Template talk:Infobox court case

New version

I created a new version of this template based on Template:Infobox SCOTUS case, which had previously been used as a base to build dozens of other court case templates, like Template:Infobox Kansas Supreme Court case and Template:Infobox California Supreme Court case. If the change is implemented, all parameters from the current version of this template will continue to work, and at the same time it will be possible to use a single infobox for most other articles about court cases. A few test cases of this version can be seen here.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 07:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

@Jacklee:, @Thumperward: (top contributors) for an opinion.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 07:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked closely at it yet, but perhaps it is be slightly too US-centric? Nonetheless, I suppose editors can ignore parameters that are not applicable to the jurisdictions they are working on. Also, I think the trend is to avoid CamelCase and render parameters "like_this" rather than "LikeThis". Finally, could you put an example of the sandboxed template at "Template:Infobox court case/testcases" with as many of the parameters used as possible so we can see what it looks like? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with both of your arguments, many parameters are too focused on the US and camel case for field names should be avoided. They are only included in the template to make it compatible with other court case infoboxes and their use should definitely be discouraged. I added a testcase with all the parameters imported from the SCOTUS template, but several of them are probably not being used by any article and could be removed (like Seriatim5, Dissent4 etc.).--eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

@Jacklee: I created a few more testcases and added the whole blank syntax of the template to the sandbox.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Capitals in labels

I have made 4 changes in the sand-box, namely

• Opinion Announcement => Opinion announcement
• Chief Judge => Chief judge
• Associated Judges => Associated judges
• Area of Law => Area of law

Diff

Any problems with these? All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 03:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC).

Seems fine to me. — SMUconlaw (talk) 06:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

These capitalizations are still in place. Can we please get them fixed? Hairy Dude (talk) 01:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done. — SGconlaw (talk) 03:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

ECLI

What about a ECLI-entry in the infobox? Maybe with a switch per European country. Stratoprutser (talk) 01:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

If this is a way to cite cases, can't you simply use the |citations= parameter? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, just noticed what you've been working on in the sandbox. Sure, I have no objection to that. I would suggest that you shift the parameter up so that it is just below |citations=, since it is a type of citation. Also, see the discussion at "Capitals in labels" above – only the first word of labels should be capitalized, unless the other words are proper nouns or parts of proper nouns. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

See for working a working template-code Template:ECLI. I hesitate to propose here a to be pasted code, as I can't test edit. Stratoprutser (talk) 11:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I have added an |ECLI= parameter. Is {{ECLI}} ready for use yet? If so, the template documentation here can be updated to inform editors that they can use {{ECLI}}. (By the way, what do you mean by you "can't test edit"?) — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Category:Templates calling Infobox court case

I'm not sure where the category Category:Templates calling Infobox court case is coming from. I don't think it's from the templates themselves as they are just a wrapper for this one but the category seems unnecessary. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Death of Ian Tomlinson

can we make this template work for Death of Ian Tomlinson#Trial of Simon Harwood? if there are no objections, I will add some new parameters for that article. Frietjes (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

What new parameters do you plan to add? — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

SMUconlaw, the parameters used in Death of Ian Tomlinson#Trial of Simon Harwood. Frietjes (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

That extends the function of the infobox from judgments of cases to trials as well, but I think that should be fine. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

done, feel free to rearrange the placement of the fields. Frietjes (talk) 16:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 3 March 2016

A trivial issue: This template inappropriately italicizes the title of its own page. I propose changing line 2 from:

| italic title = {{{italic title|}}}

to:

| italic title = <includeonly>{{{italic title|}}}</includeonly>

 Rebbing  talk  21:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Support the idea, but your solution would not actually have fixed it.  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Searching for criterion use

I know that Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox_court_case can tel us which articles use this template, but does anyone know if there is a way to get more specific, such as to limit the list to only showing those which fill out a field like 'keywords' so I can find examples of that in action without checking all of them? Ranze (talk) 04:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

You would have to add a tracking category to the template. I can help with this if you explain in more detail what you want to achieve. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Ranze results from database dumps, you can use de:Wikipedia:WikiProjekt Vorlagenauswertung/en. or, you can also try using an insource regular expression search (for example). Frietjes (talk) 15:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Should "name" and "citations" be wikified to Case citation?

Apokrif (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Can you explain further? — SMUconlaw (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

[1] (to help the reader to understand obscure abbreviations). Apokrif (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Either this template needs to be fixed or the infobox for California Supreme Court cases needs to be disconnected from this

I recently noticed that Template:Infobox California Supreme Court case was significantly revised at this edit on 30 December 2013 by User:Underlying lk so that it was based on this infobox. That was most unwise because this infobox is poorly designed and fails to include sufficient flexibility to reflect that the vast majority of state supreme court judges in the United States are formally titled "Justices." New York and Maryland use the title "Judge" to refer to their state supreme court judges, but they are the rare exception.

It is very sloppy to use the wrong title. It is comparable to creating an infobox for listing current officials of a government that is so inflexible that it can only use the term "Prime Minister" to describe the head of government, which clearly makes no sense as applied to presidential systems of government. Indeed, at most midsize and large U.S. law firms, an attorney who used the wrong title for an appellate judge in an appellate brief would be severely reprimanded; if combined with other errors, that error could be used as grounds for termination.

Is there any way to re-engineer this infobox to include some kind of switch so that all mentions of "Judges" become "Justices?" If not, I am proposing to revert the California Supreme Court case infobox back to the previous version prior to 30 December 2013. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I have added the ChiefJudgeTitle and AssociateJudgesTitle fields to the sandbox page so that the title can be changed in the wrapper templates where appropriate. This should fix the issue if implemented in the live version. Cheers,--eh bien mon prince (talk) 10:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Counsel in Appeal and SCOTUS cases

Question from a newbie.

When I use Infobox United States District Court case I have the opportunity to record and display counsel for plaintiff and defendant.

When I use Infobox SCOTUS case There is no field for counsel for petitioner and respondent or at least who made oral arguments, nor can I add one (that I know of). In every case since Samuel Sloan argued pro se in 1978, the petitioners have been represented. How do I fit them in the infobox? Thanks in advance Rhadow (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

It might be better to ask this question at "Template talk:Infobox SCOTUS case". — SGconlaw (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Sentenced tab introduced

I would like to propose that you introduce a parameter known as Sentence. That parameter must always be placed following the verdict. J4lambert (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 24 May 2019 (Comma-formatting issue)

Line 163 (aka data66): Change

{{{concurring|{{{Concurrence|}}} }}}

to

{{{Concurrence|}}}

Line 187 (aka data74): Change

{{{Concur/dissent|{{{Concurrence/Dissent|{{{concur/dissent|}}} }}} }}}

to

{{{Concurrence/Dissent|}}}

These fixes an issue where a space inappropriately appears before the comma; e.g. the (hypothetical) incorrectly-formatted "Bob Smith , joined by Henry Black, Jane Green, Sarah Saxby" will be become the correctly-formatted "Bob Smith, joined by Henry Black, Jane Green, Sarah Saxby" if this change is implemented

See People v. Diaz (concur/dissent) for an example of the incorrect formatting issue occurring. ROADKILL (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done – bradv🍁 00:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

This edit removed valid parameters, breaking existing infoboxes. I have implemented what appears to be a better fix. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 29 August 2019

Add the background color #99c0ff to the major headers of the template, such as "Holding" and "Court membership", to match those used by the Template:Infobox SCOTUS case. This will allow the various blocks of the template to navigated more easily. Rougher07 (talk) 04:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:18, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 26 September 2019

Replace the current image |Supreme Court of the United Kingdom = Middlesex.guildhall.london.arp.jpg with Middlesex Guildhall (cropped).jpg. The image is more up-to-date, prettier, colours more accurate. {{ping|waddie96}} {talk} 13:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: Thank you! {{ping|waddie96}} {talk} 15:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Concurrence and Concur/dissent templates not working in articles, need fix

I noticed Concur/dissent is not showing up for Silberman in Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC (2014) and Concurrence isn't showing up for Graber in Peruta v. San Diego County. Please fix this because I am not authorized to edit the "Infobox court case" template. Thanks. Kart2401real (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done See my response to the May 24 edit request above. Valid parameters, including the ones this request mentions, were removed in the edit. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Removal of period after per curiam in opinions

Should the period after per curiam in the template be removed in the case opinions section? I think it should be. If so, please remove it. Thanks. Kart2401real (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 9 March 2020

Please add the line |[[Supreme Court of Texas]] = Seal of the Supreme Court of Texas.png. Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

To editor Bryan Rutherford:  done. PI Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 02:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Italicizing the full title issue

I had to override the template to get Church of Atheism of Central Canada v Canada (National Revenue) italicized correctly. "force" (nor "all") worked in the template. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@JHunterJ: not really understanding what problem you encountered. Could you explain further? — SGconlaw (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

That title needs to be entirely in italics (including the parenthetical part). The template wouldn't do so, with either "italic title = force" or "italic title = all". I had to override it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Hmmm, not sure what to do about that, as it's an issue with {{Infobox}} and Module:infobox, which I do not how to edit. Essentially, there needs to be some way to pass the |all=yes parameter of {{Italic title}} to the module. Perhaps someone else can look into it. — SGconlaw (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Could an admin/template editor add a merge tag per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 July 17#Template:Infobox United States District Court case?  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 18:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Bait30 sure - can you supply the wikitext that should be added? DannyS712 (talk) 09:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@DannyS712: or anyone else who reads this first: {{subst:Tfm|Infobox United States District Court case}}. I believe this is correct per WP:TFDHOWTO.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 18:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Adding parameters for merge

For a merge of {{Infobox United States District Court case}} (TfD), the following parameters are required to be added to this template:

• Docket (distinct from citations), we already have ECLI so this is similar

Further changes:

• Defense (US spelling) should be permitted as an alternative parameter to defence
• Need alternative parameters plaintiff in place of prosecution

Any objections? Could be argued that defense/plaintiff shouldn't be in the infobox for many of these cases (eg National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System)?

Clarification needed (multiple params not documented):

• Is the purpose of |defence= the defence (ie argument) of the defendant (eg "my wife was giving birth so I ran the red light"), or the counsel (individuals/firm) for the defendant?

Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Currently one of our most viewed articles, State v. Chauvin, is using the Commonwealth spelling instead of the American spelling in its infobox. I've added an EngVar defence/defense option to the sandbox (diff; testcase). Either spelling would be accepted as a parameter, and that would determine the spelling used in the label.

Pinging ProcrastinatingReader as the one who raised this last year. -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 02:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

@Pppery: Thanks! But actually, I just noticed that I made a small mistake in my logic, which results in this always using GenAm spelling. I'd forgotten that {{{defense}}} would default to true without a pipe at the end. Should be {{#if:{{{defense|}}}|Defense|Defence}} (sandbox diff). Sorry for the mix-up! -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 07:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Substituting 'opinion' with 'judgment'

A court or judge giving an 'opinion' is not common in Australian and English legal parlance. Courts write and deliver judgments, not opinions. Although obviously ubiquitous in the US, it does not seem apt in some other contexts, where judgments or decisions would be more applicable. In my view, the infobox should permit this terminology in lieu of opinion where context calls for it. Does anyone have any thoughts? Local Variable (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)\

This is likely an issue that has considerable variation in different countries, so it may be better to add more parameters than simply substitute. For example, in Canada, the "judgment" is the formal order of the court, deciding the matter before it. The judge or judges give "reasons for judgment". This distinction is important for appeals: an appeal is from the judgment, not the reasons for judgment. "Opinion" is sometimes used in stead of "reasons". "Judgment" to mean the reasons for the decision is not accurate. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: Great points, agreed entirely. Just to clarify, I did not mean replacing 'opinion' with 'judgment' universally (which the Americans would no doubt oppose), it was allowing the possibility of varying the terminology used within a particular infobox. Based on what you've said, additional parameters may well be the most sound way of achieving that. Thanks for the reply. Local Variable (talk) 06:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I have since had a look at the template source code, and it would appear that the following are already permissible as options:

• Decision by
• Outcome
• Questions presented
• Holding
• Ruling
• Case opinions

I would actually prefer an option for 'Held', which would be the most applicable option in an Australian context. Local Variable (talk) 13:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Insignia

Currently the infobox displays the right insignia for the country, but not for the time. The page for Dr. Bonham's Case, for example, shows the coat of arms of the United Kingdom since 1952 even though the case occurred in the Kingdom of England in 1610. Infobox UK legislation has a device to display the correct symbols for the time period, but I don't know how to replicate it here. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 12:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Until this is resolved properly I will attempt to manually change each one.Robin S. Taylor (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 10 June 2021

Please replace File:California-southern.gif with the more recent, less cringy seal at File:Seal of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.png, as seen on United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Thank you!

−

|[[United States District Court for the Southern District of California]] = California-southern.gif

|[[United States District Court for the Southern District of California]] = Seal of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.png

 – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 01:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Deprecation?

Is the vast amount of deprecated fields in the TemplateData (e.g. judges) correct? Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 02:27, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I have no clue, but it is extremely silly and should be undone. Carolina2k22 • (talk) • (edits) 04:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

British Court Logos

At present the UK Supreme Court template uses a photograph of Middlesex Guildhall. I know that the principal badge of the court is non-free, but we have a free illustration of the Blake emblem as used on the carpet. Could that be used instead? It's certainly distinctive enough.

The blake emblem

Additionally, cases in nearly all of the English & Welsh judiciary are illustrated with the full royal heraldic achievement with helm and crest, but most actual court documents that I've seen prefer the smaller version.

Lesser coat of arms

Robin S. Taylor (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Linting errors in Template:Infobox California Supreme Court case template

I've been working through the list of linting errors and Strauss_v._Horton has been flagged has having an issue with missing italics tags. I've come across similar errors, usually with editors putting ''et al.'' in a field that is already marked as italics by the template, but the linting problem with this page seems to be the amount of text in the 'FullName' field. As with many templates, if there are line breaks it will not put individual lines of text in italics. I could fix this by removing the line breaks, but that will make the field look messy. I have no expertise with legal templates and didn't want to fix the linting error but leave the page messy. Can anyone advise the best way to proceed, please? LicenceToCrenellate (talk) 09:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 18 January 2023

Please remove the equals signs after the first two entries for New Zealand. This allows them to display the NZ coat of arms as well, where they currently (incorrectly) display nothing. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 07:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

 Completed. Good catch! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 22:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Add witness parameter

I have template editor permissions, but I'm not confident with this aspect of template syntax. My suggestion is to put below |label16 =Defense

| label17 = {{#if:{{{witnesses|}}}|Witnesses}} | data17 = {{{witnesses|{{{witnesses|}}} }}}

I think this is the correct syntax, but not entirely sure.

Motivation is to be able to add List of witnesses to the International Military Tribunal to the infobox at Nuremberg trials. (t · c) buidhe 07:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Added to sandbox. Please check Template:Infobox court case/testcases#International Military Tribunal — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I wanted. Thank you. (t · c) buidhe 21:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Request to make case-insensitive parameters

Is it possible to either tweak the template parameters so that they're case-insensitive, or add aliases that would effectively do the same thing? It'd help reduce the need for edits like this, where the infobox treated it as an unknown parameter solely because it wasn't capitalized. –Galactic-Radiance (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

There isn't an easy way that I know. You would have to think of every conceivable capitalisation that might be used and include them all as aliases. It would be more feasible with a lua module. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Vector vs Raster at ICJ

Regretfully, the SVG version of ICJ's seal, created by a Commons user on the basis of a raster version and added to this template, appears to be inferior to the original raster image as seen on ICJ's website. May I ask a template editor to replace these images in this template? Thanks. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Original seal

Vectorised seal

Edit request 6 February 2024

Description of suggested change: Please update the seal of the International Court of Justice in Template:Infobox court case/images as described in the above section #Vector vs Raster at ICJ.

Diff:

−

International Court of Justice Seal.svg

Seal of the International Court of Justice.png

— kashmīrī ^TALK 00:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Edit request 8 March 2024

Would it be possible to add an image for the Supreme Court of Appeal (South Africa) and Appellate Division (South Africa) to the template? (They shared the same building so can have the same image.) This one is on the commons:

Thanks! Jlalbion (talk) 09:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 18:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

There appears to be two "date decided" parameters

Just pointing this out so someone more experienced can fix this if it is unintentional. Safes007 (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Do you mean in the TemplateData table? That isn’t intentional, and fyi, you are able to edit that whole block, as it is not part of the template, but the template documentation, and exists here: Template:Infobox court case/doc. — HTGS (talk) 03:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit request 10 June 2024: Pluralize from text

Please implement {{Pluralize from text}} for {{{Defendant}}}, per the current sandbox.

Diff:

−

| label11 = Defendant(s)

| label11 = Defendant{{Pluralize from text|{{{defendant|}}}|plural=s}}

Thank you! — HTGS (talk) 05:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Followup edit request for remaining (s) labels

Please update from the current sandbox (revision 1228964044), to implement {{Pluralize from text}} for all remaining labels which currently display (s).

Thank you! — HTGS (talk) 03:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@HTGS: It looks like this would pluralize "Counsel for plaintiffs" when there are multiple lawyers listed rather than multiple plaintiffs. That one should be Counsel for plaintiff{{Pluralize from text|{{{plaintiff|}}}|plural=s}}. SilverLocust 💬 06:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

You are quite right. I have changed that in the sandbox, and have added the plural for potential “Counsels for plaintiffs” as well, although if others find that too antiquated sounding, I’m happy to remove it. — HTGS (talk) 06:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@HTGS: The plural version of "counsel" (lawyer) is still "counsel" (lawyers). See wikt:counsel#Usage notes. SilverLocust 💬 07:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@SilverLocust: I have certainly seen “counsels for ..” in the wild, so at this point, without more detail, that wiktionary advice is wrong. The exact use is a little difficult to get one’s head around, because ‘counsel’ is used slightly differently in a good handful of similar cases. But again, if we want to say our house style doesn’t use it, that’s fine by me. And it may well be a geographic thing—I have just done a couple of quick Googles and it appears far more common in America than the UK. In any case, the singular works without feeling odd (imo), and it can easily be re-addressed later, so I’ve taken it off the sandbox for now. — HTGS (talk) 09:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

See Oxford English Dictionary ("Usually as a collective noun with plural agreement") and Merriam Webster ("plural counsel"). SilverLocust 💬 09:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done. SilverLocust 💬 21:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Issue with italic title = no?

I am trying to override the italic title on Bank Nationalisation Case using |italic title=no in this edit, but it appears the title is still italicized, I've tried purging the page cache as well. Am I doing something wrong or is there a bug with this param? Thanks! ASUKITE 14:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Asukite: To remove the italic title, you'd need to add |italic title=no to both of the infoboxes in this article.

But I believe this title should be italicized. That's what I mostly see when searching Google: for "bank nationalisation case" australia. And MOS:LAW says that "Legal case names are always italicized". If this were an American case, I would say with more confidence that it is generally correct to italicize a common name (such as the Civil Rights Cases). SilverLocust 💬 05:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Got it, thanks! I didn't notice the second infobox, and I'm not entirely sure on the italics either so I will leave it for now. ASUKITE 13:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)