Talk:Lynn Adelman

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lynn S. Adelman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100214114354/http://www.wisbar.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=News to http://www.wisbar.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=News&Template=%2FCM%2FContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=89976

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Titles
I'm certainly happy to have another conversation on this. I've tried on multiple articles to get consensus on a title change but cannot seem to get people to pay attention to the question. But it is a bit frustrating to keep making this obvious case to no audience engagement when I have yet to hear any valid reason why we should keep using the incorrect style "Judge of the United States District Court".

The core of the argument is that the proper title style is and always has been "United States District Judge for the (X) district of (Y state)". It looks better, sounds better, and it's the consensus of every style guide in government, plus professional style guides like AP stylebook and bar style guidelines. It's the title listed on every district judge nomination by a president and every judicial commission issued to a district judge by the U.S. Senate. (Examples:, , , , , )

Oh look, here's the guy this article is about: PN609 — Lynn S. Adelman — The Judiciary "Lynn S. Adelman, of Wisconsin, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Wisconsin vice Thomas J. Curran, retired." (emphasis added)

On the other hand, "Judge of the United States District Court" is just an informal colloquialism. Using "Judge of the United States District Court" in an official title is akin to changing United States Senator titles to "Member of the United States Senate". It might mean the same basic thing, but it's blatantly incorrect style.

Wikipedia usually strives for proper style in the infobox. It has the proper style for United States senators, members of the U.S. House, other federal judges, other federal officials, other state legislative offices, governors, etc. I think people may just not be aware that district judge style is different from other federal judges and I don't know how to spread the word on that. I think all of us on Wikipedia genuinely want these to look correct and reflect the proper values, not just be vaguely close to the right value, and these district judge titles are literally a sliver in my brain every time I see "Judge of the United States District Court". I'd be happy and willing to fix every district judge article on this site if I can get a green light. -- Asdasdasdff (talk) 18:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * But given that you haven't gained consensus, I don't understand why you made the change to begin with Snickers2686 (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Half of what I do on Wikipedia is making edits that change incorrect or poorly formatted information to correct and properly formatted information. That's what I did here. -- Asdasdasdff (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I get that. I'm going by Wikipedia policy, I don't see where you have gained consensus for this change among other editors or the Wikipedia community at large. If you have, point me to that discussion, please. Snickers2686 (talk) 04:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'm happy you engaged with this. But I'd like to know what policy supports the current incorrect title style.  Because it seems people many years ago arbitrarily selected a style that is incorrect and now pure inertia is preventing it from being fixed.  As stated, I've tried to have this discussion multiple times and haven't been able to get other people to even engage in a serious discussion about it.  I have yet to hear anyone make an affirmative case for keeping the incorrect style or challenge the evidence I've provided of the correct style. -- Asdasdasdff (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)