Template:Cite court is permanently
protected from editing because it is a
heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by
consensus, editors may use {{
edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's
documentation to add usage notes or
categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Cite court template. |
|
Archives: 1 |
Law Template‑class | |||||||
|
I am trying to find a way to document what the case number is a slip opinion and only has a Westlaw or Lexis cite? It seems like the template needs to be changed. While I have read the comments above on why the template the way it is, I have to state that not having the ability to place in proper legal sites, make it hard to show people how they can access the material. I don't think you will have attorneys using wiki as a legal search database (I hope not) but having the ability to show other layperson where the data is, if they chose to pay for a onetime document charge would be helpful.
Thoughts? Jsgoodrich ( talk) 00:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I've created a new template for inline law report citations, {{ Law report}}. There seems to be a need for a template along the lines of {{ USC}} etc that just formats a simple law report citation and builds a URL. Int21h ( talk) 00:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
Currently this only works for published opinions — not for unpublished opinions, nor for filings made by someone other than the court.
Could you please add the following fields?
Example:
|litigants=X v. Y |number=1:23-cv-4567 |docket=45-1 |court=N.D. Ex. |date=2017,11,5 |filer=Y |title=Memorandum in support of motion to dismiss |url=http://test/123
X v. Y, No. 1:23-cv-4567, Y's Memorandum in support of motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 45-1 (N.D. Ex., filed Nov. 5, 2017)
Note that "filed" before the date is used for non-court filings.
For an unpublished order, this would be e.g.:
|litigants=X v. Y |number=1:23-cv-4567 |docket=52 |court=N.D. Ex. |date=2017,12,6 |title=Opinion denying motion to dismiss |url=http://test/456
X v. Y, No. 1:23-cv-4567, Opinion denying motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 52 (N.D. Ex., Dec. 12, 2017)
If a full cite were added later, this would suppress some fields. E.g.:
|litigants=X v. Y |number=1:23-cv-4567 |docket=52 |court=N.D. Ex. |date=2017,12,6 |title=Opinion denying motion to dismiss |url=http://test/456 |vol=123 |reporter=F. |opinion=456
X v. Y,
123 F. 456 (N.D. Ex. 2017)
— Sai ¿? ✍ 20:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
|ref=
anchors? It would be useful at say,
Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 00:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)+1! Any way to cite a case multiple times in a standardized way would be amazing. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 01:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
{{harvnb|''Parker v. D.C.''|2007}}
→
Parker v. D.C. 2007{{cite court/sandbox |litigants=Parker v. D.C. |vol=478 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=370 |pinpoint=401 |court=D.C. Cir. |date=2007 |url=http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf |quote=As such, we hold it unconstitutional.}}
{{harvnb|''Parker''|2007}}
→
Parker 2007{{cite court/sandbox |litigants=Parker v. D.C. |vol=478 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=370 |pinpoint=401 |court=D.C. Cir. |date=2007 |url=http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf |quote=As such, we hold it unconstitutional. |ref={{sfnref|Parker|2007}}}}
@ Trappist the monk: what was the deal with this sandbox edit that's been kicking around since June? Should it be put back in the sandbox, or…? I removed it for the above process since I didn't understand its purpose or history or source. jhawkinson ( talk) 16:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
{{
sfn}}
and the {{harv}}
family of templates. The change allows editors to refer to the same {{
cite court}}
template multiple times without the need to duplicate {{cite court}}
multiple times. This is the same sort of functionality that all of the cs1|2 templates ({{
cite book}}
etc) support.{{cite court}}
in §ref support. For me, the blue highlight is only there when I hover my mouse pointer over the link.|litigants=
and |date=
and from them create a CITEREF
anchor suitable for use by {{
sfn}}
and the {{harv}}
family of templates. The second example shows how to build 'custom' CITEREF
anchors; perhaps that can be used for your Parker I and Parker II preferences. I am content to leave the styling question to others who have opinions. If it becomes necessary to change the template to accommodate that preferred styling, I or some other editor can make the needed changes.year
as a mandatory parameter. On the one hand, that makes them unsuitable for Parker I referencing; on the other hand, creating an entirely new template (or template family!) just for legal citation seems a heavy lift that could be hard to justify. I guess, strictly speaking, the year could appear in the anchor but need not be displayed, but I'd want to think harder about the ramifications of that. So I'm not sure where to go from here. @
Headbomb and
AleatoryPonderings: you were seeking this support initially, how do you feel about where this has gone?
jhawkinson (
talk) 21:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
{{
sfn}}/{{
harv}} have year
as a mandatory parameter.
Here is an example using {{
harvnb}}
:
{{harvnb|''Parker I''}}
→
Parker I{{
cite book}}
mock up:
{{cite book |title=Parker v. D.C. |ref={{sfnref|''Parker I''}}}}
→ Parker v. D.C.|ref=
support (this is just a variant of the second example in my original post).*
. Anyhow, I'd suggest omitting the {#time:Y|{{{date|}}}}}
from the CITEREF if we do this.
jhawkinson (
talk) 00:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)The full title of a case includes the full names of all the parties on one side of the case, then a "v.", then the full names of all the parties on the other side. Some cases have more than two sides. Cases often have more that two parties. The full title is never used in citing or referring to the case. The full title is only used in court documents.
The correct term for what the documentation calls the litigants parameter is "short title," which is used in citing or referring to the case. The usual This v. That that you see is the short title. In the substantial majority of cases, the short title indicates the first-named party on each side of a case. For a party that is a human being, the short title uses that party's surname. For a party that is an organization, short title would use organization's name or a reasonable abbreviation of its name. If a case has more than two sides, only the first two sides are used in the short title. The prosecutor in a criminal cases is often referred to as the People; in federal criminal cases, United States is the prosecuting party.
Some types of cases have a differently constructed short title. Examples: Estate of Jones; In re Smith; United States ex rel. Smith v. Jones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finell ( talk • contribs) 22:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
|litigants=
parameter documentation begins thus: The title of the case, such as "Miranda v. Arizona". If a Wikipedia article using this exact string exists, a link will automatically be created.That seems like a nice concise version of what you wrote above, and it includes the hint that the common title of the case should be used so that a link will be created. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 03:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree this needs work.
The ligitants parameter doesn't seem right because that should be a list of all the litigants in the case (without a "v."), but instead it is used as the title. We should rename the parameter to title and alias litigants to it, which also helps to make it consistent with the CS1 templates, like {{ cite web}}, that so many editors are familiar with. (Of course, such a thing is really the "short title" or "short caption," but since there's not a real use for the long-title in this template, it doesn't make sense to call the parameter "short-title.") Any opinions on such a change? jhawkinson ( talk) 01:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
I have very little experience w/ court case citation but would it be helpful to add archive url's as a field? I saw it mentioned in one of the talk archives but never implemented. Jasonkwe ( talk) ( contribs) 04:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
URL to a backup copy of the document at Wayback.Archive.org or some other archival site. This presently is not displayed, which is inconsistent with other citation templates". Since PDFs have become a prevalent way for court cases to be documented, and do get used in citing them on Wikipedia, this archival system should be set up, especially for the instances where it is being used, ie at Black Widow (2021 film). Trailblazer101 ( talk) 03:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
|url-status=
and |archive-date=
, and maybe also |archive-format=
, and |access-date=
) - basically, just copying the way that these parameters are used within
Template:Cite (y'know, putting them at the end, like 'Archived from [|url=
the original] |archive-format=
on |archive-date=
. Retrieved |access-date=
.' (with |archive-url=
replacing where |url=
currently is when the |url-status=
is along the lines of 'dead'), or like '[|archive-url=
Archived] |archive-format=
from the original on |archive-date=
. Retrieved |access-date=
.' (when the |url-status=
is alive)).I looked around the Help pages and citation template index, but didn't find anything better than using "cite court" despite the Federal Register not being a court and not having litigants. I didn't see any examples of FR cites in the "cite court" documentation either. I ended up using the template yesterday to cite to multiple FR documents in Removal of cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (to cite and link to the official DEA denials of petitions to reschedule). I would be happy to learn a better way to do it -- and also would be happy to see archive-url work! -- Gnuish ( talk) 08:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
{{
cite periodical}}
:
{{cite periodical |volume=81 |number=156 |periodical=Federal Register |pages=53767–53819 |title=Denial of Petition To Initiate Proceedings To Reschedule Marijuana |author=Drug Enforcement Administration |url=https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2016-08-12/pdf/2016-17960.pdf |date=2016-07-19 |access-date=2022-10-06}}
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
archive-url
as a 'known' parameter, because it's documented within
Template:Cite_court/doc.
}}{{#invoke:Check for unknown parameters|check|unknown={{main other|[[Category:Pages using cite court with unknown parameters|_VALUE_{{PAGENAME}}]]}}|preview=Page using [[Template:Cite court]] with unknown parameter "_VALUE_"|ignoreblank=y| court | date | litigants | opinion | pinpoint | postscript | quote | reporter | text | url | vol | year | ref<!--The following parameters are documented but not yet active, so they are listed here:-->| accessdate | access-date | archive-date | archivedate | lang | url-status | via }}<noinclude>
}}{{#invoke:Check for unknown parameters|check|unknown={{main other|[[Category:Pages using cite court with unknown parameters|_VALUE_{{PAGENAME}}]]}}|preview=Page using [[Template:Cite court]] with unknown parameter "_VALUE_"|ignoreblank=y| court | date | litigants | opinion | pinpoint | postscript | quote | reporter | text | url | vol | year | ref<!--The following parameters are documented but not yet active, so they are listed here:-->| accessdate | access-date | archive-date | archivedate | lang | url-status | via | archive-url }}<noinclude>
thanks :) 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 ( talk・ edits) 22:00, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
{{
cite court}}
does not support |archive-url=
. This example from the doc page with added |archive-url=
and |archive-date=
:
{{cite court |litigants=Parker v. D.C. |vol=478 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=370 |pinpoint=401 |court=D.C. Cir. |date=2007 |url=http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100615232654/http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf |archive-date=2010-06-15 |quote=As such, we hold it unconstitutional.}}
|archive-url=
(and |archive-date=
) or fix the documentation ... You will have to figure out where in the citation rendering the message about an archive should go which may require consensus of the editors who use this template ...archive-date
, archivedate
, and url-status
parameters included as 'known' parameters in line 50?
🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (
talk・
edits) 22:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
archive-date
, archivedate
, and archive-url
have been
included in the documentation page since November 2017 (with url-status
being
added by yourself to the documentation in September 2019), it's more likely that Jonesey95 just forgot to add archive-url
to the 'known' parameters when making that edit.Does the template utilize Bluebook formatting, such as for abbreviations when cases are cited? If so, it might be easier to just cite without a template as everyone would be using the same legal citation format. Captchacatcher ( talk) 03:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
There is no feature by which you can archive the court link, just in case the original page gets deleted. There needs to be a feature like that because it will be really useful. Gamerknowitall ( talk) 06:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
access-date
, archive-date
, archive-url
, and url-status
parameters?
Template:Cite comic implements these in wikitext (not lua) and can be used as a model:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template:Cite_comic&action=editOh, are there no active maintainers for the template? I've just updated the sandbox. This just affects the url that is linked. I didn't add the "Archive from..." text at the end or make the parameters known yet:
Live version:
{{cite court |litigants=Parker v. D.C. |vol=478 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=370 |pinpoint=401 |court=D.C. Cir. |date=2007 |url=http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf |quote=As such, we hold it unconstitutional.}}
Sandbox with a url only, archive-url, and archive-url plus url-status:
{{cite court/sandbox |litigants=Parker v. D.C. |vol=478 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=370 |pinpoint=401 |court=D.C. Cir. |date=2007 |url=http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf |quote=As such, we hold it unconstitutional.}}
{{cite court/sandbox |litigants=Parker v. D.C. |vol=478 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=370 |pinpoint=401 |court=D.C. Cir. |date=2007 |url=http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20230611004201/http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf |quote=As such, we hold it unconstitutional.}}
{{cite court/sandbox |litigants=Parker v. D.C. |vol=478 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=370 |pinpoint=401 |court=D.C. Cir. |date=2007 |url=http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20230611004201/http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf |url-status=live |quote=As such, we hold it unconstitutional.}}
@
HotMess,
Trailblazer101,
Gamerknowitall,
Jasonkwe, and
Jhawkinson: The live template now supports |archive-url=
and |url-status=
. I am testing |access-date=
and |archive-date=
in the sandbox:
{{cite court |litigants=Parker v. D.C. |vol=478 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=370 |pinpoint=401 |court=D.C. Cir. |date=2007 |url=http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20230611004201/http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf |archive-date=11 June 2023|quote=As such, we hold it unconstitutional. |access-date=20 November 2023}}
{{cite court/sandbox |litigants=Parker v. D.C. |vol=478 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=370 |pinpoint=401 |court=D.C. Cir. |date=2007 |url=http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20230611004201/http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf |archive-date=11 June 2023|quote=As such, we hold it unconstitutional. |access-date=20 November 2023}}
Feedback is welcome, Rjjiii ( talk) 17:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
{{cite court
|litigants=Parker v. D.C.
|vol=478
|reporter=F.3d
|opinion=370
|pinpoint=401
|court=D.C. Cir.
|date=2007
|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11156910755936011541&q=478+F.3d+370,&hl=en&as_sdt=40000006#p401
|quote=As such, we hold it unconstitutional.
}}
|url=
description there if it is retained, to include the insight from your post above.
Rjjiii (
talk) 20:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)url=
parameter be the Google Scholar URL most of the time. You're right that I'm speaking specifically to US law citation, which is pretty well structured; it almost always has a volume and page number for almost any citation. (Maybe there should be separate US-specific templates?) Even the modern online service citations like 2018 WL 2305667 or 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84818 follow the volume/page form, even if the page number is somewhat of a fiction. I don't have a strong opinion on access-date=
, it's not very important for Google Scholar, but might be for less table URLs, and seems to be the Wikipedia standard.
jhawkinson (
talk) 04:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)@ HotMess and Trailblazer101: Any opinions on the sandbox or live version differences here: Template:Cite court/testcases?
How reliable is CourtListener.com? Template:Law report uses " CourtListener from the Free Law Project" to auto-generate its links. They appear to have a standardized and stable format. In the testcases, I've done a demo where the template chooses between archive-url, url, and the automated link in that order of preference. [1] If this is desirable, I can test it for a bit and push it live. I feel like it's bound to have limitations.
Regarding the "access-date", I'll probably post to WP:LAW to get more input before adding it. The majority of the template usage already includes it even though it has never done anything. If that's what people need from the template, I can include it, but I don't want to add anything that will discourage people looking for something closer to Bluebook/print. Rjjiii ( talk) 22:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
whether to recommend or even make CourtListener an option is absolutely something that needs significant discussionwould you prefer a usage with no url parameter to:
Suggesting that this template could use a "via=" parameter (common in other cite types) to credit whichever website or journal has the content. -- Asdasdasdff ( talk) 17:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law § Updating Template:Cite court. Rjjiii ( talk) 00:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC)