Openjurist

This is the talk page for OpenJurist.

We have begun discussions with MZMcBride about a major expansion of Wikipedia's library of cases to include Cases from the Court of Appeals, currently hoping to do F.2d. and F.3d to really build out Wikipedia's library and make it complete in these areas.

We would like to lay it out identical to the way the USSC cases are laid out.

We have a couple of more weeks of work to do to get it right.

We would like to discuss this with those whom are interested.

Openjurist (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Open Jurist

Wikipedia is operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, an organization that operates a number of sites, including one dedicated to free texts called Wikisource. So, for example, while Wikipedia (this site) has a page on Roe v. Wade, including critical commentary, background information, etc., Wikisource has the actual text of the opinion (Roe v. Wade).

Like Wikipedia, Wikisource is ad-free, though, as I'm sure you have noticed by searching web, Wikisource's collection of case law is quite lacking.

Wikipedia (and all of the other sister sites) don't really have anyone to "report to," which is part of the wiki concept, really. People edit and add content as they see fit. All registered users do have 'watchlists,' which allow them to track certain articles. For example, on my watchlist I have all of the "List of USSC cases, volume #", which gave me the heads-up that something was going on. I was the one who originally created the pages (the first ninety volumes at least) and another user did the other 400 or so.

You, and the other people you're working with, may want to create a user page explaining what you're doing here. Each registered user has a user page, for example, yours is located at User:Openjurist while mine is at User:MZMcBride.

While I am an administrator on this site (the English Wikipedia), I'm speaking on behalf of myself here: looking at openjurist.org, it looks as though the web layout of the actual cases is very good, though other parts of the site are a bit iffy (no about page, funky links in places, etc.). Obviously, the reason I mentioned Wikisource is that it's a more established project and would be happy to have the content. It's clear from openjurist.org that there are programmers working in the background. (I don't imagine all of those 625,000 cases were hand-typed. ; - ) ) You may want to consider adding content there instead of adding it to your own site (or perhaps doing both).

To the more pertinent topic, as I said at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, I'm a bit hesitant to add links in the middle of page content with such a new site. Also, from this site's perspective, using a sister site would obviously be preferable if possible (it currently isn't). In the past, justia.com attempted to do something similar to what you're doing (adding links to various places, etc.), however, their site had some pretty obvious quirks that pretty much negated any possibility of adding links to their site until they improved substantially.

It's interesting that you all are working on these case lists, as it's been on my to-do list for a very long time to convert these lists to use templates. Templates allow for much easier modification and manipulation of content for broad sets of pages. For example, almost all U.S. Supreme Court cases use a template to create a floating table (called an infobox) that gives basic case information. The template is Template:Infobox SCOTUS case, and so each case fills in the template's parameters (| DecidedDate = 2008 , etc.) so that if we want to make that text bold, italic, hide it, or use it in multiple places, it's easily possible by simply modifying the template page and all of the pages that use the template will be updated.

I converted a random "List of..." page to use templates last night (see here). My goal was to have a comprehensive index of all SCOTUS cases (which we now have had for a while), but going further, I think it would be great to add specific decision dates to every case. And all of that is made easier using templates. So, for example, if we wanted to add links to the a specific external site, once templates are in place for all 554 volumes, it would only require one edit to update all of the pages.

I apologize if I've said anything that you already know. (Or if I've waded into waters far too deep. ; - ) ) Let me know if you have any thoughts. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

One more thing, as I see you've created a user page. We have a (strict) no-account-sharing policy. Basically, if something happens under your account, we like to be able to blame you. ; - ) And, for legal reasons, the GFDL requires that attribution be correct. So, you're free to use this account or create a personal one, but only one person can use it. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Re: Open Jurist

Thanks for the info on Wikisource - good to know. We have invested so much time into formatting for our own website that it would be a real pain to move all the 14 gigs of data to Wikisource.

As for OpenJurist - we are cleaning things up right now - some issues needed some touch ups. We identified them and we are working on them currently.

As for being concerned about linking to a new site - I assure you we are not going anywhere. Given the volume of data we have we are already on our own server and we are prepared to have to expand as we get more opinions.

We are currently processing about 20,000 F.1d opinions - old pdfs that we are making searchable swfs - and are going add those to the dataset as well and have many more additional opinions coming online. In addition we are going to do cross linking between the cases. We are working hard on our mission and we are very determined!

If we have quirks, like Justia did, we are prepared to bump up our hosting until we don't have quirks or I will personally go to each page and undo the links to OpenJurist. Our volunteers are eager to get back to it, but I noticed that you undid volumes 2 and 3 of the USSC. Please allow us to continue linking the cases that don't have links. We are eager to contribute the work we have done to the community - it is the mission of OpenJurist.

We are only planning on making pages equivalent to these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_list_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases%2C_volume_6

.. not the actually pages for each case. That would be tons more work to have summaries written for each case and frankly we don't have THAT kind of resources. We were planning to use the same layout that you set up for the USSC cases, essentially providing the list of the case names and the URLs and the dates in much the same format.

I did not notice things like: | DecidedDate = 2008 in the pages. I was planning on patterning the cases like this:

• Webster v. Cooper, 51 U.S. (10 How.) 54 (1850)

But, since you gave me: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases%2C_volume_95&direction=next&oldid=223164093

I can use this page to pattern each of the case names, citations and dates so that we get them right. Very helpful. I would like to provide links out to the actual cases, how would you suggest that I set those up with this schema?

{{SCOTUSRow
| case name = Pacific R. Co. of Mo. v. Ketchum
| page = 1
| decision date = 
| decision year = 1877
}}

Also, if you could help me make the equivalent of this box:

{{SCOTUSCases|051}}

for F2d and F3d would be great!

Maybe it would help if we talked via phone. We may be able to get more across than by email. If you want to contact me via email - feel free using the wikiepdia system or you can send me an email from Open Jurist's homepage and I can call you back or I can send you my number - but don't want to make my number public here.

By the way - maybe I can help make the pages the way you set them up for Volume 95- I can probably have our programmers do that pretty efficiently.

--Openjurist (talk) 22:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)sam

Heh. You've tripped across a lot of the work I've done. : - ) Template:SCOTUSCases, Complete list of United States Supreme Court cases, and as I said earlier, volumes 1 – 90 were all my doing. Plus standardizing the current mess of cases to all use Template:Infobox SCOTUS case. I find it all very amusing and exciting.

The reasons I reverted the changes to the volumes were that I was concerned about who was doing what and why. Most of those concerns have been alleviated and no longer exist. My second concern was that you all were going about it the 'wrong' way. I'll use volume 95 as an example. The current contents are:

{{SCOTUSTable | data = 
{{SCOTUSRow
| case name = Pacific R. Co. of Mo. v. Ketchum
| page = 1
| decision date = 
| decision year = 1877
}}
...
}}

It uses a wrapper template to create the table (Template:SCOTUSTable) and then each row uses the same template over and over again (Template:SCOTUSRow). Both templates have parameters such as case name, page, etc. Because volume 95 was using templates instead of simple plaintext, one change to Template:SCOTUSRow, specifically this change, allows all of the case citations to be linked to openjurist.org (see here). And, if all the other volumes were using these two templates, they would have been updated as well. Templates also allow for conditional markup to be added or not added, so if the parameter decision date is used, it will include the decision date, linked, and a comma following it; if the parameter is left blank, it will omit the link and the comma and simply use the year. So... if you all are willing to go through every page anyway, I'd much rather see a more flexible option implemented that can be easily be manipulated in the future rather than hardcoding a specific URL.

Because the lists are already pretty standardized, all that is needed is a regular expression or two to do a find and replace. I used find: \* ''\[\[(.*)[,]?\]\]''[,]? \d* U\.S\. (\d*) \((\d{4})\) and replace: {{SCOTUSRow\r| case name = \1\r| page = \2\r| decision date = \r| decision year = \3\r}} which did all of the replacement work for me. That's a very simple regular expression, but you get the idea.

The template at the bottom of every volume is a relatively simple HTML table with some JavaScript (for the show / hide) functionality. It would be trivial to create a separate template for the Federal Reporter series.

I'm also reachable by e-mail, but I'm actually on this site incredibly often (probably too often ; - ) ), so leaving a note here or on my talk page will work as well. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For your elegant creation of the "List of Opinions from the Federal Reporter" series of articles. Well done, sir! If you need anything let me know! mboverload@ 03:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Man. He beat me to it. Well done indeed.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Chanroyal

I assume this user is related to you? --MZMcBride (talk) 05:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I should be a bit clearer. I left a note here regarding some issues with the recent page creations, and on a broader note, issues with transparency.

I looked at some of the pages you had created recently. There are a few issues that really need to be resolved before you create 800 pages. Most of the changes are minor, but some aren't. And the changes will make maintenance of the articles much easier in the future. Feel free to leave a note here or on my talk page. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Again - How are you? Yes - he is related to OpenJurist. He is one of our Volunteers working on opening up access to court opinions - I will ask him to state that on his User page.

As for your issues - the capitalization can be taken care of pretty easily and will be done.

As for your concerns about OpenJurist's longevity. OpenJurist is in this for the long haul. We are ready to expand our server resources as the need arises. We are keeping a very watchful eye on the traffic and it's affect on our servers. While I appreciate your concern about the URL, we have worked very hard for several months to make these opinions available on our website and format them properly for Wikipedia and do not have any intention of disappearing after we have expended this energy.

We plan on eventually becoming a non-profit to carry on our mission for successive generations. We are experienced in running internet applications and non-profits, so operating OpenJurist is not a problem for us.

We are also eager to expand our collection of court opinions and are actively in the process of doing so. We are here to stay. We have done a lot of work and we would like to make it available to the public through OpenJurist.

I hope this meets with your satisfaction. Sincerely, Openjurist (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Adopt offer

{{adoptoffer}} Hey there Open! (is it ok if I call you that?) I would like to help you and I think that the framework for "adopting" a user is the best way for me to do that. Basically you can come to me with absolutely any questions or problems - and other users will see that you are being helped by me. This lasts as long as you want and ONLY if you want to. I have been turned down before so if you would rather go it alone I have no problem with that. I'll still be there to help you! If you accept please say "Yes". If not just don't reply or say "No thanks =)" and I will delete this message. =) --mboverload@ 06:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

--

We would love your help. We are working very hard at getting the volumes up and we are making great progress. We are trying to make sure we do quality work. But some of the titles are a little off. If you would like to help by coming after us to clean them up ... those that are obviously wrong. That would be appreciated. Obviously wrong cases would be cases that have several Defendants when 1 will suffice, cases that may have extraneous letters after/before the defendant's names and lastly, cases that have a Title that is lacking - that is clearly not a case name.

Thanks for your help!

Openjurist (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

List of opinions from the Federal Reporter, Second Series, volume 178

I have nominated some articles that you have created for deletion because they seem to be lists of cases available elsewhere, and wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information, as per WP:NOTLINK. If you would like to participate in the discussion please see the nomination's discussion page. justinfr (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, I noticed you added a comment to the page's talk page, rather than the page proper. I'll move the comment to the right spot so you know what I mean. You might be interested in reading this guideline article about AFD discussions. justinfr (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I see you did that. justinfr (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of List of opinions from the Federal Reporter, Second Series, volume 955

A tag has been placed on List of opinions from the Federal Reporter, Second Series, volume 955 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. andy (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of List of opinions from the Federal Reporter, Second Series, volume 966

A tag has been placed on List of opinions from the Federal Reporter, Second Series, volume 966 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. andy (talk) 00:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

AN/I

Hello, Openjurist. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic WP:AN/I#User:Openjurist. Thank you. —Travis^talk 03:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Please stop posting new articles until this discussion has been resolved. Thank you. —Travis^talk 03:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

you are blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for use of an unauthorized bot. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Once you have deactivated the bot, I will be happy to unblock your account. - Revolving Bugbear 03:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|Hi RevolvingBugbear. I am not a bot... I promise! I have been putting the information about F.2d and F.3d cases - and I am close to being done with the F.3d cases. I am working on this with mboverload who wrote: "I am joining Openjurist in this project. It is not just him. I am quite excited about this. --mboverload@ 01:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)" on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_opinions_from_the_Federal_Reporter,_Second_Series,_volume_178 }}

You were flooding the new page log with your pages earlier. How are you making new pages that quickly? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

One of our developers created a php page on our website that generates a page of text in the format that is necessary for this type of list and I was copying and pasting them into the wikipedia edit pages. I am not a bot! I promise. I just have tired fingers - Control-A, Control-C, Control-V. That's it. Not magic. Openjurist (talk) 03:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• You were asked to stop for a bit, while the issue was being discussed at ANI, but you kept adding them. That's the actual main reason you were blocked, I believe. ^S._D.Jameson 04:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

---

I didn't know I was asked to stop until I got a notice on the top of the page telling me that there is a discussion going on about me. It sent me to this message

"Hello, Openjurist. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved."

If I would have known - I would have stopped. I don't want to be doing things wrong. I came to read the notice as soon as it appear on the top of the page I was editing.

Openjurist (talk) 04:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry Open, we are just trying to sort this out right now. There are always bumps along the way =) --mboverload@ 04:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

---

No problem - I understand - I imagine that I have created quite a stir. I apologize - I know I made a lot of pages, but there are lots of volumes of cases! Our developers just created the Wikipedia page that I have been using to copy and paste and I am trying to get it completed on Wikipedia - we have lots of updates we want to make to the site itself - like cross linking the cases and getting onto Wikipedia needed to get done. To show you I was copying and pasting you can see the page I was copying from:

http://www.openjurist

.org/royal/wikiList2.php?type=f3d&vol=326

Bring those two pieces together - I don't want to get actual bots going to that page - it is not for that purpose. It is just for you guys to see...that I was actually copying and pasting.

Thanks

Openjurist (talk) 04:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

An important note

Just so you know, an account is not to be used by multiple people. If others at your company want to edit, they need to create a different account. ^S._D.Jameson 04:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I read that in the rules - this account is only used by me. Our developers and our volunteers each have their own accounts and they all say that they are volunteers to OpenJurist. Openjurist (talk) 04:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

(Changed format. Use those lines sparingly.) It's good that you realize that. With the name of the account, I was a bit concerned you might not realize that was a rule. ^S._D.Jameson 04:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Helluva day, eh?

Seems you've had some excitement today. :-) Nearly 1,000 new pages, a block and unblock, people attempting to delete the articles speedily and not so speedily....

It would seem there's a bit of a predicament here. Obviously the work you've been doing is great, however, the key issue appears to be that it's misplaced. When Cdogsimmons and I created the U.S. Supreme Court volume pages, several people tried to have them deleted, however, there is pretty clear inherent notability to SCOTUS cases. Cases from lower courts, however, don't really seem to jive with our notability guidelines. It would be difficult (if not impossible) to argue that an index of cases from the Federal Reporter series have inherent notability.

All of this is to say that perhaps Wikisource is the best place to contribute what you want to contribute. Wikipedia is a great place for articles about cases, but the indices (including the U.S. Supreme Court-related ones) may be better off on Wikisource.

There are mechanisms to move the articles from Wikipedia to Wikisource pretty easily. What are your thoughts on doing so? I realize that you want to help Wikipedia, but the ultimate goal is to create and share free content, and Wikipedia truly doesn't seem to be the place for what is being created here. Wikisource is a sister project and obviously if we were to move the content there, links could easily be established between Wikipedia and Wikisource. I'm very interested to hear your thoughts on this proposal.

Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I do agree this content likely doesn't belong on Wikipedia (WP:NOT, WP:N) but would be so helpful on Wikisource. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I actually think it would be useful to have it on both Wikipedia and Wikisource because Wikipedia serves as a good summary of the case law. I do agree however, that notability is an issue.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Categories

Note that what I am going to say is predicated on you reaching agreements with others that these list articles should even exist. If such is not to be, then my points are mostly moot.

I have a problem with how you are doing categories on the list pages that you are creating, and would like to request that you modify them somewhat. From a small sampling of your pages, it appears that you are putting each and every page into a red linked category of the same name as the article. While some articles do belong in categories of the same name, most of the time you want categories that are broader than the individual articles that they contain, so that you can get multiple articles within a single category. One category per article for thousands of list articles make for basically useless categories, assuming anyone ever actually bothers to build out the thousands of categories.

Looking at your list articles, one simple categorization scheme that occurrs to me would be to categorize by series. All of your articles in the second series would then go into a second series category. List of opinions from the Federal Reporter, Second Series, volume 955 would go into something like Category:Lists of opinions from the Federal Reporter, Second Series. Then the series categories would all go into a single master category Category:Lists of opinions from the Federal Reporter. Something like this would create a useful category scheme, in contrast to what you have done so far, which is of little use as a categorization scheme. If you want more information on categorization, check out Wikipedia:Categorization. - TexasAndroid (talk) 12:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This is why we use templates. :-) Instead of 1,000 edits, the problem is fixed in one edit. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything happening with this content? I'm planning on deleting it under CSD soon. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Erm... you're aware that there was an AfD that resulted in 'keep all'? --MZMcBride (talk) 03:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Erm, that's kind of why I asked before doing a thing. Meanwhile these are not encyclopedia articles and do not belong here. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like Openjurist has simply started over at Wikisource according to this thread. So as long as Openjurist agrees, the pages can be deleted under CSD G7. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that's if he actually requests deletion, not just agrees.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not think these articles should be deleted. As I understand it the decision was made to keep all by johnny-mt: "The result was keep all. While the arguments for deleting the content are persuasive, so too are the arguments that these lists should be kept and/or moved to Wikisource. Although there is no firm consensus as to what exactly should be done with the content, there seems to be a consensus that it should not be deleted, and so I am closing the discussion as a keep for the time being. Any transwikiing of content can be handled through normal processes. --jonny-mt 02:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)" Openjurist (talk) 19:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of opinions from the Federal Reporter, Third Series, volume 120

I have nominated List of opinions from the Federal Reporter, Third Series, volume 120, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of opinions from the Federal Reporter, Third Series, volume 120. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Leonard^(Bloom) 02:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of opinions from the Federal Reporter, Third Series

I have nominated List of opinions from the Federal Reporter, Third Series, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of opinions from the Federal Reporter, Third Series. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Leonard^(Bloom) 18:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of opinions from the Federal Reporter, Second Series

I have nominated List of opinions from the Federal Reporter, Second Series, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of opinions from the Federal Reporter, Second Series. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Leonard^(Bloom) 18:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Enough is enough

• List of opinions from the Federal Reporter, Third Series
• List of opinions from the Federal Reporter, Second Series

More than enough time has gone by to transwiki this content these indexes of redlinks and there are now indexes on Wikisource which link to the external site. There is utterly no reason for these hundreds of wholly non-enyclopedic pages to be on Wikipedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Can I link these indexes to the corresponding pages of indexes on Wikisource as discussed with Gwen Gale here? Openjurist (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Put a link to these sources in the article Federal Reporter, is all. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

All of the individual pages have been deleted under CSD A5. Still need to figure out what to do with the main pages and how to incorporate the content into Wikipedia more generally. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:SCOTUSRow

For the fifth time, no hardcoding a specific site into pages, please. And "External Links" should be "External links" (lowercase L). --MZMcBride (talk) 23:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, How are you MZMcBride? -- There is a problem with assuming the page/citation is the URL. There are many opinions that share the same citation and therefore must have different URLs. For example:

542 US 904 Coastal Petroleum Co et al. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection et al.

542 US 904 Degidio v. West Group Corp et al.

542 US 904 Doe v. Lebbos et al.

542 US 904 Holmes v. Director Office of Workers' Compensation Programs Department of Labor et al.

542 US 904 Hotel Motel Association of Oakland et al. v. City of Oakland California

542 US 904 Johnson v. Orange County Florida

542 US 904 Lakin Law Firm v. Federal Trade Commission

542 US 904 Lurie v. Blackwell Liquidating Trustee of the Popkin & Stern Liquidating Trust

542 US 904 United States Ex Rel Goldstein v. Fabricare Draperies Inc et al.

542 US 904 Waste Recovery Enterprises Llc v. Town of Unadilla New York et al.

542 US 904 Williams v. Devell R Young

all share 542 US 904 as their citation. Pointing to a specific page **/542/us/904 as the URL would give you no result. With making the information on Wikipedia more complete comes different challenges. I understand your concern. I really do. But as we discussed long ago, I assure you Open Jurist is not going anywhere. We have made all of the improvements that you and I discussed a while back, including cross-linking cases, adding F1d opinions and we continue to improve our offerings.

Please let me know how you would like me to continue. Openjurist (talk) 00:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

If there are specific issues, those can be resolved with specific URLs. So, for example, the volume 542 page perhaps could use a few |url= parameters. But that is no reason for our entire coverage to be dependent on one external site. There are a variety of other sites that host the same content (FindLaw, Justia, and other sites that will be created in the future). All of these are equally valuable and hardcoding URLs stands directly in opposition to the entire purpose of templates. Frankly, OpenJurist and the other sites should have a disambiguation page of some sort for instances of multiple cases using the same citation number. But, regardless, hardcoding the URLs is not an option. If there are specific linking issues, we can deal with them on an individual basis. But having 500+ pages serving as an index for another website simply won't cut the mustard. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

okay we are ready to submit the pages with no direct links. Should I update all of the pages to the new template? Also, I have updated Template:SCOTUSRow so that there are no "[[]]" on the Date. Openjurist (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there something I should do to avoid the drama that occurred last time?

Hi MZMcBride, I have updated 3-203. I am a bit hesitant in updating 204-5XX because those have links to FindLaw. I don't want to step on their toes and redirect their links to OpenJurist just as I would hope that the community and FindLaw would respect the time and energy I have taken to update Wikipedia and would leave the links to OpenJurist pointing to us. Please let me know how I should proceed. Openjurist (talk) 00:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Volume 60

Any idea what happened here? --MZMcBride (talk) 05:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Not really. In some volumes, the years may be a bit off. For some reason, they were not clear in the case or the formatting was in such a way that it was difficult for the script to find the correct info. So, it tried its best. In the later years the data was more standardized. Should I do the rest of them or leave them as is? Openjurist (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

A sanity check might be nice (e.g., if doing volume 180, no date should be in the 1950s, etc.). --MZMcBride (talk) 05:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree ... too many pages to do ... didn't review all of the dates on all of the pages.

caselaw source template

I saw your comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law. OpenJurist looks like a good resource, I have no problem with adding it to {{caselaw source}} (not that I'm the "owner" of the template, I just created it). I'm about to leave on a vacation, and won't be back until the end of the month, and will probably not get to it until then. Feel free to ping me if you don't see it by early November.

Also, do you take requests? I would like to add a link for McGhee et al. v. Le Sage & Co., Inc., 32 F.2d 875 (9th Cir. 1929) to the article McGhee et al. v. Le Sage & Co., Inc., but have not been able to find an online source. If you add that to OpenJurist, I'd link to it. TJRC (talk) 20:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that would be great. I wish we had 32 F.2d, but unfortunately we don't have that volume. Openjurist (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:F3DCases

Template:F3DCases has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Eastlaw (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:F2DCases

Template:F2DCases has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Eastlaw (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)