Jump to content

User talk:Legalskeptic

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DPL bot (talk | contribs) at 09:17, 25 August 2018 (dablink notification message (see the FAQ)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Re Special:Diff/854799265 and similar edits

Hi Legalskeptic, I see you recently edited Townsend v. Sain changing (in part) {{ussc|372|293|1963|el=no}} to 372 U.S. 293 (1963) with the edit summary (in part) "removed link from lead citation per WP:SCOTUS/SG". WP:SCOTUS/SG is an essay and expects deviations where appropriate ("All of this may be varied as appropriate; use your judgment."). I see you are also mass-changing other articles to this format. I prefer the former format – it provides links to the US Reports volume article and the US Reports article, and follows the external link guideline. It's also more semantically useful than 372 U.S. 293 (1963). Would you consider temporarily stopping this and similar edits while we discuss here? Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understand where you're coming from and I personally agree with you about the leads. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases#Case lead sentences. I am personally not opposed to using the Template:Ussc format with the el=no code, but the consensus of WikiProject:SCOTUS was in favor of plain leads without links. There is even a report that organizes articles by whether they are compliant with this. LegalSkeptic (talk) 00:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see that discussion now. I'll definitely make sure to weigh in there, and I'll personally abide by the results of any WikiProject SCOTUS consensus, but it's worth noting that other editors don't have to since it's quite a local consensus and nothing binding can happen at WikiProjects, so there's a chance you'll run into some resistance with other editors on this. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good points - my take is that it's enough of a consensus to make changes, but since it's local I will not get bogged down in any edit wars on particular pages. If someone wants a certain page to have the template it's not the end of the world, but right now I am trying to make a dent in the report. P.S., some other changes I tend to make along the way are adding links to lower court opinions for prior history, and replacing dead external links (especially Findlaw, which changed its URL format a couple times over the years). LegalSkeptic (talk) 12:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm wondering why you're adding parallel cites to U.S. LEXIS, for example? I personally don't understand why that citation would be useful at all. This isn't a case that was just released as a slip opinion and that nothing else is available for – we have citations to the U.S. Reports (even the Supreme Court Reporter is kinda overkill). Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to have a larger discussion about this at the WikiProject:SCOTUS talk page if you'd like. If you want to get rid of parallel citations in Supreme Court articles systemwide, it could probably be done by deleting the |Citations= and |ParallelCitations= code from Template:Infobox SCOTUS case. I support their inclusion. For one, they are useful for newer cases that do not yet have U.S. Reports citations. Specialty publication citations like U.S.P.Q. indicate that a case is important in a particular field of law. LegalSkeptic (talk) 00:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it isn't a binary yes/no all-or-nothing parallel cites thing – often, they can be useful, as you note. You're right that I should consider the details of any changes more carefully; I do think that the times parallel cites will be useful for old cases with U.S. Reports citations will be rare. I'll start a discussion about this at WikiProject SCOTUS or something soon. Thanks! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
True, some parallel citations may be more useful than others. I think that at a minimum, SCOTUS cases should always have the S. Ct. citations (Supreme Court Reporter) since those are often used as stand-ins before the U.S. Reports citations are available - although this does not apply to cases decided before West introduced its reporter system. I can see how the Lexis ones can be less useful. I'll keep an eye out for any discussions on this. LegalSkeptic (talk) 12:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to follow up here and say this hasn't fallen off my to-do list but it might be a few more days before I get to opening a discussion on the topic Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FYI – discussion opened here Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Califano v. Goldfarb

Hi! I moved over an expansion to the article for Califano v. Goldfarb and wanted to let you know, as you were the last person to edit. I also wanted to ask if you could look over everything to make sure that it looks OK. It was expanded by a student I oversaw via WikiEdu and while it looks OK to me for the most part (definitely needs more sourcing as a whole), I don't have the expertise that you would so you may catch something that I didn't.

On a side note, a law librarian! How cool! ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ReaderofthePack, thanks for reaching out. I've made minor edits to a large number of Supreme Court case articles, so I am not really attached to any of them. But the Califano v. Goldfarb edits and the sandbox version of Wong Wing v. United States both look pretty good.
One thing I would say could use improvement in both cases is that specific propositions (or especially quotations) from the cases should be supported by references containing pinpoint citation to the page number of the case - e.g., Califano, 430 U.S. at 200, for something on page 200 of that opinion. I find that Google Scholar is the most user-friendly free tool to do this, as it clearly shows the page numbers on the left side of the page. The Roe v. Wade article is a good example of this. But I don't have time to do this to every article I edit, so I think using a "ref name" that cites to the case generally is fine as a placeholder.
You can also check out WP:SCOTUS/SG for guidance - one thing I would change about the Wong Wing sandbox draft is to remove Template:Ussc from the lead (see my conversation immediately above this one). LegalSkeptic (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cannon v. University of Chicago, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CCH (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Legalskeptic&oldid=856452414"