“ I think you've got the right idea about cases to add. keeping up with wikipedia will keep us busy into the next decade. The other logical ways of browsing the cases are by author and by subject matter. With each opinion listing its author we can easily make author pages for each judge all to be included in a category of Supreme Court Judges. We could have a simple link to the category page on the SCOTUS index page. easy enough. organizing cases by subject is very diffucult and the wiki format doesn't make this very practical. ”

“ Believe me when I say nobody here wants to use those gawd awful navboxes or force the formatting of transcluded content to overcome the less-than-friendly dynamic layout but until there is some other dedicated way or space reserved to host that type of info, super-repetitive layout or navigate in and out of the citation branches with ease in addition to the current main header template scheme being developed or under a separate notes-type template still somewhere under that main navigation feature, you're just wasting your time. ”

“ There's no need to stop the current importation process. Putting works in the page namespace is indeed a tedious process, so in the short- to medium-term, there's no way that anything more than a few of the most popular cases will be converted to pages. So the process of filling in red links should certainly continue, even if it doesn't mean that the page namespace is utilized. As for the template, I'm open to suggestions. The problem is that the existing template does not work with in Chrome or Firefox, which many of our readers use. ”

“ The only reason the year parameter has come into play recently is a.) more and more cases in the lower courts are becoming relevant to the eventual ruling given by the Supreme Court's decisions upon appeals or in review (it was quick way to differentiate one case to another with the same/similar case names using the date) , and b.) was done in error up until today in part when I figured out it was that same stupid header template, used in DAB situations, that was adding case-disambiguation names/pages to the undated works category unnecessarily. ”

“ The linking to the Trust's scans on the Talk page was a smart thing to do and couldn't have come at better time with the discussions on sources etc. begining to really heat up. Adding a single page mirroring the Justice list of the Reporter isn't optimal either right now. Bench Bot needs quickly finish up importing the lower quality case content so it can be brought up to a higher standard supported with scans sooner. ”

“ Lincoln may and should get credit for the Emancipation Proclamation but the idea that Federal employees cannot hold most State or local positions at the same time is more of an eventuality than an epiphany on one President's part. ”

“ The Dept. of Justice can be a nameless Author: or singular organization - just as the Attorneys General can be acting as Portal: rather than an individual. Sometimes the idea of building precedent with factual foundations of support to be applied and reviewed with some rational degree the next time a standing is challenged means that no one person should be credited with the work since many different bricklayers added to that foundation over time. ”

“ I would axe Portal:Supreme Court of the United States and make it redirect to United States Reports. But as an alternative, we could only list cases on Portal:Supreme Court of the United States if they are notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. The idea of breakout pages for each chief justice might be workable, but think of how long the page is going to be for Burger or Rehnquist - I like the U.S. Reports format better. LegalSkeptic (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC) I personally dislike the way the United States Reports looks and feels. I feel it is hard to navigate. ”

“ If names are not consistent, it may be difficult to find or link cases, and contributors may unknowingly upload redundant content. Does seem like alot of work with not much in the way of benefits (are you going to et al. everything and everybody?) This route would not be my option... We can avoid most of these problems if we add Supreme Court cases according to citation, naming the page [volume] U.S. [page] (so Baker v. Carr would be moved to 369 U.S. 186, and the subpages would be moved accordingly) , and then we can create as many (or few) redirects as necessary. ”

“ If theres a case you'd like to see here just add it. Metal.lunchbox: The biggest reason I have for keeping internal linking is that WS wants people to use these pages for research purposes. We want them to look us up for the texts they are writing papers about/collecting for a presentation/etc., and if we keep with internal links, the person doing the research can actually read the source texts that are referenced in a work they are reading and can get a better understanding of the actual source text without having to rely on just a summary statement of the work. ”

“ Right now we are just busy, me and Metal.lunchbox with just reformatting what we have. So that needs to be talked about, every opinion or just certain opinions. --Wabbit98 8:20pm 16 December 2006 (PST) I'd suggest we concentrate on reformatting what we've got for now. Of course that's not to stop anyone from adding some cases. There's no reason the supreme court case index can't have many many more cases. once we're done bringing the pages we have up to speed we can start adding. Even if we just add select cases there's still plenty to choose from. ”

“ There is nothing particularly challenging about making another template but it's just one more thing to go wrong in what should be a very simple process, adding a document. wikisoure is already very difficult to use for those not familiar, why make it any harder?--Metal.lunchbox 23:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Let the header take care of linking to pages at that level. There really isn't any need to make USSCcase link to every single page (or subpage) for each case. I think so long as it links to the pages for concurrence and dissent, that's fine. ”

“ Entering the citation (e.g. 293 U.S. 112) will always redirect you to the case if BenchBot imported it. George Orwell III is right--there are some scattered formatting issues that need review. As to your second question, I think we should definitely include other cases beyond the U.S. Supreme Court. Bulk.resource.org has raw versions of the Federal Reporter, first, second, and third series, that we will be able to process and upload similar to the U.S. Supreme Court cases . I have seen User:Legalskeptic work on some New Jersey Supreme Court cases. ”

“ Until that deficiency is addressed first, you can automate one thing or the other under the guise of it adding value and increasing the integrity of WS hosted legal content all you like but the truth will be that its nothing more than housekeeping for the sake housekeeping and little else in its current state. ”

“ I think only the "main" page for each court case should be categorized. This will make maximal usage of the (mediocre) category system, as people will only see the titles of the court cases and not all the subpages of those cases; this would be a more "common-sensical" approach, as most people would be browsing the category for the cases themselves and not individual rulings of those cases.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 23:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC) This is done. --Metal.lunchbox 20:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC) links to wikipedia or wikisource? ”

“ I have no problem with following the rule (s) - I do have a problem with creating a set of articles that nothing else can easily link to (i.e. constantly requires customized redirects rather than just slapping double brackets around the term inline) was all. George Orwell III (talk) 09:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC) Another solution is to use the citation redirect when you see a non-standard case name. BenchBot always creates a redirect from the citation to the case, so you can do [ [495 U.S. 472|Davis v. The United States] ] . ”

“ George Orwell III (talk) 21:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC) I agree with Wabbit and George. The existing templates and format are fine. I'm not sure if the page style used in Kelo will really give any more functionality than the current standard. This is primarily a reference, not a work of art, as George pointed out. The pagination format we're using now with [p45] page numbers in the middle of the text is what attorneys are used to when conducting legal research. My main concern, though, is accessibility to the average user. ”

“ United States District Court}} instead of/in addition to the {{wikisource-inline}} link you are currently using. I have read the comments on the project page. I first stumbled upon wikisource after noticing the icon on a wikipedia page. It jumped right out at me, so to speak. The better we inform others of the availability of wikisource material related to the articles they are reading, the more informed the reader will become. That seems to occur best if they notice the wikisource icon sooner rather than later. ”

“ For example, suppose we are on the page John v. Jane/Opinion of the Court/I (because the opinion is so large it must be split up) . I would imagine the header would look like {{header | title = [ [../../] ] | author = Some justice | section = Opinion of the Court, Part I | previous = | next = [ [../II|Part II] ] | notes = }} And then we could place USSCcase2 on this page which would link back to the Opinion, and the different opinions by other justices. Any thoughts?—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I like what Metal.lunchbox did in the Marshall opinion in Furman v. ”

“ Booth ) , activating the link in the USSCcae template is pointless. I realize a good number of cases have this activated already - all I'm suggesting is switching to the header based parameter if the opportunity presents itself and modify BenchBot accordingly for future cases.
I'm suggesting moving towards the built-in sister link parameter found within the header template now by default (now added into the 2nd case for illustration}. Using this avenue can cut down on WPSD (Wikipedia Shortcut Disorder - the idea creating more redirects actually solves or improves anything) as well. ”

“ Georgia. If you take a look at that header it spilits it up where you can still go to the other opinions as well. -- Wabbit98 8:38am 30 December 2006 (PST) Actually I wasn't suggesting changing the template to show all of the subpages but a third template would be needed if we put the section pages in a subdirectory, because the links would be broken. It's not complicated. "../" would have to be "../../", etc. Personally I think the little navigation bar i did at the top of Marshall opinion in Furman v. Georgia works well, small and legible and uncomplicated. ”

“ Speaking of organization, what do you think of this →user:Metal.lunchbox/Sandbox. Do you think this kind of sortable table is a useful way of organizing the cases? I can see how it would be useful but it could also just steepen the learning curve that much more, discouraging people from contributing.--Metal.lunchbox 22:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah we are going to be busy just keeping up with Wikipedia but we are making progress in reformatting the cases we have. ”

“ The good news is that it's pretty simple and the linking happens automatically. The bad news is that theres alot of Justices and even more opinions so its very time consuming. I've done a little of this already but I think you're right when you say someone should try to catch up the author pages. I'm on it. --Metal.lunchbox 19:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Why on some of the author pages did you remove Dissents, Concurrences and Concurrence/Dissent before any cases have been added to them? ”

“ Related pages United States Supreme Court - the actual Wikisource pages themselves Wikisource:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases/Categorization - our project to categorize Supreme Court decisions talk page for this project [ [Category:United States Supreme Court] ] [ [Category:United States Supreme Court decisions] ] [ [Category:United States Supreme Court Justices] ] Templates WikiProject US Supreme Court - exciting header for talk pages of pages being worked on Template:USSCcase - navigation and info for title page of each case. ”

“ LegalSkeptic (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC) http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/000063625 That's the list that should take you to the individual U.S. Reporter volumes well past Vol. 500 or so. There are quite a few other catalogs ( S.Ct. / L.Ed. / etc.) being tweaked and added to all the time but they are poorly named and spread out over other junk -- but you can pretty much find anything Law-ish on the Trust if you look hard enough. — George Orwell III (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC) Starting with Volume 325, BenchBot will add cases to Category:Automated disambiguation. ”

“ Just include the following:
{{CaseCaption
| court =
| volume =
| reporter =
| page =
| party1 =
| party2 =
| lowercourt =
| argued =
| decided =
| case no =
}} Page numbers Page numbers are essential to case citation and must be included in brackets in bold to look like the following from Schenck v. United States:
This is an indictment in three counts. The first charges a conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917, c. ”