Template talk:Infobox SCC

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles

Canada: Law

	Canada portal This template is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
	This template is supported by WikiProject Canadian law.

Colour choices

I dislike the colour of this version. If it's distictiveness from the American case law we're going for, why not maple leaf red. At any rate, the blue was stronger and more attractive. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but the reason I went for this colour is because it fits with wikipedia's colour scheme that is predominantly pastel coloured. The bright solid colours look out of place. I'm not particularly attached to the current colour, but I do prefer a colour scheme that matches better than the bright ones. --PullUpYourSocks 05:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think all I'm going after is a template that is more in line with the rest of wikipedia, nothing more. Just something that resembles the main page templates or something like Template:Infobox_Military_Conflict. As time goes on, I find the old SCOTUS and SCC casebox look out of place and inconsistence with the average infobox. Uniformity I think is key. --PullUpYourSocks 05:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone back to the original colours. It doesn't look nearly as bad as I thought. I believe it was the formatting that was setting me off most. Let me know if you think this is acceptible. I'd rather find consensus than perfection. --PullUpYourSocks 12:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template elements

I'm considering whether to add paragraph numbers next to the name of each author. I tried it out at R. v. Collins. If anyone has any opinion on this let me know. It seems like it might be useful. --PullUpYourSocks 14:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fields

Is there a reason why we have fields that aren't defined by the template (see, e.g. heard-date). Am I doing something wrong? I can't get that field to show up in my box.--Bepa (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC) Nevermind. I see it now.--Bepa (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Membership imprecision

The court membership is problematic when a judge is replaced mid-year. I noticed this in R v Mann, where the majority decision was written by Frank Iacobucci, who was replaced with Rosalie Abella latr in 2004; his name is absent from the composition section of the infobox, and Abella's is present. Is there any recourse for this, so that the article may have the correct composition? 206.186.37.200 (talk) 15:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Never Mind. RTFM. 206.186.37.200 (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]