Template talk:SCOTUSRow

Untitled

I removed the automatic linking in this template to the case names as it was causing a massive number of wanted pages not likely to ever be created. Any actual cases that have pages can be linked on the actual page. I based this decision on List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 181 which had one actually linked page in a sea of 50+ redlinks. After the change it now looks like List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 181 which is much better and more functional. Feel free to question or discuss this change, but please don't revert unless there is a consensus to do so. Technical 13 (talk) 15:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I reverted your edit (before I saw this talk page notice, but no matter). There's nothing wrong with red links. They indicate work to be done. WikiProject SCOTUS could always use help, if you're interested in turning some of these red links blue. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that I'm assuming that "most" of those redlinks will never become actual pages because there is just no information out there to populate them with. Having that many unlikely redlinks floods the list of Special:WantedPages unjustifiably. I will admit that after I had made the change, I had an aww shucks moment realizing the only way to find the "couple of actual" cases that might have been linked to a real article was gone since I'm sure none of them are |case link= like they would need to be. I would be happy to help you go through and make sure that all of those articles had the extra parameter before presenting this template to WP:TfD requesting the unneeded linking be removed. Technical 13 (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

That's a pretty silly assumption. Most of these links will become blue eventually. U.S. Supreme Court cases are generally inherently notable. The red links allow users to easily click a link and begin work on a new article. It would be nice to improve the workflow here, but the links should stay.

I'm not sure what your point is about Special:WantedPages. It's been updated maybe two times in the past five years and none of its results seem polluted by this template.

TFD isn't really the appropriate venue for a discussion of the nature you're describing, I don't think. This talk page or WT:SCOTUS would be, I imagine. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

How does disambiguation work with this template? There are dozens of cases on different pages with names like United States v. Davis or United States v. Jones, but all of these link to the same 1962 case, and 2012 case, respectivelty. bd2412 T 18:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• Never mind, I have it now. bd2412 T 21:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

openjurist.org

This template links to "openjurist.org", a site that has somehow inserted into every article, list, or category page across enwiki, enwikisource, and wikidata. It's only distinguishing feature compared to any other site hosting these public domain documents is that is has far more advertisement, which in turn is of rather lower quality.

There is no reason why we are linking to external, commercial sites directly from main content, in places where people typically only expect internal links. If a link to the full text of decisions is wanted in these places, they are available both at wikisource, as well as directly on the Supreme Court's website.

Would there be any objection to removing these links? --Matthias Winkelmann (talk) 08:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)