Template talk:Infobox US Supreme Court case/Archive 1

message: Template:SCOTUSCase3 → Template:SCOTUSCase – The template has been completely re-written and there are no objections to the move . The new template incorporates many features and eliminates the need for many, many other templates (see list at the bottom of this page . copied from the entry on the WP:RM page
===Survey===
:Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support as nominator. --MZMcBride 22:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add any additional comments
Result: template moved. The old template is still available at Template talk:SCOTUSCase/old, and the old talk page is at Template talk:SCOTUSCase/oldtalk. Eugène van der Pijll 09:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support as nominator. --MZMcBride 22:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Add any additional comments
Result: template moved. The old template is still available at Template talk:SCOTUSCase/old, and the old talk page is at Template talk:SCOTUSCase/oldtalk. Eugène van der Pijll 09:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Per Wikipedia:Help_desk#Supreme_Court_of_California_Template a user is looking for a template to use in articles on state supreme court cases.  Seems like it would be fairly easy to modify this template for this purpose (basically, just add optional params for the state court seal image, the state name, and the court membership).  Anyone have any issues with this? -- Rick Block (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a problem at all. I would actually like to standardize all the federal and state supreme court cases using an infobox like Template:USCourtCase. It's on my to-do list, but I've been a little busy with Template:Elementbox, trying to finish that infobox up. You should feel free to write it if you feel inclined to do so.  Thanks. --MZMcBride 03:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, it's at Template:USCourtCase.  See in use at California v. Anderson.  Note that it's currently a (separate) clone of SCOTUSCase and could be a redirect here with very minor modifications. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: You will need to have ParserFunctions installed on your wiki in order to use this specific template. It's available for download here. Thanks. --MZMcBride 23:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I added those to the installation but one thing I noticed additionally was it seems the table settings are all showing up garbled, as in the tags for ,  etc.  Not sure if that has anything to do with the parserfunctions or not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.8.233.10 (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not really sure what you mean by garbled, but I'd be happy to take a look at it if you'd like. --MZMcBride 22:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Template for state supreme court cases

message: I've had difficulties with "Court Membership" not showing up. My most recent issue came up while attaching the template to C&A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown, New York which was governed by the Rehnquist Court - 1993-1994. CheshireKatz 15:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're problem stemmed from the type of dash used. The one employed by this template is a "standard" dash ( - ), and the one you were using was "non-standard." Generally, the minus sign on your keyboard is the correct key. Thanks. --MZMcBride 22:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem with Court Membership

message: I ran across a case (Leary v. United States) where the volume and page number were entered (fields USVol and USPage) but no other citations (field Citation), yet nothing gets displayed.  The usage info above was pretty vague so I went to a random Supreme Court case to see what the proper usage of the fields should be and it had exactly the same problem.  Finally, I just looked at the template code to find out what was going on and indeed the U.S. Reports volume and page number are only displayed if the Citation field is filled with not the normal U.S. cite but all the other random reporters.  This seems odd since many people (like me) are lazy and don't want to fill in other random reporters.  I propose that the U.S. volume and page get displayed regardless of the extra citations and that the usage documentation above gets re-written to be more clear.  Pygora123 03:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The USVol and USPage values have been made visible by default. If you find the documentation unclear, please feel free to rewrite it. I looked and the sections seemed clear to me, but that's probably because I wrote them.... Cheers. --MZMcBride 04:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the quick response.  Next complication: if the Citation field is included but blank, no citation seems to be displayed (Blanton v. North Las Vegas).  Meanwhile, I tried to make the usage documentation a little more clear.  Pygora123 05:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The infobox looks correct to me. It displays "Citations: 	489 U.S. 538" in it. --MZMcBride 06:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh, I swear it wasn't doing that last night.  Oh well, thanks for taking care of it!  Pygora123 04:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing basic citations

message: ...are there several "Concurrence/Dissent" fields and also several "ConcurrenceDissent" fields?  What's the difference?  --zenohockey 04:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though admittedly it seems weird, it is not a mistake, there are actually two different classifications. "Concurrence/Dissent" is for justices who wrote an opinion that literally concurs with the majority in part and dissents in part. "ConcurrenceDissent" is for justices who concur with a dissenting opinion by writing a concurrence. Hopefully that clarifies the situation. Cheers. --MZMcBride 05:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why

message: IMHO more words in SCOTUSCase (or in templates called by SCOTUSCase) should be wikified. For instance, in Faretta v. California, internal links could give quick access to:
* the explanation of the phrase "citations" and/or to the reporters (what do these cryptic 422 U.S. 806 and 1975 U.S. LEXIS 83 (1975) mean??)
* writ of Certiorari (without the need to copy-and-paste this phrase in the search box)
* a description of the lower courts ("Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District")
* I don't know what a Chief Justice and Associate Justices are and I'm too lazy to browse through Supreme Court of the United States or :Category:United States Supreme Court cases until I find an explanation.
Apokrif 18:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More wikification

message: I revised the docket link so it links directly to the Supreme Court and not findlaw.  If someone has an issue with this or suggestions on how to make this better let me know. Remember 02:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Docket

message: Why is this template not appearing in any articles it's in all of a sudden? Daniel Case 16:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The code was screwed up when someone tried to move the documentation to a subpage. WP:BYPASS or WP:PURGE as needed if the infobox still isn't displaying correctly. Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What happened?

message: There's a problem with NotParticipating.  Although it is hypertechnical, I think it is important for accuracy.  NotParticipating states that they did not participate in consideration and decision.  However, there are a few cases where the Justice participated in the consideration but not the decision - see Chevron, for example - http://supreme.justia.com/us/467/837/case.html.  I think that a new option needs to be added for NotParticipatingDecision or some such thing.  I don't have the skills to add it, however.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timmyboy22 (talk • contribs) 07:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem with NotParticipating

message: Some how I was directed to User:Postdlf/court_case_infobox (can't find the path I followed to get there) instead of here. The instructions seem to be consistent, but there are some differences. Is there a reason for two "guides?" --Tinned Elk 02:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The guide on this page is more specific to this template and should the guide that's used. --MZMcBride 03:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, but the project page links to the User:Postdlf page as how to fill in the info box. Should that link be redirected to this page instead? Also, the instructions on this page are not as complete as on the other instruction page. Should this page be beefed up?--Tinned Elk 04:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The instructions here are not finished; if you'd like to finish, go for it. Postdlf's page shouldn't be redirected, the links to it should just be updated. Cheers. --MZMcBride 04:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, another annoying question. Is there a reason that the Manual of style could not be on a separate page? Having it in the middle of the discussion page makes it difficult to see whether it is being kept up to date. It says it is not finished but there is no way of know as of what date, the last time anyone worked on it , etc. It appears that it was established on this page in 2006 (or before), can we break it off as something like Template:SCOTUS-Infobox/Manual of usage and style? I am not sure about the protocol for new pages like this.--Tinned Elk 01:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's confusing, we could move more of the instructions to the documentation subpage, Template:SCOTUS-Infobox/doc.--chaser - t 08:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Check out the current version of Template:SCOTUS-Infobox/doc. --Richard 08:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Clarification, please.  You think it is a good idea?  Or did you leave a "not" out?  Your message starts off suggesting that maybe this is not OK.  Please clarify.  --Richard 22:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I was just surprised that all of the documentation from Template:SCOTUS-Infobox/doc would be transcluded right into the template page. I agree with the move, I had just never see the instructions on the template page like that and thought that perhaps transclusion was not what was intended.--Tinned Elk 01:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Instructions for template

message: Is there a reason that the instructions at Template:Infobox SCOTUS case/doc are divided into the Usage portion and Manual of Style? What was the intent of the two different sections? They seem to have gotten sort of muddled. This is probably the case of people (like me) coming along and thinking - "Aha, this instruction needs to be beefed up" and does it in the wrong place (is this something for the Usage section or the Manual of Style?). I started beefing up the Manual part and then thought, no, this is an instruction of what to put there, not how it should be styled or phrased.--Tinned Elk 02:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Usage v Manual of Style

message: What is the purpose of all the uses of "Foo" in this template? It is causing Foo to be identified in the meta keywords as the first link in all the articles which use it, and makes the Special:Whatlinkshere/Foo tracking of links to the page wholly unfeasible. BigBlueFish (talk) 01:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Grr... see metasyntactic variable. That code is bad and should be re-written anyway. I'll go fix it. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I understood why that word had been chosen; I am just too bewildered by template code to understand what the purpose of using it is ;) Anyhow, if fixable then all is well. BigBlueFish (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be fixed now. It was used as Foo always exists. The template checks whether or not people are entering valid information into the parameters, however, a blank parameter gets screwy. So {{nw| says, if SubmitYear is blank, check the existence of Foo. If it is not blank (e.g., SubmitYear=1990), check the existence of the page 1990. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Foo

message: We might add a parameter "question" or "legal question" as alternative to "holding", for cases that have been argued but not yet decided (like Herring v. United States). ––Bender235 (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable. I can code it if you'd like. Just let me know. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If no one else opposes, go on, code it! ;-) (also, "Case opinions" should not be displayed if there's no value for "holding") ––Bender235 (talk) 13:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be done now. The new parameter is . I also fixed some other minor quirks with the code. It could still stand for some (/cough/) serious cleanup, but I'll wait for a rainy day I suppose. ;-)  --MZMcBride (talk) 04:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Parameter "(legal) question"

message: I see that the “Citation” parameter (for parallel cites) is not mandatory, and indeed it should not be; however, if it is left out then the main case citation (to the FindLaw copy of the U.S. Reports) does not display in the infobox.
The desired behavior is indeed to leave it out if:
*Citation: is absent AND
*CitationNew: is present OR Docket: is present,
but to display it if either
*Citation: is present OR
*both CitationNew: is absent AND Docket: is absent.
(I hope that I have covered all the logical possibilities.)  69.140.152.55 (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: I might have found a bug.

message: The usual formatting in official documentation of a court cases, as well as the standard formatting in news reportage, has the litigants names in italics but with the "v." between them not italicized. 
Example: Brown v. Board of Education
Is there a way this can be fixed in the template? Lestatdelc (talk) 22:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Italicizing litigants only?

message: * Thanks for the feedback, encouragement and assistance. Looks like the two-column version will be preferred, so the remaining quandry is handling the Court composition. The current system uses years via  to identify a Court composition, unlike the system here, Template:SCOTUS courts, which would need a Chief Justice's surname  and a number  identifying the Nth composition during his tenure. So,
*# Using Template:SCOTUS courts (which, as above, could also supersede ...etc used elsewhere) would mean replacing  in all instances of Infobox SCOTUS case with the correct  and . There's also the periods without Chief Justices to accommodate.
*# Alternatively, I could try producing a less involved version of Template:SCOTUS courts solely for use with Infobox SCOTUS case (i.e. only move the fudge elsewhere);
*# Or something else. I realize that what I'm looking for is a way to have all the Court compositions in one place, with no particular formatting, to which templates such as Infobox SCOTUS case, Template:SCOTUS courts and/or Template:SCOTUS composition could refer and apply appropriate formatting. So far, though, I haven't worked out or seen how that can be done without duplicating the composition information or producing cumbersome-looking code. Could a computer programmer somewhere enlighten me, or am I looking to try something that can't yet be done?
:Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sick of scrolling section break

message: I put up some updated test cases here: Template:Infobox SCOTUS case/testcases. Not a huge fun of the extra line-height. When there's so much information, keeping it as compact as possible seems wise. Any thoughts on re-compacting it a bit? And, please, let's try to avoid breaking anything (silly typo caused an important link to break). ;-)  --MZMcBride (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Line-height tweaked - how's that? To be honest I'd rather we didn't override it, but we can roll with this for now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks better. The one other thing I noticed is that the box no longer has the "This box: view / edit" links. Intentional? I could go either way on the links, personally. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Intentional. On infoboxes those links are usually just confusing, because editors assume that clicking them will allow them to edit the data in that page's infobox, not the template logic itself. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Code updates (May 2009)

message: As seen in the infoboxes in Dred Scott v. Sandford and Minersville School District v. Gobitis, the header for the superseded and overruled sections is not appearing as a red band spanning the box, but rather just as a highlight of the header text (and thereby incorrectly appearing as a subtopic of "laws applied").  It should look like it does in Template:Infobox SCOTUS case/sandbox, which seems to have an older version of the template code.  Could someone please fix this?  The code is currently a little beyond me.  Postdlf (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I tried. And failed miserably. Apparently Template:Infobox has re-invented mathematics and no longer uses a standard numbering system. I'll ping Chris about this on his talk page. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh.  : )  I love your edit summary.  Yeah, I had the same problem—trying to turn the superseded and overruled fields into headers just placed the red highlighted text in a blue bar, and made the "laws applied" content field disappear.  I think part of the problem is the headerstyle field near the top of the template code, which sets a default color.  I don't know why the other problem with the "laws applied" field is happening.  Postdlf (talk) 01:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Tidied. To be quite honest I don't really see the value in giving these red backgrounds when we could just use standard headers - the infobox isn't like a medicine bottle where the important stuff needs special highlighting. But for now the code is clean again. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Superseded and overruled sections

message: I'd like to propose that we permit an optional field for the names of the attorneys who argued the case. If I were king of the world, this information would never belong in any USSC article, as it's rarely notable, and reeks of vanity and gossip.  However, it keeps cropping up in articles, and always in the Lead (because that's where people put things that don't belong anywhere else).  I sometimes delete it, but I know some confederate of the attorney or firm is going to slip it in when I'm not looking -- and I don't want to descend to an edit war.
Instead, I'd like to move this stuff to some innocuous position in the Infobox, with an edit summary like "moved attorneys' names to infobox per Policy X".  Then if someone tries to slip it back into the Lead, I'll say, "hi there, Policy X says that belongs only in the Infobox."  He gets to enjoy his vanity, and I get to enjoy an uncontaminated article. Agradman appreciates civility/makes occasional mistakes 20:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it's often unimportant, though I think incorporating it into page text isn't too difficult or awkward. I'd be inclined to not want it in an infobox. Adding the parameter actively encourages users to seek out and add the info, something I think we want to avoid. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Previous discussion here. If lawyers spamming themselves is what we're avoiding, I don't think this will be an effective solution. Instead of an "optional" field, we'll have a hodgepodge of the truly notable (Thurgood Marshall in Brown) and spam. But is this really a serious problem?--chaser (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *Wow, I didn't realize I was reviving such a traumatic history.  No, it's not really a serious problem, I'll cope. Agradman appreciates civility/makes occasional mistakes 23:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal:  add fields for "RespondentArgueby" and "PetitionerArgueby"?

message: I've run into a slight problem with Coates v. Cincinnati. Hugo Black issued a "separate opinion" (see syllabus here). It's neither a concurrence nor a dissent, and I don't think it qualifies as a "seriatim opinion" either. What's the best way to handle this? Mackensen (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh. I would've said concurrence off-hand, though oyez.org calls it a dissent. It's easy enough to add a another parameter if necessary. I cross-posted this to WT:SCOTUS for hopefully further input. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See this AP account, which characterizes the decision as "5-3" and noted the Black refused to join either side. Mackensen (talk) 22:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Separate opinion

message: This link appears to be to a dab page, as seen at Fellows v. Blacksmith. However, the link appears to be correct at Template:Infobox SCOTUS case/courts.  Could someone correct or advise? Savidan 05:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=407864252&oldid=395454647. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: John A. Campbell

message: How does everyone feel about possibly adding links  to the actual oral arguments, briefs, and docket when available on Oyez to the template?  I think it would be very helpful and informative, but that is just my opinion.  (I'll also post this on the wikiproject page). Remember 17:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've added this to the template.  Check out Bush v. Gore for an example. Remember 03:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added a link to the transcripts and audio to Citizens United.  A script should be able to add OralArgument links to all the cases, using the Docket= field, but I don't know where to start.  There's audio going back to 1969.  --Elvey (talk) 07:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding oyez sources to the template

message: For cases in the past few years, these are simply not available, and making them a required parameter makes this look bad.  The CitationNew parameter is an incomplete solution because it just encourages un-authoritative guessing.  Further, CitationNew suppresses Citations, which is non-sensical, because the Supreme Court Reporter, and plenty of other reporters, will be available long before the U.S. Reports.  Savidan 17:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We always know what volume they are going to be in, just not the page at first.  I think we should leave in the incomplete U.S. Reports citation for the sake of completeness (ironic, no?).  The Supreme Court itself tells us that the citation for this case, for example, is 563 U.S. ___ (2011).  postdlf (talk) 22:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  US reports volume and page should be an optional parameter

message: These should be de-linked for older cases that do not follow XX-XXXX. Currently, the docket numbers for old cases produce gibberish links to supremecourt.gov. Savidan 00:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you know the cutoff date?  postdlf (talk) 02:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like Bush v. Gore is the cut off. I'm not saying docket numbers shouldn't be included in the template for prior cases; only that they shouldn't be linked according to the current algorithm. Savidan 17:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Docket numbers 

message: From discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Supreme_Court_cases#How_remove_from_.22Flagged_U.S._Supreme_Court_articles.22_category.3F:
:If the SCOTUSCase Infobox contains certain errors, it will automatically add the article (that the InfoBox is within) to the  :Category:Flagged U.S. Supreme Court articles category.  What are the errors that cause this flagging?  According to user Richardguk:
:::: Looking at the template code, I think the category gets added if one or both of the following conditions are true:
::::*#  is blank or missing AND 
::::*#  is blank or missing
:::: OR
::::*#  is not equal to 1 AND
::::*# any of the following parameters fail the test below: , ,  , , , , , , , , , , .A parameter in the above  list fails the test if it is non-blank AND does not match the title of an existing Wikipedia article (this is a quick-and-dirty test of whether the date is in a common format, as there are article titles for years and each day of the year).
:::: In all flagged cases, if  is supplied, then its contents are inserted instead of "". So, for example, an alternative category could be specified; or, if  were specified as blank, the tests would have no effect and the invalid parameters would not be flagged at all (not recommended).
:::: The  and  parameters seem to be undocumented, so the first test in effect flags the absence of .
:::: Hope that clarifies, or at least agrees with your own understanding! [from user richardguk]
--Noleander (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it would be simpler to delete the entire category; then re-create it, empty?  That would be a fresh start:  all future save actions will add erroneous articles to the Category. --Noleander (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the feedback. I see that your template amendment has since been reverted. I've commented at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases#How remove from "Flagged U.S. Supreme Court articles" category?, as the template already has a way of dealing with date ranges. All articles and category lists should (eventually) update automatically if their templates are changed, though this can sometimes take a while if there is a backlog of server jobs (particularly for readers who are not logged in and reading cached pages). Deletion would not be simpler. — Richardguk (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  When template adds article to [[:Category:Flagged U.S. Supreme Court articles]] 

message: I see another editor had a problem with the template:  .   In that discussion, there is references to a Talk page discusion from 2010 that went over similar problems.  To summarize what Ive seen:
* The template flags articles as "needing attention" when a valid date-range is input for the ArguedDate (described here)
* The template has problems when ndashes are used (vs hyphens)  reported by others: I have not tried it
It would be nice if the template were more flexible and didn't take a RTFM approach to normal user editing practices. --Noleander (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignore the flagged category? The input validation is rudimentary, but I don't see any particular problems being reported. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template is too rigid 

message: The template includes a test:
   {{#if:|Original jurisdiction
which builds up a header string.  The "Outcome" parameter is not documented in the Documentation page; and even if it were:  Why is the string "Original jurisdiction" being output?  Should the above be removed since it is undocumented and, apparently, erroneous? --Noleander (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: (Cross-referencing Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases#How remove from "Flagged U.S. Supreme Court articles" category?) The undocumented  parameter seems to have been added by MZMcBride in . I haven't attempted to work out what its meaning. — Richardguk (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is "Outcome" param used? 

message: There seems to be something in this template that set up links to the date  fields specified as values in articles using this template.  These are unnecesary date links, but I cannot find the code in this template that is doing this linking.  Any ideas? Hmains (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Where are you seeing these links? In Special:WhatLinksHere or in the HTML of the infobox? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: by going to the year article and looking for 'what links here'. Hmains (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

text: Example: :1941 and :Edwards v. California Hmains (talk) 03:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right. It's a quirk of some of the data input validation methods employed by this template. #ifexist relies on the pagelinks table, so even though a link isn't output, Special:WhatLinksHere will list the entry. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not the only one; I see at least such 6 templates like this.  Is there some way to 'fix' this code? I know amost nothing about template code. Hmains (talk) 03:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to dates

message: I just fixed the infobox for Egelhoff v. Egelhoff, which had been showing "" since that field was not included. The whole confuses me, however, as it's rendered -- or it renders -- redundant the two earlier lines' mention of "USVol" and "USPage". To wit, the infobox now shows the citation twice, with the first line linking to the volumes of the reporter but not listing and the second including the year but no links. Someone who better understands SOP surrounding boxes may be able to explain or remedy this result that seems to me unhelpful. Or perhaps I've misunderstood something. Czrisher (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "Citation" is an old alias for "ParallelCitations". I fixed up the infobox in this edit. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Duplication