Template talk:Scite
 | This template was considered for merging with Template:Ussc on 2015 June 28. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". |
| This template was considered for deletion on 2016 May 25. The result of the discussion was "merge". |
Proposed redirect[edit]
This template seems to be a fork of Template:ussc. Based on the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases#Including case citations in the article lead, I propose redirecting this template to Template:ussc. Any objections? UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've thought for a while that this ought to be so your proposal is fine with me, but perhaps you should list this at WP:TFD?. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- The big problem I see with using {{ussc}} in the body of an article is that it generates an external link (to the case's opinion at supreme.justia.com). Per WP:EL, external links should generally be avoided in the text of an article, and should instead be confined to inline citations (which appear as footnotes) and an "External links" section. — Richwales 21:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think if you look at the discussion at the Wikiproject cited above, it is pretty clear that having this external link in the body of these articles makes Wikipedia a better, not worse, encyclopedia, and so we should take advantage of the "not normally" qualifier in WP:EL, or apply ignore all rules in this case, rather than slavishly following the guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Personally, I never use {{ussc}} in the main text, only in footnotes. — SMUconlaw (talk) 08:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, where are you seeing support for including an external link in article prose? I see two comments, one of which is from you (UnitedStatesian). --MZMcBride (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think if you look at the discussion at the Wikiproject cited above, it is pretty clear that having this external link in the body of these articles makes Wikipedia a better, not worse, encyclopedia, and so we should take advantage of the "not normally" qualifier in WP:EL, or apply ignore all rules in this case, rather than slavishly following the guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- The big problem I see with using {{ussc}} in the body of an article is that it generates an external link (to the case's opinion at supreme.justia.com). Per WP:EL, external links should generally be avoided in the text of an article, and should instead be confined to inline citations (which appear as footnotes) and an "External links" section. — Richwales 21:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- It is a fork of {{ussc}}, though with different output. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, the issue of whether case citations should be put in the main text is not relevant here. The only relevant issue is whether we need two separate templates, {{scite}} and {{ussc}}. We don't, and {{scite}} should be merged into or redirected to {{ussc}}. (Actually, I think {{ussc}} could be modified to allow for the display of the case name and jurisdiction as well (like {{cite BAILII}} and {{cite CanLII}}, for example), but that's a discussion for another day and venue.) — SMUconlaw (talk) 08:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
The external-link thing is still, IMO, a significant issue. True, WP:EL says external links "should not normally" appear in an article body — but it also says (see note 2 on the page) that "exceptions are rare" and lists only a few likely exceptions. Unless we either deal with this question first (by making appropriate changes to the templates), or else obtain a consensus at the WP:EL talk page relaxing the "normal" avoidance of external links in an article body, the proposed redirect runs the risk of being doggedly and forcefully reverted by people insisting that the WP:EL violation is unacceptable. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 20:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- Can you please repost your comment at "Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 June 28" so that the discussion doesn't take place in two places? Thanks. — SMUconlaw (talk) 23:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)