Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian law/CaseLawPolicy

message: The current template being used has been the white and blue version taken from the older US Supreme Court cases. It looks good enough, however, I wonder if it would better to consider the grey infobox as used in :Template:United States Supreme Court Case and :Template:English case infobox. It would at least make the colour scheme more in-line with info-boxes used for countries, bio, etc. I'm not very keen on doing any mass changes right now, but it's food for thought. --PullUpYourSocks 17:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made a template basd on the US version (see Template:SCCInfoBox). I'm finding the grey version much more appealing than the blue one. --PullUpYourSocks 01:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: I'm divided on whether to use the SCC logo for the info-boxes or the Canada coat of arms. I know it would be most obvious to use the logo, but I've noticed that the LexUM published decisions using to coat of arms. I'm also very partial to the coat of arms because it just looks better. Things are good as they are but it's just a thought. --PullUpYourSocks 22:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been reading a number of cases and on many official copies the court uses canada coat of arms but never the SCC logo. I'd take that as a good justification to use to coat of arms for the infobox over the logo. Anyone disagree? --PullUpYourSocks 00:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox crest/seal

message: Why must the citation be included in the lede sentence when it is already in the infobox? I find a numerical citation mid-sentence visually undesirable. --Padraic 23:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've thought about that issue a number of times and I am still divided. On the one hand, a case name and its citation are so closely linked that it's rare that they will ever be separate in legal writing. Still, it does have a significant impact on its readability. In all, I think it's worth sticking to the status quo. Inline citations are used in case summaries for most jurisdictions, so I'd be reluctant to change them without some compelling reasons when the US, UK, and Australian case summaries use the citations. I recall there was some debate on the issue in the US Supreme Court WikiProject forum. You might find some more insightful discussion on the issue. Perhaps this is something to bring up on the Law WikiProject as well. --PullUpYourSocks 16:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation 

message: Template:SCCInfoBox seems well-coded enough to negate the concerns that led to only using in-line infoboxes. Any objections to my changing the policy? --Padraic 23:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea. However, I think CanadianCaesar's input would be helpful as he is one of the major Canadian law contributors. He has preferred not to use the templates and I have tried to respect that opinion. It would be good to find out if the template needs fixing, maybe try to find a consensus. -PullUpYourSocks 16:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing that doesn't cause me to use the template is that I'm too lazy (particularly after writing a long article) to do so; figuring out which code will produce which list of judges is tedious when you can just list them.  I think I did add the template to at least one article I didn't write. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 16:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the template allows you to input just the years of the case and will automatically generate the presiding judges. But regardless of whether you want to take the time to fill out the template, do you object to changing the policy to use it? --Padraic 17:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what's tedious- try to remember the years in which a particular court was composed of a particular set of judges. But as I tried to imply, I'm fine with the template being used everywhere. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: Do you guys think Template:CanLawCase would be useful (in addition to the Wikiproject tag) in order to direct people in line with the Case Law Policy? I think when you look at how co-ordinated the US case law stuff is (and assuming there will be significant expansion of Canadian law), I think it would be useful to have more direct tag than just the notification that it falls under this Wikiproject. Also, I couldn't think of any categories to have within the template - any suggestions?-- Padraic 19:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page tag