: create a new parameter for external links and deprecate the |link= parameter so that it will work in existing transclusions, but replace its functionality with a parameter with a different name. |url= is used in many templates and can be added to this one for external links to the decision. |article= could then be added to link to the Wikipedia article, replacing the functionality of |link=, which would be deprecated so that existing transclusions of this template function properly. I think the parameter name "article" more readily conveys its function than "link". AHeneen (talk) 04:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, the parameter name |link= is used in case citation templates relating to the Legal Information Institutes (LIIs) such as {{cite BAILII}}, {{cite CanLII}} and {{cite CommonLII}}. That was why I used "link" for {{ussc}}. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Short form citations lack links

I have raised a matter at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Legal#Linking of short ussc references concerning the way this template operates. Thincat (talk) 13:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should link to Supreme Court Web site, not to spammy "Justia.com" Web site

Why does a *template* link to this ad-ridden commercial mess? It should link to supremecourt.gov, since that's the actual Supreme Court Web site. Wikipedia shouldn't be promoting this "sponsored find a lawyer!" rubbish. Thanks! —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 13:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably worth exploring, but note that the Supreme Court website only has cases dating from 1988. Also, the opinions are in PDF format, and some of them are not in the form of individual opinions but within an entire volume of opinions for the year. I am also not sure how consistent the URLs are. At the moment, Justia has a wider coverage of opinions and presents them with a consistent URL format, making them easy for the template to link to. — SGconlaw (talk) 07:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmmmh. Maybe the Court will fix those issues with their site! ← probably unreasonable optimism —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 13:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the documentation is still correct, cases after volume 570 don't link to Justia well anyway. It may be worth changing the default for that reason alone. I'll look into it. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 01:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wait that's because bound volumes haven't been published past 569, duh. Well, I'm still in support of changing the default if we can come to a consensus on what to change it to. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 01:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this change until there is a better alternative. Unfortunately sometimes internet content comes with advertisements. IMDb, anyone? UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ergh yes that IMDB site thoroughly needs to be relegated to the Internet Archive. Definitely shouldn't be tolerated as a link from WP. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 09:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking consensus to change short-form citation: include the volume number (if it is available)

At present, short-form citations appear as follows:

Example: {{ussc|name=Youngstown Sheet|link=Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer|volume=343|pin=635|short=yes}}.

Result: Youngstown Sheet, 343 U.S. at 635.

And yet, the Bluebook states that in general, a short-form citation has the following elements:^{[short-cite 1]}

Name of the case
Volume of the reporter
Reporter abbreviation
Pinpoint citation to the specific page referenced, preceded by "at"

If we use the same code example as above, the Bluebook is therefore suggesting the following:

Result: Youngstown Sheet, 343 U.S. at 635.

The simple change I am proposing – for short citations only – is to check whether the Wikipedia editor has provided a value for |volume= or |1=. If so, then that volume number (followed by a hard-coded "U.S." reporter) be inserted into the output as shown above. This would leave all other functionality fully intact. No bots are needed to make any changes to existing Wiki markup. If the parameter has already been provided in the markup, then great, it will automatically display properly, once this change is implemented.

Any thoughts?

I agree 100%. LegalSkeptic (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the proposed change. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:19, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done with this edit which also added a tracking category so you can see what pages are not using |volume= in short form citations. Wug·a·po·des 20:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! That was quick! As one can see by comparing the 'result' in the two {{talkquote}} boxes above, this change is complete! The added category will also help to correct those that are not formatted properly. Thanks again, —grolltech^(talk) 02:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Short-cite reference

^ Nolan, Savanna. "Guides: Bluebook Guide: Short Forms for Cases". guides.ll.georgetown.edu. Retrieved 2019-11-16.

—grolltech^(talk) 22:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to wrong article

On United States v. Sandoval (last revision with this problem), there's a use of this template for the 1876 Supreme Court case "United States v. Joseph". The template is checking Wikipedia for an article with that title and linking to it, since one exists; unfortunately, United States v. Joseph is about a 2019 case in Massachusetts, which presumably didn't exist when the template was added to the page. The 1876 USSC case doesn't have an article.

What's the right approach here? The template doesn't seem to have an option to escape a link, only to link to another article—but there is no correct article to link to. For now I've just manually replicated the output of the template in hard-coded wikitext [2], but that doesn't seem ideal. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 18:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi YorkshireLad, the solution is to add a value to the "link" parameter in the template code with a disambiguated title (whether that page currently exists or not): {{ussc|name=United States v. Joseph|link=United States v. Joseph (1876)|volume=94|page=614|pin=615|year=1876}} renders as United States v. Joseph, 94 U.S. 614, 615 (1876). postdlf (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Postdlf, Brilliant, thanks! YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 10:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Needs arbitrary external links

Hey, someone's edit demonstrated to me that Justia's system does not include the ENTIRETY of the Federal Reports, so there are edge cases where the fact that {{ussc}} defaults to Justia will not be sufficient. Specifically, they do not have Alito's denial of cert for Harper v. Maverick Recording Co. (562 U.S. 1080). This link does not work. Because Justia does have denials of cert in their system, I asked them if it could be added, and they wrote back "We don't have this information for newer cases. We recommend you make the change on your end." Which is fine. But their WONTFIX means this is and will remain an ongoing issue that needs to be addressed with a change. The template should have the ability to embed arbitrary external links, because that denial of cert is available online and {{ussc}} is still the template that should point to it.

"Did you try using the source= parameter?" Yes, and that's how I was ultimately able to do what I consider a workaround to this problem. It is not possible to use this template to link to this document via FindLaw and OpenJurist. I don't know if OpenJurist has it, but it's not under the bound volume citation. FindLaw has it (link above) under the docket number, not the bounded citation. My solution was to use source=w and casename=Harper v. Maverick Recording Co./Dissent Alito because Wikisource happened to have it. This does not seem like a natural solution, and the template docs do not clearly suggest it for this scenario. And if it wasn't in Wikisource, I would have been SOL without looking into how to add a document to Wikisource merely to have a link complete.

If you are hesitant to add an arbitrary link parameter, I can try reworking the docs a bit first.

Thanks. lethargilistic (talk) 02:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No particular objection to adding a parameter for an external URL to be specified (probably |url=). — SGconlaw (talk) 05:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change the el=no parameter to suppress ALL external links

It appears that the el=no parameter does not suppress all external links.

Example

default:

Rucho v. Common Cause, No. 18-422, 588 U.S. ___ (2019)

el=no:

Rucho v. Common Cause, No. 18-422, 588 U.S. ___ (2019)

When the parameter 'el=no' is set, the template should suppress not only the link to docket. It should suppress all external links. Marc Schroeder (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw the request. Sorry for the fuss. I realize now that the links which I asked to remove are not 'external links. Marc Schroeder (talk) 14:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Nolan, Savanna. "Guides: Bluebook Guide: Short Forms for Cases". guides.ll.georgetown.edu. Retrieved 2019-11-16.

[short-cite 1]