Template talk:Cite court

Westlaw or Lexis Case cite

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)

If you just cite according to Bluebook (White pages) rule 10.8.1, it should include the case number as well as the WL/Lexis, and so someone can do a search in that state's page to find it. I know this is an old comment, but I see quite a few problems with the above template. Captchacatcher (talk) 03:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Inline citation template

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)

Field requests: Case number, ECF number, filer, title, multi-field date

{{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Currently this only works for published opinions — not for unpublished opinions, nor for filings made by someone other than the court.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?

1. Case number

   For US federal, this is usually in the format 1:23-cv-04567-ABC-XYZ. 1 = division of court; 23 = year; cv = civil (also common: cr[iminal], m[is]c[ellaneous], m[agistrate]j[udge]); 4567 = optionally 0-padded case number; ABC = initials of presiding judge; XYZ = initials of magistrate judge (if assigned)

2. ECF number (aka docket number)

   Note: not all courts have these. US federal appellate courts often lack them.

3. Filer (if not court)

   Would normally be one of the litigants, but might also be a court reporter, amicus, intervenor, another court, etc

4. Title (of document)

   E.g. "Motion to something or other"

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)

@Sai: As you may've noticed, this hasn't gotten a lot of traction in the past 3 years. I think that while it's correct to desire a template to cite to court documents that are not published opinions, it would be better to use a different template, at least for now. This template is fairly widely used and protected to require template-editor or administrator rights. I'd imagine that we'd want a much more easily-edited template to use for such citations, because there are a lot of variations and I'd imagine it would take a while to get the template right and working for everyone. (Such a template could conceivably be a superset of this one and might replace this one in the future if it worked well?) If you decide to create such a template, please do post a note about it here (but probably it's a topic for WT:WikiProject Law). jhawkinson (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

ref support

User:Trappist the monk anyway this can support custom |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)

Yeah, you might want to do something like I did in the sandbox.

{{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.}}

Parker v. D.C., 478 F.3d 370, 401 (D.C. Cir. 2007) ("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}}}}

Parker v. D.C., 478 F.3d 370, 401 (D.C. Cir. 2007) ("As such, we hold it unconstitutional.").

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@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)

Template talk:Cite court § ref support

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: Yes, thanks, I saw that, but unfortunately I couldn't really tell what you were attempting to demonstrate, and viewing it through the Preview of your sandboxed edit, I couldn't tell either. Maybe I'm missing a subtlety. (Maybe an edit summary would have helped me?) I will leave it you to figure out what to do with it, then. Oh, also, @DocWatson42: now it's implemented, yes! jhawkinson (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

The purpose is to support templates like {{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.

Try this: On the desktop, preview this page using this version of the sandbox. Scroll the window so that the heading for §ref support is at the bottom of the window (rest of that section out of view). Click on this link:

Parker v. D.C. 2007

Page should reposition; may show a blue-highlighted rendering of the top {{cite court}} in §ref support. For me, the blue highlight is only there when I hover my mouse pointer over the link.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, Trappist the monk, I see it now. On mouseover/hover, both the blue highlight of the full citation if it's in view, and the popup copy of the same thing if it's not in view. I'm sorry to have fragmented discussion from the other topic, should we just cut/paste this all over there (just down by 1 section). So…what happened? Any reason this wasn't implemented?

If you're asking my opinion: I'm not a lawyer, but the lawyer inside me is troubled by 2nd references like Parker 2017 because that's not legal style. Legal style (Bluebook and others) is the second reference would be Parker and if there is ambiguity, then there would be Parker I and Parker II and they'd be defined on first reference. I realize this is a question of style and maybe it's an open question in Wikipedia what to do about it (probably the prevailing habit is to shoehorn legal citation into regular citation rules, and that does not seem great to me!), but if we can avoid using a citation style that looks wrong to people who read legal works, that would be a good thing. jhawkinson (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

What happened? No idea. Those who were interested in the change never came back to say yea or nay.

I have no opinion about style here. I wrote the examples as I did to show that the code can automatically lift the values assigned to |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.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately the styling question seems to matter a lot to the implementation. If my preference holds, then it wouldn't be a good idea to go ahead with what you did in the sandbox, because it is dependent on the year. Part of the problem is that the {{sfn}}/{{harv}} have 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)

I don't know where you got that notion, but it is not true that {{sfn}}/{{harv}} have year as a mandatory parameter. Here is an example using {{harvnb}}:

{{harvnb|''Parker I''}} → Parker I

and a {{cite book}} mock up:

{{cite book |title=Parker v. D.C. |ref={{sfnref|''Parker I''}}}} → Parker v. D.C.

Editors can do pretty much whatever they want to do with the sandboxed |ref= support (this is just a variant of the second example in my original post).

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh great! I am guilty of having read the documentation and not actually the code and I didn't test it, I just believed the docs! Template:Sfn/doc#Default mode says that year is "required" and marks it with a *. Anyhow, I'd suggest omitting the {#time:Y|{{{date|}}}}} from the CITEREF if we do this. jhawkinson (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Litigants parameter needs work

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)

If you think that the documentation can be improved, please suggest specific changes to the wording, or you can be bold and change it yourself. Right now, the |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)

Adding archive url as a field?

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)

Pinging @Jhawkinson: about this: I noticed and was wondering about that as well. "archive-url" is mentioned on this template's documentation, but is not implemented, despite the documentation stating "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)

Okay, got a proposal for an implementation of this parameter (along with the implementations of |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)).

This is necessary due to the procedures outlined in WP:PLRT (and WP:DEADLINK) - having these parameters will allow editors to easily make their court case citations much more resilient to link rot. Sure, one could argue that the name of a court case is immutable and that 'anyone who wants to find the case details can just look it up from the title of the case', but WP:DEADLINK points out that, in this situation, editors who find the details archived somewhere should add the details of this archive to the citation - which is currently impossible with this template (and rewards the proactive editor with nothing but an error message and puts the article into a maintenance category for misusing this template).

Only issue is that pretty much all the other main citation templates internally just invoke H:CS1/H:CS2, which, of course, is all lua stuff, whilst this template is 100% wikitext, so, to port this functionality into this template, that functionality would either need to be recreated via wikitext, or somehow convert this template to internally invoke H:CS1/H:CS2. And I'm trying to look at the code for H:CS1/H:CS2 in an attempt to work out the full internal logic for how exactly those parameters are handled, and it's going way over my head.

Anywho, courtesy pings for @Trappist the monk: and @Jonesey95:, seeing if either of you have any thoughts on this proposed implementation + rationale. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 10:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

How to cite to the Federal Register?

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)

The Federal Register is a daily periodical so, {{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}}

Drug Enforcement Administration (2016-07-19). "Denial of Petition To Initiate Proceedings To Reschedule Marijuana" (PDF). Federal Register. Vol. 81, no. 156. pp. 53767–53819. Retrieved 2022-10-06.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:55, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 April 2023

• The change: Add archive-url as a 'known' parameter, because it's documented within Template:Cite_court/doc.
  • Original parameter check (line 50):
    • }}{{#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>
  • Edited parameter check (line 50):
    • }}{{#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)

 Not done Pointless because {{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.}}

Parker v. D.C., 478 F.3d 370, 401 (D.C. Cir. 2007) ("As such, we hold it unconstitutional."), archived from the original on 2010-06-15.

The title in the rendered example should be linked to the archive snapshot but, as you can see, it isn't. So, propose a fix that will add support for |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 ...

As it stands now, the preview warning is correct.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Then why are the equally-pointless unused archive-date, archivedate, and url-status parameters included as 'known' parameters in line 50? 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 22:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

You might ask Editor Jonesey95 who added them at this edit. I would venture to guess that Editor Jonesey95 did not intend to include those parameters.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, seeing as 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.

But I suppose we may as well @Jonesey95: and ask them directly about that edit, as suggested. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 23:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I have no ability to time-travel in order to ask my past self what I was thinking. If I had to guess, I think I was probably assuming that the template was in active or pending development. It appears that was not the case. I have removed all references to these unsupported parameters. Feel free to restore them if they are added as functional parameters. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The exclusion of the archive parameters has been addressed here before, although the template was only recently protected from regular editing and it appears no one with template editing permissions is actively watching this temp. There are several articles using archive parameters scattered throughout this cat (among other parameter issues). Is there any way to get a template editor experienced with this format to weigh in and aid in the edits, aside from the Template:Edit template-protected notice? Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Bluebook

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)

Request: Add archiving for template.

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)

@HotMess, Trailblazer101, Gamerknowitall, and Jasonkwe: Is there still an effort to add 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://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template:Cite_comic&action=edit

Hope it helps, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

For the articles I've used it on, we just resorted to filling in the archives manually outside the ref. Given the lack of response, I'm not sure if it may be worth taking the initiative on this again. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, such parameters do not exist, which is why I’ve made this. Gamerknowitall (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, 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.}}
• Parker v. D.C., 478 F.3d 370, 401 (D.C. Cir. 2007) ("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.}}
• Parker v. D.C., 478 F.3d 370, 401 (D.C. Cir. 2007) ("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.}}
• Parker v. D.C., 478 F.3d 370, 401 (D.C. Cir. 2007) ("As such, we hold it unconstitutional."), archived from the original.
• {{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.}}
• Parker v. D.C., 478 F.3d 370, 401 (D.C. Cir. 2007) ("As such, we hold it unconstitutional."), archived from the original.

@Trailblazer101: I had intended to ping you when I posted above but forgot to sign. That's the minimum to archive urls. I'm testing the end text and access-date in this sandbox: User:Rjjiii/sandbox9. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Rjjiii @Trailblazer101 @Gamerknowitall I can't say for certain since I only dabble in court-related articles but to me, links without archives are dead, whether now or in the future. So ways to archive those links are always great. I really appreciate your work on this. I can't say for other editors who work on legal articles but I'd hope they do use the parameter (when/if you can roll it out). Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 01:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

@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:

Live template

• Parker v. D.C., 478 F.3d 370, 401 (D.C. Cir. 2007) ("As such, we hold it unconstitutional."), archived from the original on 11 June 2023.
• {{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}}

Sandbox template

• Parker v. D.C., 478 F.3d 370, 401 (D.C. Cir. 2007) ("As such, we hold it unconstitutional."), archived from the original on 11 June 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)

At the risk of distracting us with a policy issue rather than a technical one, the focus on URLs here and the given Parker v. D.C. example is …weird. Most of the time, citations to court opinions are citations to reporters, not to slip opinions from the court. And that matters because the pagination is different in the Court's slip opinion, and citations frequently reference pagination within the opinion (the reporter's pagination, not the slip opinion's). (I concede that the Court's slip opinion is available immediately when the reporter is not, and that the formatting is probably superior.) For the widely available reporters, Google Scholar probably presents the best reading interface for them. So, e.g. the normal citation for Parker v. D.C. might be:

• Parker v. D.C., 478 F.3d 370, 401 (D.C. Cir. 2007) ("As such, we hold it unconstitutional.").
• from {{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. }}

As such, I'm not really sure that that talking about archive URLs is a wise thing to do, or that they are really needed (but sure, one day, Google Scholar will go belly-up, just like Google Reader). Another obvious problem with the template made clear above is that the URL is a link to the pincite (page 401), but the anchor for the link makes it seem like it's a link to page 370. There should be some way to express the link is to the pincite, and maybe even (but probably not?) to have a link to both the top of the case (370) as well as the pincite (401). Another problem with slip opinion PDFs is that not all of the federal courts make slip opinions free on their websites without PACER registration (although they are free with an account), although…many do. I tend to think the template should generate links to Google Scholar based on the volume/reporter/page information. It seems to me that we have templates to help with consistency, and having every Wikipedia editor who cites a court case (esp. those who are not familiar with these nuances) choose their personal favorite link to the court case without regard for the institutional concerns and consistency is…not a great thing jhawkinson (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jhawkinson: I have used the topmost example from Template:Cite court/doc to demonstrate possible changes. If this is a poor example, you are welcome to change it. Unlike the template itself, any editor can edit the documentation page. You may also want to improve the |url= description there if it is retained, to include the insight from your post above. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, I wanted the feature to be added because there are some pages for court documents that are no longer accessible. Gamerknowitall (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@Rjjiii: Yeah, your point is well taken. I do think it's a poor example, although I wonder if anyone else has contrary thoughts before I go change it. Still, it encourages me to think we should not be adding archive-url. Some of this is related to thinking that animates Template:Caselaw_source, and probably suggests we need better documentation that explains when to use one and when to use the other. (That may be a trick question, I'm not sure there is a good principle!).

@Gamerknowitall: Can you give an example, please, where the court documents appears to no longer be accessible? jhawkinson (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jhawkinson: I don't have expertise here, but did look into a bit the possibility of generating a Google scholar citation. I don't see a clear way to extract Google Scholar's case number (11156910755936011541 in the link above) from existing parameters. Additionally, that example above includes the volume and other parameters, but the template doesn't require this, and many existing usages don't fill them out. Also, it looks like Google Scholar has US cases, but the template could (I think) be used for the laws of any place.

I have left in the ability to add an archive-url and to use url-status to preemptively archive. If you think that an access-date would not make sense, I'll leave it off. As far as Google scholar links, I think it would require an extra parameter for the case and then the template-generated Google Scholar URL could trump the archived URL which would trump the standard URL. I'm not sure that most editors would make use of the parameter though? Thanks for the feedback, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

My expectation would be that the 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?

break, automatic links (Courtlistener)

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)

@Rjjiii:: I'm a volunteer contributor to FLP, so I'm not totally unbiased here, but perhaps not in the way you'd expect. Courtlistener is pretty reliable (would you like a numerical quantification?), but the big problem is that its reading experience is vastly worse than Google Scholar's. Reliability isn't really the issue. For instance,

compare https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/186883/parker-v-district-of-columbia/?q=%22478%20F.%203d%20370%22&type=o&order_by=score%20desc&stat_Precedential=on

with https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11156910755936011541&q=478+F.3d+370,&hl=en&as_sdt=40000006#p401

In law contexts, it's really important to be able to easily find the pin-cite, like in this situation page 401 (where it says "As such, we hold it unconstitutional."). Google Scholar makes that really easy, but Courtlistener…does not (sure, you can Ctrl/Cmd-F for "*401"). Arguably worse, it puts paragraph numbers on the left margin instead instead. This would be great if you were designing a new legal citation system from the ground up, but unfortunately that's not how the world works, so it's more harmful than helpful (IMNSHO). I think, for sure, whether to recommend or even make CourtListener an option is absolutely something that needs significant discussion, far more so than "access-date." I agree that Template:Law report uses it, but…that template is not popular, it's only got 137 transclusions, it had no discussion about the choice of CourtListener, and was only ever edited by one person. This is why I referenced Template:Caselaw source which is, like…the opposite problem. Nobody knew what to do so they threw in the kitchen sink, and that's not good for anybody.

It's possible I've missed a discussion somewhere about these issues (like in the distant past?), but I have not seen one and I have looked more than once (but not today).

I'd welcome a robust discussion about this. jhawkinson (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jhawkinson: I really appreciate the thorough reply! I don't have a preference for the particular site, it was just the one that I see has a URL format that can be directly generated from this template's parameters. In the documentation, I've highlighted Google Scholar as you suggest.

Sometimes I'm immune to subtlety, so let me ask, when you say whether to recommend or even make CourtListener an option is absolutely something that needs significant discussion would you prefer a usage with no url parameter to:

• autogenerate a link, even if it's to CourtListener
• not generate a link

Thanks again for all your insight, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 23:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@Rjjiii: I do not think Wikipedia should make it easy for editors to link to a website that gives a worse reading experience for readers. We should encourage editors to do the small amount of work to look up the Google Scholar url. Therefore, I would prefer no link autogeneration and I do not think a Courtlistener link should be autogenerated in the absence of a url being specified. jhawkinson (talk) 23:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

"Via" parameter

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)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law § Updating Template:Cite court

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law § Updating Template:Cite court. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 00:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC)