Talk:List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump

MOS:COLOUR/MOS:COLOR
,, , and : It has recently been brought to my attention that this page may be in violation of MOS:COLOUR (or MOS:COLOR, if you prefer). This is specifically regarding the passage Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information. Especially, do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method, such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels. Otherwise, blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a color screen will not receive that information. Right now, nominations that have been announced by the President, are pending before the Judiciary Committee, and reported by the Committee are all assigned different colours but no other identifying features. It has been suggested to me that *, **, †, ††, and ^ are the most commonly used. Does anyone have any thoughts regarding how this change (if it is to occur in the first place) should be implemented?

Sdrqaz (talk) 03:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * In a few weeks it will be a moot point. As soon as the current Congress is gaveled to a close on January 3, 2021, all pending nominations not yet acted on fail. It is possible that some can be resubmitted to the next Congress, convening that same day, but not terribly likely. BD2412  T 03:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree that this problem will soon be moot, but it is not moot now. Nor will it be moot once Biden begins making judicial nominations. Just because an issue will become moot in the future should not preclude us from acting on the issue now. Sdrqaz (talk) 12:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * It will only be moot soon in the sense that it will stop mattering in this particular article. But there will soon be another article which will presumably be patterned quite exactly after this one to keep track of Joe Biden's judicial nominations, so we might as well take the problem seriously now and try to solve it. Seems simple enough. Currently we use different colors for the different committees, but obviously that's not really necessary, so I think we only need to consider four cases: confirmed nominees, nominees waiting for a floor vote, nominees pending before a committee, and those whose nominations have been announced but not yet sent to the Senate. I think we can get away with not using a symbol for the confirmed nominees, so we only need three symbols. I think the dagger is awkward because, next to a person's name, some people's first instinct will be to think that it means the person has died. So I would skip the daggers and I think the caret is kind of ugly and inelegant, and we're dealing with three consecutive phases in an ongoing process, so I would suggest using degrees of asterisks: (*) for nominees waiting for a floor vote, (**) for nominees pending before a committee, and (***) for announced nominees waiting to be nominated. If there are strong feelings against using triple asterisks for the relatively transient cases of the announced-but-not-yet-nominated (of which there tend to be few at any given time), I would suggest using the caret (^). LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , I concur. We might as well get this resolved before the new administration takes office. The colours used for the Finance, Veterans' Affairs, and Armed Services committees are slightly off-putting; standardising it across the page would be useful. The use of asterisks sounds good, but I would say that the (***) would not be necessary for announced nominees waiting to be nominated; they have pending in their nomination date, which should be enough to differentiate them from other nominees. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't mind using different colors for the different committees, and I think it helps visually differentiate the fact that different nominees are processed by different committees in a way that strikes the casual viewer of this page (since it's a possibility that may not have occurred to readers before they arrive here). However, I would absolutely be open to reworking the color scheme for the other committees to make them more pleasing. If you think we can get by with no additional marking on pending nominees, I have no objection. What's the next step? LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , since we're just enforcing the Manual of Style, I think we can just go ahead and make the change. You make a good point about using different colours for different committees; I just think that the yellow used for the Armed Services Committee and the red used for the Veterans' Affairs Committee were a little garish. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm just catching up on the discussion here. I generally agree with the change, but can we move the asterisks to the # column, so colorblind users can sort by the status of the nominees? It might not matter for this page at this point, but it will for the Biden one. – JocularJellyfish TalkContribs 02:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Edit carried out. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

RfC on table format
Should the tables of judges be changed to 's proposed format? This change would apply to all lists of judges appointed by presidents. 02:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Changes involved:
 * "Began active service" to "Commission date"
 * "Ended active service" to "Termination date"
 * Split "Ended senior status" to "Reason for termination" and "Senior service"

A mockup made by below:



Survey

 * Yes, so that the column headers more accurately represent the content of the columns. Moreover, the change to 'commission date' would prevent conflicts with the U.S. Code, as elaborated in elsewhere in the talk page. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong yes on change one: the page uses commission dates, not when they are sworn in and to continue using 'began active service' would be misleading. Change two: as pointed out by another user, the use of 'termination date' for when a judge ends active service is inaccurate and I therefore oppose change two. For the reasons stated beforehand, 'termination' should not be used for change three. 'Notes', as another editor proposed, seems acceptable. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion
Agree with 'commission date' change, disagree with 'termination date' as FJC doesn't use that term for judges assuming senior status, may I suggest having a column called 'Notes' like this or some such. 69.116.73.107 (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. The FJC page of Franklin Van Antwerpen, one of the examples in Lacrimosa's mockup, has a termination date of 2016 instead of 2006. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment So which version of the table is under consideration here? Snickers2686 (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I had envisioned the RfC as an up-down vote on Lacrimosa's proposed format, but if you disagree with some aspects of it (like the IP editor above), you can vote on each of three 'proposed changes' listed. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Done with Trump?
JocularJellyfish, I thought Trump was done appointing Judges, because he is leaving on January 20. Can you please delete the nominations that were renominated? Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C48:427F:F84E:D9B6:A9A5:F381:B676 (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The White House announced some nominations were sent back to the Senate on January 20th. I added them because of that. Please see this link. – JocularJellyfish TalkContribs 22:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Nominations
Do not remove current nominees until Biden actually sends withdrawal to senate. 69.116.73.107 (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

ABA ratings
There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:List of federal judges appointed by Joe Biden, regarding the potential for the inclusion of this information in that article which will be precedential for inclusion in this article. Please discuss and make comments there. Any comments made here will be transferred to the centralised discussion to reduce discussion dispersal. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 16:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)