Template talk:Infobox US Supreme Court case

Argued by

Question from a newbie --

When I use Infobox United States District Court case I have the opportunity to record and display counsel for plaintiff and defendant.

When I use Infobox SCOTUS case There is no field for counsel for petitioner and respondent or at least who made oral arguments, nor can I add one (that I know of). In every case since Samuel Sloan argued pro se in 1978, the petitioners have been represented. How do I fit them in the infobox? Thanks in advance Rhadow (talk) 23:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rhadow. This discussion from 2006 is relevant: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases/Archive 2#Infobox - add attorneys. Nothing has really changed since then. It's easy enough to add these optional fields to this template, but I'm not sure there's consensus to do so. Which SCOTUS case(s) are you looking at where this would be useful?

("Easy" in this context meaning adding a field to an infobox isn't typically very difficult. This specific request may require a bit more thought since cases can be re-argued, so we'd need to consider how to handle that.) --MZMcBride (talk) 03:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello MZMcBride -- Thank you. I see now that this matter has been argued passionately already. A decision has been handed down: "If attorneys arguing a case are truly notable ... Of course, this is rare." If I were to observe that oral arguments are important enough for the Court to post recordings and transcripts, I would most assuredly lose an argument from authority, "[Y]ou are not an attorney and you have never been to law school, so how would you know?" I apologize for having asked the question. Rhadow (talk) 11:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Speaking as someone arguing in SCOTUS later this year, I think it's worth including. Oyez certainly does. But that might just be my COI. THF (talk) 08:37, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Add category

I propose categorizing transclusions in Category:United States Supreme Court cases automatically. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kevin. This is certainly doable. We could also automatically categorize in "Category:1999 in law" and "Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Taft Court" and similar. Do we want that? --MZMcBride (talk) 03:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Sync /courts subpage

Hi. Can someone please sync Special:Permalink/852700990 to Template:Infobox SCOTUS case/courts? The changes are removing a bunch of unnecessary spaces and bypassing some redirects (diff). This will help in testing the upcoming version of the subpage. Thank you! --MZMcBride (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Sure, done. Killiondude (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Year in short description?

Just to make the short description a bit more discriminating and useful, maybe we should include the DecideYear in that template. If the case hasn't been decided, it can be a "Pending" case. lethargilistic (talk) 04:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• Immediately after posting this, I realized that wouldn't work because every case someone was lazy on and didn't include the DecideYear on would be marked "Pending," haha. lethargilistic (talk) 04:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Kennedy still in OT2018 infobox

There needs to be a 2018b that excludes him, as he will not be sitting in the OT2018 cases. -- 72.83.2.18 (talk) 23:32, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Nah, we're going to kill that awful court composition key altogether instead. We're real close. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:34, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I've added for the 2018 term, since it is coming up soon..MZMcBride, how is it that going? Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:13, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

ping Lethargilistic since they seemed to have worked on that a lot. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I consider it ready to go live. You can compare the outputs of the new version to the current version at Template:Infobox_SCOTUS_case/testcases. You can see the discussion on my talk page for more details. lethargilistic (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Brilliant! Well, I've made {{Infobox SCOTUS case}} use the new version (after fixing a minor issue) Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Woo! Thank you for syncing the templates, Galobtter. I updated the template documentation in this edit. There are a few cases where we regressed a bit such as Fox Film Corp. v. Knowles and Merrell v. Tice, but shrug. We should probably automatically categorize these pages in Category:Flagged U.S. Supreme Court articles at some point.

A huge thanks to lethargilistic for doing all the heavy lifting to get this project finished. I'm really glad we've finally killed that janky court composition key system. It will reduce the barrier to starting new case articles or adding infoboxes to existing articles. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:21, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the big red error messages, at-least for now, as they are causing error messages on ~100 (too many) pages; I've categorized those in that "flagged u.s supreme court articles" category and will see about fixing those. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:52, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Allow future ArgueDates for /courts?

When I wrote the error checking for /courts, I mostly had decided cases in mind, so it raises an error message if ArgueDate/Year or DecideDate/Year are after today. This might be too restrictive for ArgueDate/Year, which is announced months in advance. I think allowing a Date/Year within the next year would be an acceptable compromise with that reality. lethargilistic (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

That begs the question of whether we should have a SCOTUS infobox in an article about a case in which there has not (yet) been a SCOTUS opinion. postdlf (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it's wrong to list an argue date in the infobox before the case has actually been argued, at least as currently implemented. In theory, we could change the text to be "Scheduled to be argued" or similar instead of just "Argued", but it seems easier to just comment out or leave those fields blank. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

In order, I say yes they should be on undecided cases and that commenting out the ArgueDate would be counterinuitive. Both for the same reason. The infobox is for quick facts, and I don't think we're justified in preventing the addition of information to them that is highly unlikely to change and represents the current understanding of the case. As it sits, the basic question of the case and when oral arguments will take place are the most pertinent facts for most readers. The infobox allows the question, but not the date, so they have to go to the article body for that if anyone even recorded that at all. The most difficult part of adding some "to be argued" note would be refactoring the logic in the header1 row so that it reads as a series of if/else. Updating the future checking in /courts would be changing {{CURRENTYEAR}} to {{NEXTYEAR}}. lethargilistic (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

You don't need to necessarily comment out a future argue date, the template could just swallow the input if it's a future date. That behavior might be even more confusing to editors, though.

Oral argument dates can and occasionally do shift around. It isn't Wikipedia's place to state, in an infobox or elsewhere, that a case has been argued on a date in the future, even if it seems very likely to take place. At most, Wikipedia can state that the case is scheduled to be argued on that day. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Doc update?

I take it |SCOTUS= has been deprecated in favor of a better lookup by year decided. I was going to edit the doc, but thought I should ask if there a standard for how this should be done. Is there a recent example to follow showing how it should look in the doc, updates to TemplateData, perhaps a warning message to editors when editing a page with the template, tracking category, etc.? Or should I leave it for someone currently involved in the change? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

It looks like whatever |SCOTUS= did has been replaced by the template and instructions linked at Template:Infobox_SCOTUS_case/doc#Court_membership. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Oyez links

At cases like Citizens United v. FEC, |OralArgument=, |OralReargument=, and |OpinionAnnouncement= have values that are links to Oyez like this, which are now redirected at Oyez to just the summary page. Looking at the archive of the page, it seems that the equivalent link is now here. Those links could be harvested by scraping the summary pages. Is there an existing bot that can do this, or at least handle the edits if given a table of articles, old links, and new links? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't know of an existing bot, but given enough time I could probably put one together to do this. I actually wrote a web scraper for Oyez a few years back for project that could be repurposed for this. In case someone else has more time and wants to do this before I get the chance, I'd be willing to share that code. Scraping the site for the web pages would just need to look for the hyperlink in the iframe-url attribute of the link tag with the caption attribute value of interest. For example, the html of the Citizens United page has <a ng-click="openModal()" ng-if="(! audio.unavailable)" caption="Oral Argument - March 24, 2009" iframe-url="https://apps.oyez.org/player/#/roberts2/oral_argument_audio/23491" class="ng-binding ng-isolate-scope">Oral Argument - March 24, 2009</a> and you'll see the url you want is in the iframe-url attribute and the caption attribute contains the string "Oral Argument" which could probably be found by regexs or something more elegant. I'd be interested in knowing what the scope of this problem is, and either way we'd need consensus to get approval for the bot to run. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 05:24, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I found this, making it easier than expected I've grabbed the complete json of all cases, which I'll parse into a tab-sep'd list of the relevant data. More to follow. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 05:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the audio links were not in the "all cases" json, so I grabbed the 8019 individual case pages. I should have a composite table by Monday. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Docket link broken

When I clicked on the link to the docket in Frank v. Gaos (current revision), it brought up a blank search results page on the SCOTUS website: https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/17-961.htm The docket number in the infobox is correct. It should directly link to https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-961.html. AHeneen (talk) 06:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, but that search result does work for some dockets like 09-1061 given in the documentation of Template:SCOTUS URL Docket while https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/09-1061.html does not work. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. Beginning November 13, 2017, the Supreme Court updated the docket on their website so that they now include links to all documents filed. After checking the links from a couple cases, I think that may be related to the issue, but I can't figure out the exact way it works:

• Friedrichs v. California Teachers Ass'n works, but https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/14-915.html doesn't. It was decided in 2016.
• Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Servs. of Chicago infobox link doesn't work, but https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-658.html works. It was decided on November 8, 2018 (the last case with a Wikipedia article that was decided before the change to the docket system).
• Azar v. Garza doesn't work. It was decided in June 2018. I copy-pasted the docket number "17–654" from the infobox and when I entered it in the docket search page on the SCOTUS site, it said there was an invalid text. The only possible thing invalid was the dash and when I deleted it and used the minus symbol on my keyboard, the search worked and led to the case's docket at https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-654.html and https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-654.html also works
• Sessions v. Dimaya was decided in April 2018, but its docket dates back to 2015 (the case was reargued):

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-1498.html this link from the search result works

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-1498.html also works

https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/15-1498.htm but this link from the infobox doesn't

Also, the template probably already handles this, but the docket search page of the SCOTUS website states: "The docket provided here contains complete information regarding the status of cases filed since the beginning of the 2001 Term." So links should only be included for cases beginning in 2001. AHeneen (talk) 10:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 25 January 2019

Please add a parameter to link to the opinion itself by syncing Template:Infobox SCOTUS case/sandbox. To see the impact of this, look at the last 2 examples on the test-cases page. The last example calls the "opinion" parameter, and links to the opinion. The second to last inserts an inline link in the citation spot. I think the former is more desirable, but my change shouldn't break the latter from working. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 7 March 2019

Please replace this with the current sandbox version, Template:Infobox SCOTUS case/sandbox, which replaces the unneeded uses of {{{category|[[Category:Flagged U.S. Supreme Court articles]]}}} with [[Category:Flagged U.S. Supreme Court articles]] to reduce the number of unneeded parameter checks. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 03:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done -- /Alex/₂₁ 12:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 12 March 2019

Please implement the changes located in Template:Infobox SCOTUS case/sandbox2. This separates the parameters of question presented and outcome/holding, since they are 2 distinct issues. See the difference here (this is a separate request from the one above, and the two should not conflict, but if they do, ping me and I'll fix sandbox2) Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done -- /Alex/₂₁ 12:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 12 March 2019

Please replace

| image = <includeonly>[[Image:Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg|100px]]</includeonly>

With

| image = <includeonly>[[Image:Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg|100px|Seal of the United States Supreme Court|alt=Seal of the United States Supreme Court]]</includeonly>

to add a tooltip and alternative text (both reading Supreme Court of the United States). Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 03:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done -- /Alex/₂₁ 12:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 14 March 2019

Please remove the lines:

| label59      = Dissent
| data59       = {{{Dissent5|}}}{{#if:{{{JoinDissent5|}}}|, joined by {{{JoinDissent5}}} }}

The Supreme Court only once had more than 9 members [1], and none of the cases during that period had 5 dissents. With less than 10 justices, it is impossible for 5 justices to dissent, since the dissents would form a majority; thus, this parameter is unneeded and will not be used. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 05:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 14 March 2019

Please replace the last 4 lines to ensure that the template itself doesn't get flagged

From


    | [[Category:Flagged U.S. Supreme Court articles]]
    }}
    | [[Category:Flagged U.S. Supreme Court articles]]
    }}


to


    | <includeonly>[[Category:Flagged U.S. Supreme Court articles]]</includeonly>
    }}
    | <includeonly>[[Category:Flagged U.S. Supreme Court articles]]</includeonly>
    }}


Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk)

 Done I have limited all tracking category checks to main (article) space. I also edited Template:Infobox SCOTUS case/courts to implement the same limitation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 March 2019

Please replace

| label51 = Dissent
| data51 = {{{Dissent|}}}{{#if:{{{JoinDissent|}}}|, joined by {{{JoinDissent}}} }}
| label52 = Concurrence
| data52 = {{{ConcurrenceDissent|}}}
| label53 = Dissent
| data53 = {{{Dissent2|}}}{{#if:{{{JoinDissent2|}}}|, joined by {{{JoinDissent2}}} }}
| label54 = Concurrence
| data54 = {{{ConcurrenceDissent2|}}}
| label55 = Dissent
| data55 = {{{Dissent3|}}}{{#if:{{{JoinDissent3|}}}|, joined by {{{JoinDissent3}}} }}
| label56 = Concurrence
| data56 = {{{ConcurrenceDissent3|}}}
| label57 = Dissent
| data57 = {{{Dissent4|}}}{{#if:{{{JoinDissent4|}}}|, joined by {{{JoinDissent4}}} }}
| label58 = Concurrence
| data58 = {{{ConcurrenceDissent4|}}}

with

| label51 = Dissent
| data51 = {{{Dissent|}}}{{#if:{{{JoinDissent|}}}|, joined by {{{JoinDissent}}} }}
| label53 = Dissent
| data53 = {{{Dissent2|}}}{{#if:{{{JoinDissent2|}}}|, joined by {{{JoinDissent2}}} }}
| label55 = Dissent
| data55 = {{{Dissent3|}}}{{#if:{{{JoinDissent3|}}}|, joined by {{{JoinDissent3}}} }}
| label57 = Dissent
| data57 = {{{Dissent4|}}}{{#if:{{{JoinDissent4|}}}|, joined by {{{JoinDissent4}}} }}


An AWB search of all mainspace transclusions of the infobox shows that precisely 0 have the string ConcurrenceDissent (just to double check, I added it to 2, reran it, and only got those 2 as having ConcurrenceDissent), meaning it, as well as 2, 3, and 4, are completely unused. Furthermore, the term is completely misleading, because ConcurrenceDissent should not refer to a concurrence and the current code would suggest, but rather a concurrence/dissent. However, both of those are already provided for by Concurrence (1-8)and Concurrence/Dissent (1-8), meaning that, even if the current ConcurrenceDissent parameters were used, they would be redundant. In short, please get rid of these misleading unused redundant parameters. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 01:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done please update the documentation as necessary — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done --DannyS712 (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 March 2019

Please replace

| label3 = Docket nos.

with

| label3 = Docket no{{#if:{{{Docket2|}}}|s}}.

to show "Docket no." rather than "Docket nos." when Docket2 is undefined, because then there is only 1 docket number to show. This change is implemented in the current version of the sandbox - see the resulting differences at Template:Infobox SCOTUS case/testcases (I suggest searching for Docket since not all Infoboxes use that parameter.) Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 17:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 March 2019

Please change

{{#invoke:Check for unknown parameters|check|unknown={{main other|[[Category:Pages using infobox SCOTUS case with unknown parameters|_VALUE_{{PAGENAME}}]]}}|preview=Page using [[Template:Infobox SCOTUS case]] with unknown parameter "_VALUE_"|ignoreblank=y| Abrogated | ArgueDate | ArgueDateA | ArgueDateB | ArgueDateC | ArgueYear | Citation | Claim | Concurrence | Concurrence/Dissent | Concurrence/Dissent2 | Concurrence/Dissent3 | Concurrence/Dissent4 | Concurrence/Dissent5 | Concurrence/Dissent6 | Concurrence/Dissent7 | Concurrence/Dissent8 | Concurrence2 | Concurrence3 | Concurrence4 | Concurrence5 | Concurrence6 | Concurrence7 | Concurrence8 | ConcurrenceDissent | ConcurrenceDissent2 | ConcurrenceDissent3 | ConcurrenceDissent4 | DecideDate | DecideYear | Dissent | Dissent2 | Dissent3 | Dissent4 | Docket | Docket2 | Docket3 | Docket4 | Docket5 | FullName | Holding | italic title | JoinConcurrence | JoinConcurrence/Dissent | JoinConcurrence/Dissent2 | JoinConcurrence/Dissent3 | JoinConcurrence/Dissent4 | JoinConcurrence/Dissent5 | JoinConcurrence/Dissent6 | JoinConcurrence/Dissent7 | JoinConcurrence/Dissent8 | JoinConcurrence2 | JoinConcurrence3 | JoinConcurrence4 | JoinConcurrence5 | JoinConcurrence6 | JoinConcurrence7 | JoinConcurrence8 | JoinDissent | JoinDissent2 | JoinDissent3 | JoinDissent4 | JoinMajority | JoinMajority2 | JoinMajority3 | JoinPlurality | JoinPlurality2 | JoinPlurality3 | JoinPlurality4 | LawsApplied | Litigants | Litigants2 | Litigants3 | Litigants4 | Litigants5 | Majority | Majority2 | Majority3 | NotParticipating | Opinion | OpinionAnnouncement | OralArgument | OralArguments | OralReargument | Outcome | Overruled | Overturned previous case | ParallelCitations | PerCuriam | Plurality | Plurality2 | Plurality3 | Plurality4 | Prior | Procedural | QuestionsPresented | ReargueDate | ReargueDate2 | ReargueDateA | ReargueDateA2 | ReargueDateB | ReargueDateB2 | ReargueYear | ReargueYear2 | Related | Seriatim | Seriatim2 | Seriatim3 | Seriatim4 | Seriatim5 | SubmitDate | SubmitYear | Subsequent | Superseded | USPage | USVol }}

to

{{#invoke:Check for unknown parameters|check|unknown={{main other|[[Category:Pages using infobox SCOTUS case with unknown parameters|_VALUE_{{PAGENAME}}]]}}|preview=Page using [[Template:Infobox SCOTUS case]] with unknown parameter "_VALUE_"|ignoreblank=y| Abrogated | ArgueDate | ArgueDateA | ArgueDateB | ArgueDateC | ArgueYear | Citation | Claim | Concurrence | Concurrence/Dissent | Concurrence/Dissent2 | Concurrence/Dissent3 | Concurrence/Dissent4 | Concurrence/Dissent5 | Concurrence/Dissent6 | Concurrence/Dissent7 | Concurrence/Dissent8 | Concurrence2 | Concurrence3 | Concurrence4 | Concurrence5 | Concurrence6 | Concurrence7 | Concurrence8 | DecideDate | DecideYear | Dissent | Dissent2 | Dissent3 | Dissent4 | Docket | Docket2 | Docket3 | Docket4 | Docket5 | FullName | Holding | italic title | JoinConcurrence | JoinConcurrence/Dissent | JoinConcurrence/Dissent2 | JoinConcurrence/Dissent3 | JoinConcurrence/Dissent4 | JoinConcurrence/Dissent5 | JoinConcurrence/Dissent6 | JoinConcurrence/Dissent7 | JoinConcurrence/Dissent8 | JoinConcurrence2 | JoinConcurrence3 | JoinConcurrence4 | JoinConcurrence5 | JoinConcurrence6 | JoinConcurrence7 | JoinConcurrence8 | JoinDissent | JoinDissent2 | JoinDissent3 | JoinDissent4 | JoinMajority | JoinMajority2 | JoinMajority3 | JoinPlurality | JoinPlurality2 | JoinPlurality3 | JoinPlurality4 | LawsApplied | Litigants | Litigants2 | Litigants3 | Litigants4 | Litigants5 | Majority | Majority2 | Majority3 | NotParticipating | Opinion | OpinionAnnouncement | OralArgument | OralArguments | OralReargument | Outcome | Overruled | Overturned previous case | ParallelCitations | PerCuriam | Plurality | Plurality2 | Plurality3 | Plurality4 | Prior | Procedural | QuestionsPresented | ReargueDate | ReargueDate2 | ReargueDateA | ReargueDateA2 | ReargueDateB | ReargueDateB2 | ReargueYear | ReargueYear2 | Related | Seriatim | Seriatim2 | Seriatim3 | Seriatim4 | Seriatim5 | SubmitDate | SubmitYear | Subsequent | Superseded | USPage | USVol }}

To remove the parameters that are no longer valid:

• ConcurrenceDissent though ConcurrenceDissent4 (Removed in Special:Diff/888206687)

Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

If you want to just copy-paste the invokes above, the only change is the removal of those parameters. See Special:Diff/888210123 for verification. --DannyS712 (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

 Already done by MSGJ {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Pppery: MSGJ removed the parameters themselves. This request is asking that they be removed from the check for unknown parameters. I have remarked this as unanswered. --DannyS712 (talk) 03:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread what was going on here.  Done. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 04:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 20 March 2019

Please implement the edit in this version of the sandbox diff to reduce the unneeded checking of parameters {{{Docket2}}} through {{{Docket5}}} by only checking them if the previous parameter was present (don't need to check Docket2 if Docket1 isn't present, etc)

Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 23:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Nitpick: there is no "Docket1" template parameter.

Do you think it would make sense to lower this template's protection and/or add you to the "template editor" user group? --MZMcBride (talk) 04:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@MZMcBride: by Docket1 I mean Docket. The current template has 3404 transclusions ([2]), so I don't think lowing the protection would be wise. As for making me a template-editor, I don't meet the first criterion of WP:TPEGRANT: The editor should be a registered Wikipedia user for at least 1 year. so I think I'll just stick with edit requests. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 22 March 2019

Please implement the edit in this version of the sandbox (diff) to eliminate an unneeded nesting of parser functions and parameters - if the parameter is empty, it won't be displayed, and if its not, it is displayed (does not change functionality). See the current test cases for the resulting difference (there isn't one). Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 04:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)