Template talk:Infobox court case/2008-2009 archive

Keywords?
Is it just me or was there a field for Keywords before? I've been using this template a lot (thanks to whoever made it!) and have been pasting one in with such a field. If there never was one, can it be put in?  Wik idea  19:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Looking at the history of the template, I don't see any evidence that there was ever a "keywords" field. What sort of information do you want to put into this field? — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 20:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I must have done something funny then, looking at other boxes of this sort. The information is just a few "keywords" of the subject matter of the particular case. On legal databases and reports, these are often put in, as a kind of summary. Have a look at this case which I've been editing for an example. I'd always been putting them in, and only just realised they weren't coming up! If you know how to insert such a field it would be very useful!  Wik idea  13:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅. Well, I see no great harm in including such a field, so I will add one. To make the keywords more useful, I would suggest that you link them to relevant Wikipedia articles wherever possible. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 15:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Infobox
[Copied from "User talk:Jacklee".] Thanks Jack - and I see you know quite a bit about all this! Do you think that the Law Portal link is really necessary though? I was actually responsible for the portal as it now looks - but it's in bad shape, and it needs people to maintain it (I doubt there are enough eager people yet). And do I gather that the Old Bailey picture will show up as a default? Is that necessary too do you think? Remember, it is a criminal court: and a bit of trivia is that she isn't wearing the blindfold! Also, I noticed the Criminal Damage page, which is good stuff - when I wrote the English criminal law page I wasn't following a very good citation method, which I'm being more careful with now. Perhaps you'd benefit from this (in Wikipedia or your own work) - look up OSCOLA, which is the method that is standard now (the House of Lords switched last year). Best,  Wik idea  21:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, Wikidea, thanks for the feedback. My responses:
 * Link to Law portal. No, I don't suppose the Law portal link is absolutely necessary. I added it in because I noticed that some infoboxes (e.g., "Infobox church") have links to related portal pages. Perhaps a link would generate traffic for the Law portal page, and prompt more editors to get involved in keeping it up to date? — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 06:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Old Bailey default image. My intention was just to have the infobox display a generic image of Justicia if no image is specified as a parameter and the court named is not one of those which has an associated image. I don't think people will necessarily associate it specifically with the UK or with criminal law, will they? I'd like to hear some other editors weigh in on the issue. If the image is deemed to be inappropriate, perhaps it can be replaced by an icon of a pair of scales. If it is desired that the template not show any default image, I will have to figure out whether this can be done at Infobox Court Case/images.
 * OSCOLA. Thanks for the information. I've come across OSCOLA before and have a copy of it but haven't looked at it in detail. Are you suggesting that it be adopted in some way in the template? This might be difficult, since stylistic matters are consensus driven. Editors from different jurisdictions use the template, and they might not all agree on adopting a particular citation style for cases (though of course you're welcome to initiate discussion on the matter and see if consensus can be reached).
 * — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 06:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Jack, using the templates now, this has become a lot more complicated. This is the template I use, but it doesn't seem I can have something so simple any more. When I paste the template in, it's convenient because it doesn't have all that extra stuff, and I don't want to delete it all, because it takes up a great deal more time. Also, the prior actions field doesn't seem to be working, nor does a keywords field. Can you fix something? Otherwise, I think I'd prefer to have it back the way it was for now: which is probably fair, since I'm doing more cases than anyone for English law.  Wik idea  23:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, the current template (shown in "Template:Infobox Court Case/doc") has not changed substantially from the one on your user subpage. You seem to be using an older version of the template, because there is no longer any "date filed" parameter. (I don't remember seeing this parameter when I started working on the template, so it must have been removed some time ago by another editor.) You can add the new parameter "related actions" if you find it useful; otherwise, just leave it out. I'm not sure what problem you're having with the "prior actions" field, as it works fine for me. If you continue to encounter issues with it, leave another message here and I'll get a fellow editor who works regularly with infoboxes to have a look at it. The reason why your "keywords" parameter is not working is because you've got it down as "Keywords" and not "keywords" – parameter names are case-sensitive. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 08:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, maybe I'm just a bit confused. I'll grumble some more later if things go wrong again!  Wik idea  16:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Default image
Since a bot has just messed things up, I think the default image is more trouble than it's worth. It's not particularly useful (eg unlike the one's for specific courts: like the Australian High Court, or the California Supreme Court) it serves no real purpose. It doesn't look particularly good, and it's inaccurate as a picture for all cases. Nor is there any picture which would be better. It's good to have a simple infobox which users like me can put whatever image they want in. If no image at all is specified, then it's better to have no image at all.  Wik idea  17:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In what way has a bot "messed things up"? Also, the template doesn't stop you from specifying your own image in the infobox. If you give a value to "image=", that overrides the automatic image selection regardless of what is stated for the "court" parameter. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 17:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't found a solution for effectively removing the default image yet. Have asked Thumperward to help. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 18:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Surely it was fine before? Can't it just be put back like it was then? As I say, it's useful to be able to have a box without any image. It was a bot doing some fixes that apparently you'd requested Jack: see my talk page.  Wik idea  19:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I requested for a bot to make fixes to articles making use of the template. One of the things the bot was requested to do was to remove the "image" parameter from infoboxes in which certain courts had been specified (see the list at Infobox Court Case/images). However, I forgot that editors might have already specified their own images for the "image" parameter. It was not my intention to override this choice. As I mentioned above, the infobox generally works in the same way as it used to, except that it displays a coat of arms or photograph of a courthouse for certain specified courts and if no other image has been specified. The only issue right now is how to get the infobox to display no image at all rather than a default image if (1) no suitable image is available for a specified court; or (2) a court other than a specified one is named. I hope to be able to fix this issue with Thumperward's help soon. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 16:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, have fixed the infobox. Now if no image is specified and the court specified is not on the list at Infobox Court Case/images, the infobox remains blank. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 17:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Portal - non-printable
Per discussions at Template talk:Portal, portals should be non-printable. The noprint class has been added to the portal section. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk -  14:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Problem with this? --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk -  14:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it was due to something else. Thanks. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 07:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * infobox does not have a  parameter. --——  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk -  17:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 17:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It really should have one, though; remind me to get this pushed upstream. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Image not appearing
Hi, Brianwc. Thanks for spotting the problem with the image in the infobox not appearing. For the time being, you need to specify an image width using the imagesize parameter. I've updated the documentation to state this. I recommend an image size of 180px. I am working on a fix so that the default image size is 180px, but haven't come up with a solution yet. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 07:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed the problem. Yay! — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 08:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Jack, can you please stop messing about with this thing. You keep on screwing it up. I've reverted the most recent series of changes you made because you managed to prevent images from appearing. Please leave it alone if you don't know what you're doing.  Wik idea  14:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I have reversed your recent reversion of the template, because I have tested the template and it seems to be working fine. I made changes to the template because another editor, Brianwc, noticed that it wasn't working as expected. If you have spotted some other problem with it, it would help if you identified the problem. Also, it would also be helpful if you commented in a more civil manner. Thanks. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 10:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Your tests are wrong. Please exercise some civility yourself in leaving it alone. Here is one example of it going wrong.  Wik idea  10:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, I just realised that if you check that link the pictures are coming up fine, because it is now back to the way it was before you started fiddling.  Wik idea  11:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Jack, try starting the test cases page to confirm that your changes work. Wikidea, I've left a comment on your talk page. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Chris, I've already started a sandbox at Template:Infobox Court Case/sandbox, and will work on the template there. Wikidea, I've examined the article you directed my attention to, and have figured out what the problem is. If you add a wikilink to the name of the court, i.e., "House of Lords" instead of "House of Lords", then the template works fine. Let me see if I can solve the problem of the image not appearing if the court is unlinked. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 13:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I figured out what the problem was. Previously, if a value was specified for the court parameter that did not appear in Infobox Court Case/sandbox, the image defaulted to "No image.svg" with a size of 1 px. However, I overlooked the fact that if an image is specified using the image parameter, the image size still defaults to 1 px. I've changed the default image to "Spacer.gif" instead of "No image.svg", so that the image size defaults to 180 px instead. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 15:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think there was a need for the change from "No image.svg" to "Spacer.gif", but I've reworked it again so that it should work properly in all cases. See test cases. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant. That's a much better way of doing it. Go ahead and make the sandboxed template live! — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 15:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Width, styling
This edit should be undone. I don;t see a compelling reason either for the arbitrary colour band or for the width override; the infobox defaults were chosen to be broadly suitable for different sets of data, and this box looks fine with the default width and styling IMO. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As someone who uses this infobox an awful lot (eg ), I think that Chris is right: the width was okay as it was. If people want it a greater width, isn't it possible to insert those fields on particular pages? Wouldn't that be a better solution? I think the default width is fine, and as I said a greater width doesn't look good, given the picture size and that most uses of the box don't have so much info as to require a greater width.  Wik idea  15:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Would it be advisable to include a width parameter so that individual editors can adjust the infobox width if, for instance, they wish to include a lot of text in the infobox (as Stephen Bain wishes to do)? — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 05:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The infobox is supposed to be an at-a-glance summary for comparative purposes. It is not meant to be a substitute for reading the article. I'd rather we didn't encourage editors to add too much text to the infobox. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This infobox routinely includes large amounts of text; whenever the "opinions" field is filled, or whenever prior/subsequent/related actions are mentioned, or whenever there are multiple citations or references to transcripts. Consider the infobox as it appears in Al-Kateb v Godwin, for example. That's exactly how the infobox is intended to be used, but because of the narrow width it ends up being horrendously crowded.
 * As for the shading of the various headings, that serves to improve readability. Again, the template when used as intended contains large amounts of text, and shading the headings breaks that up and lets it be read more easily. Many infoboxes use shading or borders to delineate various sections of information; consider Infobox Country, or Infobox Military Conflict to give some popular and common examples.
 * The base infobox template wouldn't allow for alterations to style if it weren't intended for infoboxes displaying different types of data to be customised as appropriate to that data. --bainer (talk) 09:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That depends on your interpretation of "as intended". I rather think that the purpose of infobox templates in general is not to provide abstracts, even if this one is currently used for that purpose. As for the overrides, that the template allows for flexibility is not in itself a license to freely customise it. I'd rather that customisation were saved for those occasions where there is consensus that it is essential. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Al Kateb v Godwin looks fine to me.  Wik idea  15:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Missing field?
English case infobox has a field for "Cases_cited"; whereas this one doesn't. For appeal decisions it may be useful to allow a reader to see these cases even if they are not dealt with in the article as influencing the decision. If there are many, as for example in R v Davis, there can be a link to a list within the article. If there are none, as in R v Collins, the field could be omitted or specifically cited as "None" for clarity. I'm thinking that when we look at Lord Denning's adventures in estoppel, a number of cases crop up again and again. Comments? Rodhull andemu  18:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have strong objections to this, but wouldn't it potentially make the infobox rather long? I know editors often dislike infoboxes that are excessively large. I know you suggested that if the list of cases cited is very long a link can be provided in the infobox to a separate section of the article, but how often do articles about cases actually list the cases cited? Also, despite this guidance, I wonder if there will be editors who will ignore it and stuff all the cases cited into the infobox. (I suppose, though, it could be explained to them that this is a misuse of the infobox.) We may have to impose a limit, say, no more than 10 cases cited to be mentioned in the infobox. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 07:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I usually put the cases which are cited in the "see also" section, or integrate it into the text ("Justice X relied on Y in dismissing counsel's argument based on Z that..."). I probably wouldn't use it myself, but I wouldn't mind having the field there, so it could be used. I think Jack's right that we should have a rule of thumb to not overload it.  Wik idea  10:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Italicized case names
I refer to the discussion at "User talk:Wikidea". I've gone ahead to revert the template to the version amended by Stephen Bain, and have made a request at "AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks" for extra apostrophes to be removed from the transcluded template in articles. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 02:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Far better would be to use CSS to add the italics, which doesn't cause fallout when apostrophes clash. I've done this now for the title. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks! — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 13:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)