Template talk:Infobox court case/2012-2013 archive

A few changes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Changes were implemented by Arctic.gnome in November 2011. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

---

On Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board an editor (Mr Serjeant Buzfuz) suggested some changes to this template that I think would be useful. If no one objects, I'll make these changes in a few days.

1. Add an optional "Decision by" field after the "Judge(s) sitting" field so that we can identify who wrote the decision.
2. Add a parameter called "number of judges" that would not appear on the template, but would control whether the word "judge(s)" is plural. If the parameter is unused, it would stay as it is now. This would allow correct pluralization for courts that always have one judge or always have more than one.
3. Make the "prior action(s)" and "subsequent action(s)" fields optional so that they do not appear for courts that are always a first or last court in their system.
4. Add two new optional fields in the case history section called "appealed from" and "appealed to". I think that the word "appealed" is more appropriate than "action" in many cases, and this change would also allow people to separate appeals from other related actions (like a new trial). —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I think these changes are eminently sensible. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 05:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. ArcticGnome and I have been discussing them in the context of appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council from Canadian courts. We'd like to mske he infobox more flexible to accommodate both trial and appeal decisions. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Images for Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and for the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

This page uses the same image, the Royal Arms, for all of the British courts. However, according to the wiki pages for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and for the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, each of those bodies has its own logo. The JCPC uses a less-elaborate version of the Royal Arms, while the Supreme Court has a unique logo, with symbols from the four countries of the United Kingdom. Would it be possible to change the images on this page to match those images? From a visual identity perspective, the more we have unique images for each court, the easier it is to tell at a glance when the page opens what court the page is about. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's right. Could you provide a link to a Supreme Court case that uses the Royal Arms? As best I can tell, Supreme Court cases should be using what looks to be a photo of the Middlesex Guildhall. The image could probably be changed to the court logo pretty easily, but we should be clear on the situation before going further. It's not clear what image we would use for the JCPC or the English and Welsh courts. Unique images are nice, but there has to be some reason for using a specific image. -Rrius (talk) 13:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the Supreme Court has never been added to the list of British courts in the Infobox_Court_Case/images, so right now there is no standard image for Supreme Court cases. It should be added. That leads to the question, what should be the image for the Supreme Court? And, while the building is one option for the images, another option is the coat of arms: "To cause the template to automatically display an image of the coat of arms of a court or of the court building, enter the name of the court as shown at ." When you go to the Supreme Court's own web-site, they use the logo that I've mentioned: Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. Since the Court itself uses that logo to identify itself on-line, I think it makes sense to use it for the infobox for Supreme Court cases. Similarly, the JCPC's own website uses the simpler arms that is on the wiki JCPC article, which is a good indication that's the one we should use. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain then why the very first entry there under "United Kingdom" is as below?

[[Supreme Court of the United Kingdom]]

If you don't believe me, click the link you provided and use your browser's search function to find "united kingdom"; you won't be able to help but notice. Perhaps then you will do as I asked and give an example of where this is an issue. --Rrius (talk)

I've just tested the template at a case I found in your history, and it worked just as I said it would—the picture of the Middlesex Guildhall a few lines above here appeared in the infobox when I changed "Judicial Committee of the Privy Council" to "Supreme Court of the United Kingdom" and hit "preview". Now that that is established, what exactly is it you want? Do you want the badge used in the infobox at Supreme Court of the United Kingdom? Well, that's impractical because we'd need to list a fair use rationale at every article for UKSC case for which we use this template, and it's not clear whether fair use applies. Using File:Royal Arms of the United Kingdom (Privy Council).svg for the Privy Council should be simple enough as it is a free image. -Rrius (talk) 15:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Rrius. We can only use coats of arms that are in the public domain or otherwise free in this template. Non-free coats of arms can't be used because the repeated transclusion of the image over many pages would not amount to "fair use" – this is stated in the template documentation of "Template:Infobox court case/images". Thus, we use a free photograph of the courthouse in these circumstances. As for the Privy Council coat of arms, I note it appears on the website of the Judicial Committee. Since it is a free image, I'll update the template shortly. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 02:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done: I've added the Privy Council coat of arms. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 22:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 05:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Addition of "Case" parameter

Hi, Marinna. I don't think the |case= parameter that you've added is necessary. You should use the |citation= parameter. I notice that you've used the infobox on the page "Philip Morris v. Uruguay". If necessary, you can add the word Case like this: "|citation=Case ARB/10/7". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)