Talk:Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA

On the naming of things
Things are named by what names them (Aristotle). This thing is called "Wikimedia v. NSA" by the thing that spawned it. End of. c1cada (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, this needs to be moved back by an administrator.
 * ? -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 14:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the suit is actually called by the foundation (or what it will be called in the courts). See Wikimedia Foundation v. National Security Agency, for example. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that's the point. It hasn't got to court, so calling it "Wikimedia v. NSA" is a bit of a conceit really. Your full title is probably the sort of thing it will eventually get called when and if it's heard. c1cada (talk) 14:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If we're going to expand Wikimedia -> "Wikimedia Foundation" for accuracy, does that mean that NSA should be "National Security Agency?" Also, the Jewel v. NSA goes by the acronym in the article title, but expands it to be National Security Agency in the first line. We should probably be consistent either way. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This isn't actually a court case as yet, but their titles can be very long and for that reason they're often given a short form and in commentary typically a single word, thus Jewel v. NSA might well be referred to as simply Jewel. I really can't see it's something worth worrying about at the moment, but right I would support a full form as suggested above. I gather these renames have technical issues to do with edit histories, so they shouldn't be casual and ought to have consensus first. So long as the reader isn't actually misled, I don't really see it amounts to a hill of beans much. c1cada (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Photo request
Really? There's no appropriate photo for this article. It's about a text, which is already linked. A generic photo of lawyers/courtrooms/legal documents would add nothing here, and there are no specific photos generated. Risker (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes. I wondered about that too. If and when it reaches court, the infobox can be changed to the court case one and an image supplied of the court. Until then I can't see what could add value here. c1cada (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the sanity check. I've removed the template.  Risker (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

no opposition to this move?
i'm asking because in the german wikipedia there are a few critical voices concerning the foundation's move (without asking the writing community). wikimedia vs. wikipedia. just curious. best, Maximilian (talk) 19:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't really follow Max. Can you give a link to the discussion? c1cada (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * .
 * Maximilian (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There are some similar concerns on Jimbo's talk and on wikimedia-l (Mailing lists). ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, I understand, opposition to the lawsuit itself. Not really for the Talk page, not that I'm a stickler about that but in this case I think it would probably be sensible to observe the letter of the law or there will be no end to it. I'm just interested in observing and recording it. I made the English Wikipedia start for the Max Schrems Facebook case, which raises essentially the same issues. I'm not certain how far the two cases involved there will go, but it will certainly be fascinating to compare the European cases with the American one. c1cada (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

thank you, all very helpful. Maximilian (talk) 08:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

And the full name is ...
... Wikimedia Foundation, et al, v. National Security Agency, et al.

Do your worst page-shifters.

The quote in full from a Reuters page
 * "The case is Wikimedia Foundation, et al, v. National Security Agency, et al, U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, No. 15-662".

c1cada (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Infobox United States District Court Case
An editor has switched the Event info box to the Court case box, although as far as I know there hasn't been a hearing yet. Originally this had fields for "prosecutors" and "defendants". You usually see "prosecutors" in the context of criminal procedures, but the concept applies to civil cases as well, the prosecutor simply being the party that initiates legal proceedings:
 * "One who institutes and carries on proceedings in a court of law, esp. in a criminal court." OED 3

So in this case that would be the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) who filed the lawsuit and who (as far as I know) will prosecute the lawsuit. An editor has fixed the Court Case by introducing a parameter "Plaintiffs". I'm going to restore ACLU as prosecutor, but revert me if I'm wrong. Not a huge fan of infoboxes anyway, me. c1cada (talk) 10:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I've added another field to the template specifically for plaintiffs' counsel. (It is true that "prosecution" can sometimes refer to civil litigation (as in a party "prosecuting" (i.e., pursuing) a civil suit), but using the label "prosecutor" to refer to civil parties is rare, and in the U.S. federal court context sounds very strange). Neutralitytalk 23:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do agree with that. Also the UK. Thanks for modifying the box. Much better now. c1cada (talk) 00:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Error?
When I'm on the article (latest Firefox, Microsoft XP), I see a big gap at the end of article (when page is fully loaded). It is exactly so big, that, when I press each "show" in NSA surveillance, there is no gap; removing clear left doesn't help. Tested random other articles with NSA surveillance - there is no gap. Could somebody (?) fix it, if I'm not the only one, who sees it. If I am, then nevermind. I can live with that :) -- Edgars2007  (talk/contribs) 20:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it happens for me too (Firefox 38.0.5, XP). I've seen this on other Wikipedia pages, it's Firefox laying out the page with collapsible sections expanded, then collapsing them when the page finishes loading, and not fully closing up the space. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It also happens on Room 641A if you exchange the with the  -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)