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)
("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)
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)
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)
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)
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[thɑk][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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
| 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>
| 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)
| 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)
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)
@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)
Please implement the edit in this version of the sandboxdiff 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)
@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)
Hi DannyS712. I think the risk of rogue edits to the template if the protection level were temporarily (or even indefinitely) downgraded is pretty low. And it would save other users the trouble of needing to step in to do a sandbox to template page sync, which I think you're more than capable of doing yourself. I think that's the spirit of being bold. :-)
It also seems most reasonable to me to make you a template editor here since you have the skills and the desire to work on templates. The criteria you mention are guidelines, not strict requirements, and you've demonstrated sufficient competency without having been here a year, in my opinion.
In any case, thank you very much for the template maintenance! The code simplification and tweaks seem pretty good so far. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
@MZMcBride: in the case, I may apply for te rights - I have 4 more template protected edit requests to other templates in the pipeline. Thanks for the encouragement —DannyS712 (talk) 10:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
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)
Please replace with the current version of the sandbox (diff) to reduce a number of unneeded <includeonly>s and, more importantly, fix the call for {{{Holding}}} Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 08:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Please replace with the current sandbox version (diff) to reduce the unneeded checking of parameters {{{Litigants3}}} through {{{Litigants5}}} by only checking them if the previous parameter was present (don't need to check Litigants3 if Litigants2 isn't present, etc). Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 08:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Please replace with the current sandbox version (dif) - I cleaned up the "behind-the-scenes" without affecting the output (remove an unneeded parser function and parameter call, as well as standardize the spacing used)
Please replace with the current version of the sandbox (dif). This removes an unneeded check on a parameter, since if its empty it simply won't be shown. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Please replace with the current version of the sandbox (diff) to include seriatim opinions in the check for the case opinions heading, and then remove "opinion" from the individual labels for seriatim opinion (like the others). See the testcases for the result. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Please replace with the current version of the sandbox (diff) to add a heading for case history and replace "prior history", "procedural history", and "subsequent history", with "prior", "procedural", and "subsequent" respectively, since currently having "history" with each label means that it takes two lines to display and thus appears unseamly. The result is visible in /testcases. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Please replace with the current version of the sandbox (diff) to show "opinion" rather than "opinions" when there isn't a second one. See the current testcases for the difference. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Please replace with the current sandbox version (diff). This makes it easier to understand the series of parser functions at the bottom.
Currently, for each of the 13 parameters, the template checks if the parameter was provided, and if yes, if the page with that name exists, and if not, flags the infobox. The sandbox checks if the page with the name exists, and if no parameter was given just defaults to checking if 1 exists, reducing the number of checks (at most 13, rather than 26). Since the likelihood of 1 being deleted is miniscule, the downsides are slim-to-none.
@Alex 21: Do you think I should apply for TE rights? I've made dozens of edit requests for this template and others, and would like to stop needing to post here and wait each time (I'll still sandbox non-minor changes of course) --DannyS712 (talk) 22:51, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
I just read the relevant discussion and it was somewhat predictably disappointing. Sorry that this place sucks so much. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Warning: Page using Template:Infobox SCOTUS case with unknown parameter "SCOTUS" (this message is shown only in preview).
The documentation suggests having "SCOTUS=YEAR-YEAR" but when previewing the page that has this template use that parameter, the warning about it being an unknown parameter is shown. -Einstein95 (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: Typical. Thanks for telling me that, I've removed the param from the doc. Now if only there was a bot to mass edit uses of this template... --Einstein95 (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I think it would be reasonable to add "Partially superseded by" parameter for Roe v. Wade and change "This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings" to "This case overturned a previous ruling(s)". Hddty. (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Roe v. Wade already has "Superseded by" in its infobox.
I don't see the text "This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings" in Roe v. Wade or in this Template's code documentation. Please be more specific about what text should be changed, and on which page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Add the background color #99c0ff to the major headers of the template, such as "Holding" and "Court membership", to match those used by the Template:Infobox SCOTUS case. This will allow the various blocks of the template to navigated more easily. Rougher07 (talk) 04:12, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Court membership edge case for Carroll v. United States
In Carroll v. United States (decided March 2, 1925), the Court let Joseph McKenna attach his concurrence after he retired (on January 5, 1925). Currently, the case lists Harlan F. Stone as a member, which is Technically Correct because Stone joined the Court on March 2, 1925. However, he did not take part. Additionally, there seems to have been a large number of cases turned in on March 2 (almost all of volume 267, up to 267 U.S. 423), so I propose we fudge Stone's join date in Template:Infobox SCOTUS case/courts to March 3 like we did for Warren Burger's June 23, 1969 seating. We can then simply note in the Carroll article that it was a post-retirement one-off. lethargilistic (talk) 18:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
I've crossposted to WP:SCOTUS. FYI. The only online copy of the opinion syllabus I can find does not note court membership/actions for this case, was that not yet the practice at the time? postdlf (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
That was not the practice then. On older cases, the votes are only listed immediately before each opinion/concurrence/dissent, when they say who joined it. In this case, the opinion even explicitly says "MR. JUSTICE MCKENNA, before his retirement, concurred in this opinion." One wonders if they'd have included it if he dissented, lol. But it was a very contentious case at the time, so it makes sense that they made an exception. lethargilistic (talk) 05:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
I see. But then McKenna did not file a separate concurrence, contra what the infobox currently indicates, he did not write an opinion at all. I'm not as familiar with how they phrased things at that time, but it may mean simply that he had joined the opinion before he retired, or perhaps that he he concurred in the Court's judgment without separate opinion. So I'd question whether that even needs to be recorded in the infobox, maybe at most just a footnote in the body of the article. postdlf (talk) 15:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I see my mistake. I didn't notice "The separate opinion of MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS concurred in by MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND" was immediately underneath that, so you're right that McKenna did not write an opinion and should be removed from the infobox (I'll take care of that). But as for the court membership, I still think it's misleading to list Stone in the infobox. lethargilistic (talk) 23:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Opinion syllabi currently will note all members of the Court at the time a decision was handed down, and then note separately if someone didn't participate in the argument or decision. I suppose we didn't have that clarity in 1925? postdlf (talk) 00:51, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
It definitely depends. Secondary sources can be necessary to be sure someone was sick or something, but this is not an ordinary absence. He was not on the court yet when these decisions were made. He happened to be sworn in on the same day that the opinions came down and it's not necessarily clear if he was even present when they were delivered. If the options are to omit him from the infobox or explain the special case of his presence there for every article, I'd pick omission because "Harlan Stone was sworn in on this day" doesn't strike me as a salient point for a case about unreasonable searches of cars. At least, not as salient as "[A seated justice], expected to be there, did not participate because they were sick/recused." lethargilistic (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
This is a neat find! I agree with fudging the date (March 3 instead of March 2, 1925) and noting the special circumstance on Carroll. What you all have said is basically correct, in my experience, regarding opinion summaries. How every justice decided didn't start appearing explicitly until the mid-1960s or maybe even the 1970s. Prior to that, it's a matter of deducing from what's not said in the volumes. That is, in many older cases, we assume all members of the Court joined unless there's an explicit note saying otherwise. I think LexisNexis used to have more detailed and better annotations for older cases and it's possible some other public sites do as well these days. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
"Statement" in case opinions section
In Thompson v. Hebdon, Ginsburg filed a statement respecting the judgment. Please add a "Statement" opinion category in the case opinions section of the SCOTUS infobox. Kart2401real (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
That template doesn’t code separate opinions, they are instead just mentioned in the summary section so it’s all free typing. postdlf (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I vaguely remember some per curiam decisions noting dissents or concurrences in the description text. Having now read the decision (or at least Justice Ginsburg's part), it is a bit odd that it's a "statement" and not a concurrence in the judgment. I wonder if there are previous similar statements from the Court. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Since 2000 at least, we’ve only seen “statements” for opinions relating to orders. This is the only one in that timeframe filed with an opinion of the Court. postdlf (talk) 14:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
@Opera fera: Fixed - that case had a number of splits, and since it had no official majority, plurality, per curiam, or seriatim parameter specified, it didn't show the "Opinion" part, just added the "s" because the other parameters implied that there was another opinion. I've added a parameter to force showing the opinion label. DannyS712 (talk) 09:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Fullname and "Petitioner(s)"
It seems like in a lot of cases today and over the last several years, the petitioners are specifically identified in the SCOTUS decisions and their databases withe "Petitioner" or "Petitioners" if there's multiple in the full name of the case. eg [3]
Even though it should be obvious due to the placement of those names in front of the "v." as the petitioners to the case, would the word "Petitioner(s)" be considered part of the full name for the case in completing the FullName= field? I have not been including it because of this seemingly obviousness. --Masem (t) 14:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
It's not value added for the reasons you have mentioned so I never have included it. "Petitioner" and "respondent" is simply the posture of the party on appeal. postdlf (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I would personally include it simply because it is part of the official full case name. Things like "et al.", "LLC", etc, that are part of the full name, may also not necessarily be useful, which is why we don't mention them in the lede, but we still mention them as part of the full case name. --MrClog (talk) 12:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
LLC, etc. is actually part of the party's name, however, and may even be included in the short form case name per Blueblook rules if necessary to identify the party as a corporate entity rather (compare Smith v. Jones with Smith, LLC v. Jones Corp., and look at how the Supreme Court names cases). postdlf (talk) 13:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
And "et al." are necessary to indicate there are additional parties but too many to list for reasonableness in the cases' full name (they are dropped on the shortened name, obviously). "Petitioner" is simply a clear redundancy that I don't know why the court added to cases. --Masem (t) 13:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Because lawyers gonna lawyer. There's a lot the legal profession does that's just out of inertia and shibboleths. But I'd actually like us to expand that et al in the infobox where we can, though I imagine if there are a hundred parties on either side it would be better to do in a footnote than the infobox. postdlf (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
One more clarification that may help us talk about this, the "case name" is really just the short form of lead party v. lead party, the caption in the case is what expands out all of the full party names. postdlf (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Thompson v. Hebdon has an unusual statement respecting the decision by Ginsburg. Should a "statement opinion" section in the infobox be created since a rare bench opinion respecting the decision was finally written? Kart2401real (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi Kart2401real. You already asked about this case on this talk page. I'm not sure a new talk page section is needed. What do you mean by finally written? --MZMcBride (talk) 05:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
A statement color was added for the opinions table of the term, but no statement section was created for the SCOTUS infobox for the articles of each individual case. I believe one should be added. Kart2401real (talk) 06:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you mean; you expanded the redirect to be a standalone article. Do you think we should have a bold label such as "Statement" where we would typically have "Concurrence"? --MZMcBride (talk) 05:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes. A statement is different from a concurrence. A statement usually means agreeing with the judgment only reluctantly. Kart2401real (talk) 17:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Normally the "statement" designation is only used for opinions relating to orders (such as denial of cert.), and those are not unusual (though I'm not agreeing with the above claim as to when it's used). This one paragraph "statement" by Ginsburg (I think Kart2401real has spent more time talking about it for some reason than Ginsburg spent writing about it) is the only one filed with an opinion of the Court in the twenty years for which we have opinion lists. I still think Thompson v. Hebdon could be covered at 2019 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States given the scant content of both the Court's opinion and the WP article. postdlf (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I was about to ask if we should add fields for consolidated cases but I see now that we have up to 5 Litigants and Dockets here for that, which to me (haven't tried) would be for that. But on the same question as I'm running around on the Trump cases, can we add a "Linked" or "Related" case, as would be for the Trump v. Mazars and Trump v. Vance situation, or as in the Oklahoma case, for Sharp v. Murphy and McGint v. Oklahoma? That is, these are cases that are not procedurally linked in any way except in the ruling usually issued the same day, but, say, unlike the recent faithless elector cases where the facts are fundamentally similar, the case histories are far too different to merge. --Masem (t) 21:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I think the article text is the proper place for that, I don't know that it's something that can or should be standardized into an infobox field. In part because it is unusual to have cases that had been argued and briefed (and would have otherwise had a full opinion) resolved in that way; usually that's only done for cases/cert. petitions disposed of by summary orders (such as GVRs). My understanding is each pair of cases would have just been consolidated but not for the recusals on one case out of each pair. postdlf (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
True, that's not something that falls out of the Supreme Court's own document, that's only something that for example SCOTUSBlog does. (in contrast with the consolidations) Fair enough point. --Masem (t) 22:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
So following up on the first point, seeing how the additional Litigants/Docket lines work, this is how it looks when I apply it to a recent case in my sandbox User:Masem/sandbox (a typical 2-case solidation). all info is based on the SCOTUS docket pages. Now, while that's getting the consolidation across, it looks odd to me, and omits some facets identifying the consolidated case(s) like the full case name of the second consolidated case name. Now, I don't know the format yet, but I'm thinking that if we added "ConsolidedWith1=", "ConsolidatedFull=" (maybe) and "ConsolidatedDocket=" (with 2-5 version of those) so that after the template presents the Docket and Citations, then we can "Consolidated With". So here with my sand box this would add "St. James School v. Biel (Docket 119-348)" there. I note that we'd let the Prior/Subsequent sections be handled by the editors as often the same trial history will lead to two or more petitions that get consolidated back to one. --Masem (t) 05:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Please change [[Rufus Wheeler Peckham|Rufus W. Peckham]] to [[Rufus W. Peckham]] throughout; this is a pointless piping, as the title before the pipe is just a redirect back to the visible value. Colonies Chris (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC) Colonies Chris (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
