Template talk:Infobox court case

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Law (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon


This template is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

New version[edit]

I created a new version of this template based on Template:Infobox SCOTUS case, which had previously been used as a base to build dozens of other court case templates, like Template:Infobox Kansas Supreme Court case and Template:Infobox California Supreme Court case. If the change is implemented, all parameters from the current version of this template will continue to work, and at the same time it will be possible to use a single infobox for most other articles about court cases. A few test cases of this version can be seen here.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 07:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

@Jacklee:, @Thumperward: (top contributors) for an opinion.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 07:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I haven't looked closely at it yet, but perhaps it is be slightly too US-centric? Nonetheless, I suppose editors can ignore parameters that are not applicable to the jurisdictions they are working on. Also, I think the trend is to avoid CamelCase and render parameters "like_this" rather than "LikeThis". Finally, could you put an example of the sandboxed template at "Template:Infobox court case/testcases" with as many of the parameters used as possible so we can see what it looks like? — Cheers, JackLee talk 09:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree with both of your arguments, many parameters are too focused on the US and camel case for field names should be avoided. They are only included in the template to make it compatible with other court case infoboxes and their use should definitely be discouraged. I added a testcase with all the parameters imported from the SCOTUS template, but several of them are probably not being used by any article and could be removed (like Seriatim5, Dissent4 etc.).--eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
@Jacklee: I created a few more testcases and added the whole blank syntax of the template to the sandbox.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Capitals in labels[edit]

I have made 4 changes in the sand-box, namely

  • Opinion Announcement => Opinion announcement
  • Chief Judge => Chief judge
  • Associated Judges => Associated judges
  • Area of Law => Area of law

Diff

Any problems with these? All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 03:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC).

Seems fine to me. — SMUconlaw (talk) 06:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

ECLI[edit]

What about a ECLI-entry in the infobox? Maybe with a switch per European country. Stratoprutser (talk) 01:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

If this is a way to cite cases, can't you simply use the |citations= parameter? — Cheers, JackLee talk 18:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, just noticed what you've been working on in the sandbox. Sure, I have no objection to that. I would suggest that you shift the parameter up so that it is just below |citations=, since it is a type of citation. Also, see the discussion at "Capitals in labels" above – only the first word of labels should be capitalized, unless the other words are proper nouns or parts of proper nouns. — Cheers, JackLee talk 19:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
See for working a working template-code Template:ECLI. I hesitate to propose here a to be pasted code, as I can't test edit. Stratoprutser (talk) 11:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I have added an |ECLI= parameter. Is {{ECLI}} ready for use yet? If so, the template documentation here can be updated to inform editors that they can use {{ECLI}}. (By the way, what do you mean by you "can't test edit"?) — Cheers, JackLee talk 16:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)