Talk:Wiley Rutledge

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 16:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Bot-created subpage
A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/Wiley Blount Rutledge was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Done.--TommyBoy (talk) 20:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 17 August 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Wiley Blount Rutledge → Wiley Rutledge – This is the WP:COMMONNAME (compare, e.g., 1620 GScholar results for Wiley Rutledge with only 164 for Wiley Blount Rutledge; see also the most recent biography Salt of the Earth, Conscience of the Court: A Biography of Justice Wiley Rutledge"), it's more concise, and there are no other Wiley Rutledges with whom he might be confused. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. "Wiley Rutledge" is clearly the more commonly used name, and I see no counterarguments. Thank you for raising this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Clearly the common name. TJRC (talk) 22:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject United States courts and judges has been notified of this discussion. —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 11:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Feedback welcome
I've rewritten from the article from the ground up, so if any page watchers are lurking around I'd be glad to hear any comments or suggestions you might have. It's not quite perfect, and there are still a few things I'd like to add, but I'd welcome feedback nonetheless. Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Possibly useful source
Hey,. I was wondering if you'd seen this source during the course of your research and/or if it may be of any use to you:



It's fairly short, but it's quite a reliable source. For some reason, I can't access JSTOR through the Wikipedia Library right now, so I figured I'd hand it off to you in case it has something useful.  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  22:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I had seen that article a while back: basically, it's only four pages long and so there's not an awful lot I can use it for. Thanks for pointing it out anyhow (and for your help with the citations) – I appreciate it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair. By the way, if you'd like, I could perform the GA review. I've only performed two so far (Bionicle (video game) and Marjorie Taylor Greene) and they generally take me a little while, though I like to think that's because I'm quite thorough. It isn't a rubber stamp, and I sometimes ask incidental questions that could be more appropriate for a FA discussion, but I'm always careful to delineate these and not let them get in the way of the review. Regardless, I've given the article a B-class in the interim, as it clearly meets those criteria.  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  02:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That's very kind of you to offer. I'll leave the choice up to you: I certainly wouldn't want to pressure you into doing a review that you wouldn't do otherwise (particularly since your user page says you're not reviewing any GANs at the moment), but if you want to do it I'm hardly going to say no. I'm not in a hurry (I've been working on Rutledge on and off since October), so I don't really mind whether the review comes now or later. Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oops! That blurb on my user page was actually outdated by a couple months. I'd be happy to review it; I'm really interested in learning about the subject, and I seriously doubt there would be more than a few issues to iron out, if that. I'll go ahead and start a review.  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  15:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Supreme court nomination subarticle
I assume the recent abbreviation (now reverted) of the article was an implementation of summary style because of the newly-created Wiley Rutledge Supreme Court nomination. I'm not sure it was a good idea to create a sub-article; the article is fairly long, but not excessively so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree that this wasn't at the point where a split was necessary from a size perspective. After my revert, most of the subarticle (with the exception of the "subcommittee" section) now duplicates the main article—unless there's a bunch more detail that someone wants to add to the subarticle, I'd be inclined to merge it back into the main article. Courtesy ping . Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I would keep the article on the nomination, as there is substantial information there about other potential candidates for the nomination that does not really fit into the biographic article (in fact, I see some of that content was just removed). BD2412  T 02:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks like the subarticle has been expanded a bit since my earlier comment—there's probably enough content now to make the subarticle worthwhile. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Something garbelled in last paragraph of lead
Something seems garblled in the section on his death in the last lead paragraph, but I don’t know enough about topic to try to fix it: “On the Court, his views aligned most often with those of Justice Frank Murphy, having suffered a massive stroke, after six years' service on the Supreme Court.” Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks —this was vandalism, which has now been reverted. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Makes more sense now! Excellent work on the article.  Enjoyed reading it. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)