User:Agradman/"draft" of my post RE citation style

plz help me get to speed on the consensus/disagreement RE {{ussc}} vs. {{scite}} vs. United States Reports vs. Case citation

Hi,
Please excuse me for reviving a discussion that to many of you is ancient news. Because I plan to devote much of next year to recruiting classmates to this Wikiproject -- and because I feel more and more ignorant of Wikipedia conventions, the more I learn! -- I'd like to learn your positions on the various alternative ways to generate links from citations (e.g. 430 U.S. 113).

1. First, I'd like to gather a list of alternative proposed citation styles.
2. Second, I'd like us to collaborate to create an "encyclopedic" list of the pro/con arguments that various users hold for these alternative styles.
3. Third, a discussion in light of that information.

Please forgive me if my attempt to structure this conversation seems wrong-headed, Byzantine, or disrespectful; I just feel confused on this issue. Agradman ^talk/_contribs 03:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

First, a list of the alternative proposed citation styles

The alternative (by no means mutually exclusive) proposed citation styles include

1. [[United States Reports|430 U.S. 113]] (1973) → 430 U.S. 113
2. [[Case citation|430 U.S. 113]] (1973) → 430 U.S. 113
3. {{ussc|430|113|1973}} → 430 U.S. 113 (1973) (presently containing hyperlinks to United_States_Reports and http://supreme.justia.com/us/430/113/case.html) [with disagreement over where to properly use it)
   • variation, exclusively for body text: {{ussc|430|113|1973|pin=115}} → 430 U.S. 113, 115 (1973) (presently containing hyperlinks to United_States_Reports and http://supreme.justia.com/us/430/113/case.html#115)
4. {{scite|430|113|1973}} → 430 U.S. 113 (1973) (presently containing hyperlinks to United_States_Reports and 1973)
5. Have I omitted anything?

Second, a list of the pros & cons with respect to the various proposed citation styles

What do we Wikilink to? -- Case citation vs. United_States_Reports vs. List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 430 (whether manually or via template)

Option 1 = Case citation (whether manually or via a template)

• CONS:

• it's not instructive -- it's analogous to writing [[Arabic name|Mohammed bin Abdullah]] (as cogently stated here)
• related critique: it's misleading to persons and computers who attempt to derive meaning from "what links here" data

• PROS:

• none, to my knowledge. If I'm wrong, overwrite this line.

Option 2 = United_States_Reports (whether manually or via a template)

• PROS:

• (I don't know what they are ... please overwrite this line.)

• CONS:

• How does this surmount the CONS of Case citation?

Option 3 = List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 430 (whether manually or via a template)

• PROS:

• it currently contains a link to United_States_Reports. If that's not enough, we can add more information for the benefit of the layperson.

• CONS:

• insert yours.

Manual vs. template?

without dissent, users prefer template usage (whether {{scite}} or {{ussc}} or both) to manual wikilinking.

• PROS: it permits us to centrally modify our conventions if/when they change -- i.e. we won't need to use a bot, which (I assume?) risks generating false
• CONS: If I'm incorrect, please revise this section accordingly.

It sounds like replacement-by-bot is being seriously contemplated (here), and the question is simply what to replace it with; hence, the next subsection: ...

attitudes towards current existing features of {{scite}} and {{ussc}} (why do preferences diverge?)

{{ussc}}

• CONS:

1. {{ussc}} has been deprecated by some contributors, principally because it creates an off-site hyperlink by default -- thus directing editors away from Wikipedia in the lead of an article.
2. {{ussc}} has also been criticized for being written in Byzantine code. This is not meant as a critique to the authors, but simply reflects the fact that it's been frequently revised to satisfy conflicting needs.
3. Anything else?

• PROS:

1. The ability to create off-site links should definitely be available, even if it's not implemented everywhere; i.e., principally in the body text (not the lead) of articles. Two weeks ago, at my request, {{ussc}} was rewritten so that {{ussc|487|654|1988|pin=675}} produces 487 U.S. 654, 675 (1988) -- i.e., the text "654, 675" now hyperlinks directly to the pincite. I'm not surprised that in two weeks this feature hasn't yet caught on, but I think it's clutch for us to provide meaningful competition to, e.g., Lexis "headnotes" which annotate the text. For my first awkward attempt to demonstrate this principle, please see the "Structure" section here.
2. I'd rather we use one template, and write the code to 1. accommodate all our differences, and 2. clearly communicate proper usage. I emphasize clarity because I think our principal priority should be to "scale" our WikiProject so that it can be "used correctly" by as many law student editors as possible.

{{scite}}

• PROS:

1. Some editors prefer this, in conscious protest against {{ussc}}, principally to avoid the off-site hyperlink.
2. Some editors use this because, from a code-writing standpoint, it's better written.
3. anything else?

• CONS:

1. (insert here)
2. aside from my "PRO" comments at {{ussc}}, I'm too ignorant of this template to judge.

Third, Ye Olde Discussion

I'd like to propose the following alterations to {{ussc}}:

1. the Wikilink should point to the volume (e.g. List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 430).

• the Lead at every "volume" page should transclude some explanatory introductory text from United_States_Reports

2. by default, {{ussc|487|654|1988}} should not generate an off-site hyperlink. -- instead it should generate [[List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 430|487 U.S.]] 654 (1987

• This would kill the offsite hyperlinks at 99.99% of the current instantations of {{ussc}}.

3. The only way to generate a hyperlink from {{ussc}} should be by specifying the pin. e.g., to produce 487 U.S. 654 (1988), you should have to type {{ussc|487|654|1988|pin=654}}

4. A code jedi should undertake to rewrite the code to satisfy the tech-experts who don't like the way it's written.

• While I believe strongly in "free as in freedom", I cast a reluctant vote in favor of restricting the offsite options to justia only, because pinciting is available only at justia and findlaw, and findlaw seems to be deprecated by consensus. (true?)

My proposal satisfies:

1. the persons who don't like offsite linking in the lead; in fact, it would now be quite difficult for offsite pinciting to be used in the wrong places.
2. the persons who like having offsite pinciting available as an option.
3. the [Me], who wants us to link to "List of United States Supreme Court cases".
4. the [Me again], who wants to create a consensus around one uniform method of citation.