Template talk:UnitedStatesCode

message: Why not use Cornell's site (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode) instead?
I'm working on a new template, Template:USCode, that will implement it.
However, I'm not good at these things, so any (all) help would be greatly appreciated.
--Markles 21:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: ===Washingtonwatchdog.org===
http://www.washingtonwatchdog.org/documents/usc/ttl5/ptIII/subptE/ch61/subchI/sec6103.html, used by Holidays of the United States (as of 20:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Sources

message: http://www.washingtonwatchdog.org/documents/usc/ttl5/ptIII/subptE/ch61/subchI/sec6103.html, used by Holidays of the United States (as of 20:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Washingtonwatchdog.org

message: I removed the italics. —Markles (markles) December 28, 2005
I also removed .  I think the reader should know (at least in this case) that they're going outside of wikipedia. —Markles (markles) 18:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You just broke the article when it is printed. I'm putting it back in - when you print I really don't care about the URL in the text. Try printing one of my USA PATRIOT Act articles and you'll see what I mean. The link, incidently, is a slightly different colour and this indicates that it's not an internal wikilink. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that this is an old conversation, but I was surprised just now when I clicked on a USC section link and ended up at Cornell's web site.  I agree with Markles that these links to Cornell should indicate to the reader that clicking on them will take them away from Wikipedia.  While I can sympathize with Ta bu shi da yu that it might not look good when printed, the primary use of Wikipedia is to be online and interactive, not printed.  I rarely print anything.  I think this printing argument for not including the external link indicator is very weak.  Incidentally, I tried printing an article that included external links with indicators and the indicators were not printed.  I believe that's because Wikipedia specifies different CSS for printing, which hides the indicators.  I think that the span should be removed from the template again.  --Lance E Sloan (talk) 14:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting

message: Ta ba shi or whatever his name is took out the periods in U.S.C. on March 15. I put them back in on March 18 because that's the way the U.S.C. is always cited in Bluebook style, which most federal and state courts adhere to.  --Coolcaesar 01:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should I feel insulted you can't get my username right when it's right in the page history? Anyway, I see what you are saying and agree with your decision. It's just that most other sources that I read don't use this, however THOMAS does and as you say Bluebook style wants this. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The periods

message: After looking at the 80ish footnotes of redundant listings I figured why not actually put the links into the text and have a real reference for the cornell site. That reduced the footnotes down to a reasonable size but someone should go back and look over it to make sure I didn't put something out of context.-Darkwraith 19:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree with what you did to USA PATRIOT Act, Title III. It makes the text harder to read. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnote trouble

message: Suppose I simply want to refer to an entire Title sans chapters/sections/etc. Can I do this with one of these templates?  For example, I want to state that the mission of the U.S. Census Bureau is defined in Title 13 U.S.C.. Any suggestions? older ≠ wiser 20:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: how to cite entire title (no sections)?

message: I just found and made my first use of the UnitedStatesCode tempate. Thanks for it!  Now, is there a similar template for the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)? The US GPO has an electronic version posted at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html . In searching Wikipedia, I've not found any appropriate templates. --Jdlh  | Talk
:CFR means 'category for renaming' on Wikipedia so they don't use the normal abbreviation, which is why a search might be fruitless. You're probably looking for "Template:CodeFedReg" (Although (slightly not unrelatedly) Fed. Reg. can also stand for the Federal Register)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.65.109.10 (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)?

message: It appears that Cornell is now requiring cookies and asking for donations.  Would it be possible to like to a non-commercial site instead?  It appears that http://law2.house.gov/search/criteria.shtml may let us construct appropriate URLs and that would be to a more authoratative source anyway.  Wrs1864 20:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They do that once or twice a year. It's no big deal. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: *I agree with TBSDY, but if anyone can find a better way to link to a better site, then I'm all for it.  I've been having trouble, for instance, making  work right.—Markles 14:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: switch from Cornell to a non-commercial site?

message: This is a high visibility template because that it is used on .  Cburnett 02:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protected

message: I wrote a new template  because the cornell pages have anchors embedded for each subsection, subparagraph, etc.  I'm not sure of the precise wording that would go best in the docs so please correct if needed.
Example:  yields .  Note the "d_2_B" anchor in the URL which will jump the browser to the appropriate clause.
Cburnett (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New template: USCSub

message: Great template! Thanks a lot. I'm curious though, why are we not using the Office of the Law Revision Counsel instead? It may not look as cute, but it's somewhat of a more direct source I believe. WDavis1911 (talk) 08:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law/Archive 6#Why use Cornell.edu instead of us.gov?. Cheers! bd2412 T 08:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Why does this not use the Office of the Law Revision Counsel?

message: I think that the link should generate a note and a link in the references section, i.e. <ref> should be used. 167.107.191.217 (talk) 13:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Shouldn't &lt;ref> be used?

message: Is there no template for U.S. Sentencing Guidelines? Tisane (talk) 01:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: USSG

message: Where multiple sections are cited, §§ should be used instead of §.  For example, 1 U.S.C. §§ 1-2, not 1 U.S.C. § 1-2.  Don't know how to fix this technically, but I estimate this has created thousands of inaccurate citations.  Savidan 19:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This template violates the [[Bluebook]] 

message: How does one link to this? http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode46a/usc_sec_46a_00000723----000-.html  Sandstein  22:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *Thanks anyway,  Sandstein  14:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like we should be able to support the idea that LII has pages with an "a" for the Appendices, i.e. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18a. Would this be better done in a different (new) template? The deeplinks to sections appendices give me the willies, since they kind of scream "not a durable URL," but I guess linking to them with an html link without a template is better than nothing. jhawkinson (talk) 01:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appendices unsupported? 

message: Template does not correctly render ranges of sections.  Cf., i.e., Sherman_Act.  The *sections* 1-7 are erroneously labeled as *sub*sections.  BUG!
207.22.49.29 (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request: §§ as "sub-section" 

message: Please see discussion at Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive_33#Template:UnitedStatesCode regarding the use of this template in article text (as distinct from the references or external links section). Cnilep (talk) 03:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This could easily be resolved by defining a new parameter such as . When specified, the wikilink would remain intact, and only the external link would be suppressed. In this mode, editors would be able to utilize these templates to properly format inline mentions of regulations, etc. within article texts.  If one really wanted to be precise, one could also define another parameter such as , which could be used to suppress subsequent internal links for multiple mentions of the same title within the same article.  Personally, I think the latter option might be overkill. —grolltech(talk) 23:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  No external links within article text 

message: Consistent with WP:Sea of blue, wouldn't it be better to not link the section (§) symbol, so the internal link to the title and the external link to the actual code don't appear to be a single link? --205.254.147.8 (talk) 13:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sea of blue 

message: I have added a "notitle" parameter to prevent display of the title, for use when multiple citations are desired but without repeating superfluous title information, as is demonstrated on Template:UnitedStatesCode/testcases. Int21h (talk) 23:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: In the documentation, I've expanded "Usage" section, and have added an example to the "Examples" section. Thanks! —grolltech(talk) 07:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  New notitle parameter 

message: I just manually corrected a bunch of citations at Paperwork Reduction Act that were made using the format "usc|ch|sec(1)(A)(i)", e.g.  -> .
# Could the template itself handle this style of invocation?
# If not, could someone please make a bot to autocorrect as I did (preferably doing a validation check against the Cornell site to ensure that the page and anchor are present)?
# Could a bot check the Cornell site to check whether a code has been moved, e.g.  ->  or the entire FECA transfer, eg  ->  (which Cornell has with a dash at the end for some reason)
#  Could the template change all Cornell links from http to https? Their full site is https now, and linking to http first presents a security & privacy vulnerability.
Thanks! Sai ¿?✍ 11:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean by "this style of invocation". It looks like there's a separate template, Template:USCSub, for linking to subsections. Changing the protocol used should be as easy as changing "http://" to "https://" in this template. Are you asking for a bot to change all instances of  to ? That and checking whether they've moved should be pretty easy. KSFTC 22:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't have edit rights to the template, so I can't change http -> https. It should be a trivial change, though. [ETA: looks like I was wrong. Changed.] Re. bot: yup, exactly that — or have  just work directly, which would be more robust than having separate templates. Sai ¿?✍ 16:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Handling usc|ch|sec(1)(A)(i) type invocations, or a bot to autocorrect; transferred codes; https for links 

message: See edit summary. Should I bring (minor) Template:CRS issue up at that talk page, separately?
: is not valid because there is no section "1973gg(b)" of title 42. See : . int21h (talk · contribs · email) 04:58, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template points to 404 

message: Remove the dots from "U.S.C." as per MOS:US. Getsnoopy (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 16 March 2020 

message: The MoS currently states that any abbreviation/initialism that is 3 letters or more shouldn't have dots, but this template still outputs it as such. This should change. Getsnoopy (talk) 23:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: . P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 08:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove dots as per MOS:US