Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges/Archive 5

Revisiting table standardization for federal courts
Some months ago I started a conversation trying to arrive at some consensus as to how the tables on district court pages should be structured. I guess this conversation should be expanded to include circuit courts as well, given the recent effort by Rrius to update the 1st thru 5th Circuit pages. Whatever format we decide, I am an advocate of using templates so that any presentation updates can be made in one place (i.e. the template page) rather than having to update hundreds of courts pages. Billyboy01 (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am in complete agreement regarding the use of templates. bd2412  T 22:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am in complete disagreement. Using templates means you have to be familiar with what templates are out there and how they work. In contrast, the wikitable format is pretty easy to work with and is widely understood across the project. I can say that despite having worked with them for a few days, I still couldn't name a single one of the templates I've used. I have no idea why one of them has a "2" in the name or if there are other available parameters. By contrast, I can go to almost any other table on Wikipedia, click the appropriate edit link, and know what my changes will do. On the other hand, a new editor to these articles may want to add "nowrap" to a cell. Can she add that by writing "nowrap |" after the equal sign? I have no idea. Can I change the cell text in the same way? No clue If you want to make some fine adjustments at all the articles, you can use a bot or something like AWB. I can say I have no idea how to work a bot, but finding someone with an existing one who can do what you need shouldn't be too hard; Village Pump would be helpful there. Additionally, tables less of a drain on Wikipedia, and more importantly user, resources. My edits remove around 8 to 10K from circuits that don't have a huge number of former judges. That may not strain my system, but for users with less robust computers and internet connections, that sort of difference, especially considering all the transclusions, which are a further drain, using simple tables may materially improve their experience. Finally, it is not entirely clear that we should force standardization. If one of these articles wants to do something different, why shouldn't it be allowed to? Each article stands on its own, and we should leave the editors at each article with sufficient freedom to allow them to develop individually. The particular method we use here to standardize not only stifles creativity, but discourages editors unfamiliar with the templates or who feel they wouldn't be allowed to edit the templates from even trying to make contributions.


 * In any event, getting to the actual format issue, I came to this because the table as constructed was bizarre. It had a blank column for every active member of the court, and forced "–present" for each of them as well. It simply makes no sense to put the actives and seniors in the same table. The tables also very distractingly use an italicized "(none)" to indicate no data in some places, and dashes in others. The dashes are simpler, easier on the eyes, and convey the same message. What's more, a field of things like "(vacant)" and "(n/a)" are overly distracting. A simple multi-column "Vacant" gets the job done just as well. (Let me just add that being able to create multi-column cells is another thing that is either impossible or so overly difficult as to effectively be impossible in the template format, but which tables make simple.) Anyway, I guess I won't edit anything until we finish. -Rrius (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I use templates transcluded into page lists frequently, and have not had problems. Unless I'm missing some specific intention here, a template is just a table in template space instead of article space. bd2412  T 04:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought I was very explicit about why I think that is a bad idea. That you have not had problems is not the point; I've never had problems with wikitables. It is question of accessibility and ability to customize. A huge portion of editors at Wikipedia know enough wikitable and html markup to do whatever they like with the tables at any given article. Using these templates concentrates the power to change tables in the hands of small number of people who know how they interact and where they are located. There doesn't even seem to be any sort of documentation on them. I've mentioned one thing that you simply can't do with your templates, but that are easy peasy with wikitable markup: multi-column cells. I also mentioned that customizing cells for text alignment or by adding "nowrap" is also easy with wikitables, but I don't know whether it would work with these. Even if it did work, someone changing something at the centralized template would have no idea if their change would conflict the customization. That sort of problem simply doesn't occur when you edit the an individual table. You make a change, see the result, realize "oh, crap, I broke it!, then fix it. If you do this from a centralized location, you don't get step two if you don't happen to use the article with the customization to test your edits. With as many articles as there are, there is no reason to believe they would happen to use that article.


 * Relatedly, knowledge about wikitables is far more widespread than knowledge about template coding. It is far easier to add a column at one article by adding another "!! text" and adding a field to each row than it is to add #if statements and ! pipes to a template to avoid forcing your change at other articles.


 * Perhaps most importantly, using a template discourages users from trying to make changes. First, it forces them to learn coding they don't know and makes it harder to their edits because it takes away the preview button as a tool. You can argue that templates aren't hard to work with, but they are actually fairly intimidating. I have a weak but working knowledge of them, and find myself scouring templates I've seen around Wikipedia looking for code that is sort of like what I want to do. Others aren't so ambitious, so the template format effectively silences them. Second, if I want to make a change to the table at List of United States Senators from Alaska, I can simply do so or propose it on the talk page. If the editors there agree or do not object, I can make my page. If I want to add some information that is uniquely available for, say United States District Court for the District of Wyoming, I have to either find my way here or find the right template page, make my case, and risk its being rejected because the editors following this page or the template think that there shouldn't be that sort of variety. In any event, the need to seek consensus beyond the article page is discouraging. Editors may be intimidated by approaching a project they don't belong to or might not even realize the template can be changed to accommodate their request. One way or another, many editors will find themselves discouraged, and the projects suffers.


 * What's more, there is no good reason for consistency. Each article stands on its own. If editors want to radically alter one or move articles, they should be able to do so without having to appeal to editors at all the other federal court articles.


 * Also, there is the issue of old computers and dial-up connections. The larger amount of code and the need to transclude so much of the page is taxing on the systems of users with low-end systems. This may not be a great concern to you, but when given the choice between one and the other, why use the system that punishes them?


 * Finally, I have given specifics. I said that I want to separate the active judges from the senior judges. Having them together unnecessarily results in "–present" and "(none)" being repeated for each active justice. Why? It makes more sense to separate them into separate tables. But how to do that? One way or another, I have to edit each and every article. Sure, I could create two new templates: one for the active judges and one for the seniors, then deploy them one by one to the articles. However, In addition to all the reasons I stated above, I have been able to move the references for the duty stations to inline s next to the "Duty station" column headers, where they should be, and fix the idiosyncratic mess at the bottom of each article. I'm not asking anyone else to do any work, so I'm not sure why this is a problem. -Rrius (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You're arguing that bots are easier to use than templates to apply uniform changes. I disagree. But beyond that, some of your content changes are debatable. For example, it's hardly self-evident that it makes sense to create separate tables for full-time/senior judges (both types can be "active" judges) to satisfy some aesthetic preference. It's great that you're willing to make changes yourself this time around, but these tables have been changing since 2005. Unless we arrive at a consensus as to what information should be presented and in what format, we'll continue to have these debates for years to come. Billyboy01 (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not what I'm arguing. I never said bots are easier to use (but AWB is). What I have said over and over is that wikitable formatting is easier to work with and far more customizable than templates. What I said about bots is that you if you really feel the need to make a change that affects multiple articles, aren't willing to do it by hand, and don't know how to run or bot or use something like AWB, you can ask someone who does for help. I really don't feel like repeating my main points once again, and if you are going to substitute things for what I am actually saying, saying it again isn't going to stop you. -Rrius (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll respond the specific issues separately so that we can hopefully separate the discussions. If you want to play semantical games with the word "active", that's fine. In talking about federal judges, active judges are current judges who have not assumed senior status. The way I have arranged the judges at the first three numerical circuits, it is clear that active and senior judges are all current members of the court. It does so in three ways: both senior and active judge tables are included under the heading of "Current Composition of the court", the senior table is introduced with text to the effect of "the following judges currently serve on the court on senior status", and the senior judges are not listed on the table of former judges, and the count of judges serving on the court in the lead is maintained. Arguably, the links to senior status also serve this purpose. Moving on, in addition to merely "satisfying some aesthetic preference" (as though aesthetics are unimportant), separating the tables separates two sets of data that are unalike enough that within the tables they are already separated. Separating them is a matter of simplicity. There are already, in effect, two tables, so what is the objection to separating them in reality so that each can be dealt with according to its needs? -Rrius (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Now I'm confused about what the argument here is. I was referring to making a complete table in a template, not making an infobox-type template with blanks to be filled in. bd2412  T 22:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The current system is an infobox-type template with blanks to be filled in. That is what I am arguing against and what I am anxious to restart. If you think it would be a good idea to put the entire table, including code and data, into a template, I don't have any opposition to that so long as it is to be transcluded in more than one place (e.g., at the circuit page and at a list of all circuit judges). -Rrius (talk) 01:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think we have a list of all Circuit judges. bd2412  T 01:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I realize that, but I don't understand why we would use a template to transclude information to just one page. -Rrius (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Circuit Justices
Neither the 'history', the 'article' nor anywhere in wikispace (that I've looked so far) mentions the present or previous 'Justice Circuit Assignments'. This material should probably be included in a separate 'article' with intro and links to the several courts and justices 'articles'. There is an extensive and complicated history on this, considering all the justices there have been and how the compositions of the federal judicial circuits have changed. Ex: After Associate Justice Alito's appointment, circuits were assigned as follows[2]: For the D.C. Circuit, John G. Roberts, Jr. For the First Circuit, David H. Souter For the Second Circuit, Ruth Bader Ginsburg For the Third Circuit, David H. Souter For the Fourth Circuit, John G. Roberts, Jr. For the Fifth Circuit, Antonin G. Scalia For the Sixth Circuit, John Paul Stevens For the Seventh Circuit, John Paul Stevens For the Eighth Circuit, Samuel A. Alito, Jr. For the Ninth Circuit, Anthony M. Kennedy For the Tenth Circuit, Stephen G. Breyer For the Eleventh Circuit, Clarence Thomas For the Federal Circuit, John G. Roberts, Jr. I'm still trying to find out the assignments since Sotomayor was appointed.

This is a RFC. Mouselb (talk) 07:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is a good idea for an article. It is probably best to do a single article for the entire list, until there is enough material to break out smaller articles. I'm not sure where one would go to find this information, but the Supreme Court Historical Society would be a good place to start. bd2412  T 07:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Here it is: Nine days after Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor's appointment, circuits were assigned as follows: ALLOTMENT ORDER It is ordered that the following allotment be made of The Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of this Court among the circuits, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 42 and that such allotment be entered of record, effective August 17, 2009. For the District of Columbia Circuit, John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice, For the First Circuit, Stephen Breyer, Associate Justice, For the Second Circuit, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice, For the Third Circuit, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice, For the Fourth Circuit, John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice, For the Fifth Circuit, Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice, For the Sixth Circuit, John Paul Stevens, Associate Justice, For the Seventh Circuit, John Paul Stevens, Associate Justice, For the Eighth Circuit, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice, For the Ninth Circuit, Anthony M. Kennedy, Associate Justice, For the Tenth Circuit, Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice, For the Eleventh Circuit, Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice, For the Federal Circuit, John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice.

These could fit nicely on the Tables of the Justices Data.

This info seems like it will be updated in the legend of the Circuit Map. as changes are made.--Mouselb (talk) 08:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Are these constant so long as the composition of the Court is stable, or do they change from time to time even if the Court remains the same? bd2412  T 18:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The assignments usually remain unchanged until there is a change in the membership of the Court, but I am sure there has been an occasional exception. I have access to a chart of all the assignments since 1789 (in Epstein et al., The Supreme Court Compendium) if anyone wants further information on this point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The question, then, is how do we get that chart into our materials? bd2412  T 23:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be a simple matter of straight copying, but I'm not sure if there is value to repeating a historical list. I definitely see the value of adding the current list with an explanation of what a circuit justice is, why the Chief has the ones he has, and the basics of how it used to work (i.e., one justice per circuit), but I'm not sure what value there is in presenting who was supervising the Third Circuit on March 23, 1948. It seems to me that is too much information and would detract from the truly important information (and yes, I see the irony of saying that after leaving the two long responses in the section immediately above). -Rrius (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see the downside to having that info, so long as our presentation is not one that drowns the forest for the trees. bd2412  T 23:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm not sure what the upside is or how we avoid presenting a lot of useless information. Let me put it this way. We could have a section at Supreme Court of the United States called "Circuit justices". That section could explain the relationship between individual justices and the circuits through history. Logically, its next task would be to explain what modern circuit justices do. It could then go on to explain that nowadays, under 28 USC sec. 42, the justices are allotted among the circuits, and that one justice can be assigned to more than one and that more than one justice can be assigned to a single circuit. The text would then introduce a sortable table showing the most recent allotment. It sounds like what is being proposed is an article that would in one manner or other list all allotments ever. What added value is there? I can understand a list of circuit justices at each circuit page, but I don't see the value of a single list of all allotments ever. It seems to me that would be an awful lot of information as the allotments change at least twice with each change in personnel and sometimes because of illness or the like. Anyway, I'm not firmly against it, but I think the giant list should be justified before it's created. -Rrius (talk) 23:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's all a matter of perspective. After all, how "useful" is it to know the birth and death dates of Justices from a hundred years ago (and yet we have all this here). Having the "giant list" would also provide us with a resource from which we could import the information into the articles on the individual Justices. bd2412  T 00:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Birth and death years are simple biographical bits of information that are included in other lists. We don't have "List of life spans of Supreme Court Justices". Creating an article whose sole purpose is to act as a staging ground for preparing tables at articles is silly. If we want such a thing, we could create it as a subpage of this project. I ask again: what encyclopedic purpose would it serve to have such an article? Why would someone be looking for how the justices were allotted in 1923? -Rrius (talk) 00:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I really think this question should be answered before someone goes to the trouble of creating such a page because it would be an awful waste to enter all that data only to have it deleted. -Rrius (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would it be deleted? It's verifiable and notable. It may not be the most scintillating data, but it's every bit as useful as our current lists of Justices by their seat on the Court. Also, perhaps a researcher can find interesting patterns or correlations in the data. bd2412  T 00:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Basically, what will be found is that each Justice is usually assigned to his or her home circuit, unless there are two from the same circuit, in which case preferences are usually granted based on seniority. E.g., both Justice Souter and Justice Breyer were from the First Circuit, but since Souter already was assigned to the First Circuit when he was appointed, Breyer got the Tenth Circuit instead. Then, when Souter retired, Breyer took over the First Circuit assignment.
 * I can cite some historical literature on Circuit Justice responsibilities, if anyone is interested; this happens to be a subject of some of my own puttering research off-wiki, when I can find the time. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Do we have an article on this? Riding circuit is a redirect to a rather uninformative stub. bd2412  T 00:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Notability is the very question. Why exactly is it notable? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of data; it is not a home for every database a researcher might find useful patterns in. Is the data encyclopedic in itself? I'm struggling to find a justification for including this mass of data, and I am a dyed-in-the-wool inclusionist. However, if someone nominated the proposed article for deletion, I'd struggle to find a response. To establish notability, you have to show significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. I'm willing to take as given that the source is reliable, but so far we have treatment in one source. I'm not sure under what definition that is significant treatment. It'll be hard enough to find sources for the prose, but copying what's in the Compendium seems almanacky, and may well pose WP:Copyvio problems. -Rrius (talk) 00:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 *  The information itself is in the public domain. If we were to photocopy the Compendium and post the photo, that would be a copyvio issue, but if we simply accurately relay the same information in our own table format, there is nothing to which copyright attaches.  As for notability, would this information be notable enough to include in the articles on individual Justices? If so, it seems to me that it follows that it would be notable if set forth in a single place for all Justices. Again, I don't see how this is any less notable than the information in List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States by seat. bd2412  T 00:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Good to know on the IP stuff. My school had a decent IP program, but I avoided it like the plague. Anyway, notability is a thing that applies to articles, not content of articles. In other words, there is a completely different standard for whether there should be a separate article about this than for including a list of the circuit judges for a circuit at the circuit's article. Having a list of justices arranged by succession to specific seats is just a particular arrangement of otherwise notable information, and the succession information is probably notable itself. If the information is to be arranged with each circuit getting a table and its justices being listed therein, then it makes more sense to put those lists at the separate circuit articles than in a separate article. If it is to be a list of justices with each circuit for which he ever served as circuit justice listed (but not dates of service), then it would make the most sense to simply add the information to an existing table. If it is to be arranged by justice, with the dates for each circuit included, that is somewhat difficult to justify. Finally, if we are simply going to list each allotment separately in the same way we list each configuration of the court, we should just include in the list of court configurations by putting a number after the judge's name in parentheses. No matter how you choose to arrange the data, I'm having trouble figuring out how to justify it as a separate article. -Rrius (talk) 01:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I still don't see how it is any less notable than the list of seats. At least the Circuit assignments have some bearing on the actual duties of the Justices. The gist I'm getting from the discussion is that we need an article on the whole process of Circuit assignment; tables indicating which Justices were assigned to which circuits would fit into that article. We could make the tables collapsible, so they don't overwhelm the rest of the article content. Then, if someone had a burning need to know what Circuits were assigned to George Sutherland, or who was responsible for the Eighth Circuit in 1902, they could find it without having to hunt around too much. bd2412  T 02:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's collaborate on an article about the Circuit Justice position itself before we get hung up on whether we need the list. I'll try to get something started in the next few days, after I get a couple of my arbitration-related tasks out of the way. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good plan. I'm in. bd2412  T 03:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to get it out of the way, I do want to address the point about why a list of justices by seats would be any more notable. I should think current affairs would make that obvious: who replaces whom is quite significant in how it changes the court.


 * I think if we can create a respectable enough article, some form of list follows on perfectly. However, we should probably consider the form of the list first, as that is highly relevant to what is the best way to proceed. I don't think we should merely push the issue aside as that list was the original point of this thread. Frankly, if this proposed article is going to be a long paragraph like ChiefJudge and the idea is to have a separate list for each circuit, then it would make more sense to just have that paragraph at the relevant circuit article just as we do with the chief judges of those circuits. Would anyone propose taking the paragraph linked to at template I linked to, making it an article, and copying the lists of chief judges from all of the circuits and districts? Or even the lists of chiefs for the court of appeals and districts in each circuit? I really think it best to get a handle on exactly what we plan to do before working up a draft article. Before we start diving, perhaps we could be sure we have the right pool. -Rrius (talk) 04:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any dispute that we should have an article on the means by which Justices are assigned to circuits, and what their responsibilities are with respect to those circuits - I'm sure you know they used to have to travel out to them and preside over cases from time to time, and Justices assigned to the geographically remote circuits chafed about it, sometimes leaving the Court early, and occasionally dying in circuit-riding mishaps. If we are to have that article, a table (or several) indicating how the Justices were, in fact, assigned, would seem to me to be a plug-in that we can worry about once the nuts-and bolts article is done. Of course, even the basic article would include the above list of the current actual assignments. bd2412  T 17:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course I am aware of circuit riding. I'm not sure how you can read a contribution in which I question whether we'll have enough information to justify a separate article and say there is no dispute about whether we need an article. Also, I realize that you assume if we have an article that tacking on a list in whatever form is justified no matter what. We disagree on that, and I would like to discuss it. I think the form the list takes is hugely important to how we handle it. For instance, I think it is impossible to justify a list that would set out each allotment, regardless of what text sat above it. What I mean by that is something like List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States by court composition that shows the result of each allotment order instead of composition. However, listing by circuit (i.e., just like the list by seats, but using circuits instead of seats) could be easily justified even with perfunctory text at the top. Other methods of listing would make more sense as changes to existing tables, leaving the question of whether the prose about circuit justices would make more sense as just a section of Supreme Court of the United States if it weren't very long. I understand the enthusiasm for the project, I almost started something with the current allotment last week, but I think we would benefit from putting some thought into it at the front end. -Rrius (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologize, I didn't understand you to be objecting to an article on the concept itself. As I mentioned before, "riding circuit" currently redirects to a rather awful stub on Circuit rider (U.S. Court system), which should be moved to Riding circuit and greatly expanded and sourced. As for the table, I think we can make a single sortable table that shows the changing assignments both by Justice and by circuit. I don't object to mocking one up in project space to see how it looks/works. bd2412  T 22:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not deadset against a separate article, but I think the amount of information and how we deal with the list factor into how we deal with this. The best plan might be to do your mock-up with just the most recent 15 justices. Are you planning to include the short-term assignments made solely because someone died? Also, I'm not convinced Circuit rider (U.S. court system), which I moved to correct the capitalization, makes sense as the target. Riding circuit referred to more than just Supreme Court justices riding circuit. Or even just judges. Lincoln, for instance, used to ride circuit as a lawyer in Illinois. Tacking on information about circuit justices, including what it means today, and rather long list would crowd out what should be the focus of the article. I'm not settled on anything, but it seems to me that the circuit justice info would make more sense as a section at Supreme Court of the United States or as its own article. -Rrius (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Naming conventions for United States federal buildings
Opinions are requested at Requests for comment/Naming conventions for United States federal buildings, which affects this project to the extent that it deals with Congressional naming legislation, and buildings relating to this project. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to see more opinions expressed at this discussion, which has relatively few editorial voices involved in determining an issue with broad reach. I believe that RFC's are traditionally kept open for a month, so opinions may be still posted for a few weeks. Cheers bd2412  T 19:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Throughout 2010, many Wikipedia editors have worked hard to halve the number of unreferenced biographical articles (UBLPs) from more than 52,000 in January to under 26,000 now. The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons has assisted in many ways, including helping to setup a bot, which runs daily, compiling lists of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.

Your Project's list can be found at WikiProject United States courts and judges/Unreferenced BLPs. Currently you have approximately 29 articles to be referenced. Other project lists, such as WikiProject United States Government/Unreferenced BLPs and many regional ones including WikiProject District of Columbia/Unreferenced BLPs can be found at WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/WikiProjects.

Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. We've done a lot, but we still have a long way to go. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 13:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Jack Tarpley Camp Jr.
Hello, I am requesting that the article for Northern District of Georgia federal senior judge Jack Tarpley Camp Jr. be assessed with a higher importance ('High') given that he was recently arrested and has presided over some notable cases. Thanks. Mikepolkfan (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * All long-serving federal judges, when their records are probed, can be found to have presided over notable cases. As for Tarpley's arrest, that does not make him more important as a judge.  bd2412  T 20:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for answering! Mikepolkfan (talk) 05:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge three noticeboards
I have started a proposal to merge three United States related Noticeboards into one due to all three having no, or extremely limited activity, in the last year. I believe this will invigorate the noticeboard if we keep any of them at all. I propose merging: into
 * U.S. Southern wikipedians' notice board
 * U.S. Northern wikipedians' notice board
 * U.S. Wikipedians' notice board.

Please provide comments here (including support or oppose). Comments are necessary to ensure that this does not intefere with ongoing efforts. If no comments are received in 7 days I will assume there is no problem and proceed with the merger. --Kumioko (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Use of European American and White American on U.S. Supreme Court pages
A discussion is ongoing on this issue at Talk:Supreme Court of the United States. Please weigh in. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Rate Virginia_A._Phillips
Polbot says it rated Virginia_A._Phillips "low importance" to project United States courts and judges; and, modest thing that it is, invited a protoplasmic entity ("human") to diagree. In lieu of a bot to do the re-rating, maybe one of you guys would feel motivated to rate it 'maybe not so low' or whatever. 67.224.51.189 (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps she is of low importance to the project. It kind of looks like you guys who do the importance rating prefer not to have yourselves listed at all. Oh well. 67.224.51.189 (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've put my name on the list. The low rating is still justified by the fact that this is just a District Court judge, and one who has not made waves outside of the one widely publicized ruling identified in her article. bd2412  T 19:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Clearly you are the 1 bd2412 . As you say so it goes. Thanks for filling in that blank. 67.224.51.189 (talk) 04:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Infobox judge
I was meandering through your project pages, and I saw the list of judge articles to be cleaned up. I picked one at random, Henry Boyce, and noticed that the article used this odd table (and a picture the size of a courthouse). I replaced the table with a judge infobox (and reduced the picture size), but it's not clear to me whether the project has a standard as to what you prefer to use as a box, or even if you want to use a box at all (lots of judge articles I've seen have nothing). I glanced through the archives of the project's Talk page and didn't see anything on the issue - although I could have missed it. Personally, I like infoboxes. Does the project have a view on this issue?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe we had discussed this at some point in the past and agreed that the articles need infoboxes, but that we need to get the basic cleanup done first. The bot-generated articles all contain metadata, so creating the infoboxes can be largely automated. bd2412  T 23:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

United States related Tag and Assess proposal
There is a proposal on WikiProject United States to task Xenobot with tagging and assessment of articles that fall into the scope of WikiProject United States. Please take a few moments to provide your comments about this proposal.

If you are interested in joining WikiProject United States please add your name under the applicable section here. --Kumioko (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to help with WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 03:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

add to U.S. Post Office and Courthouse disambiguation
With Federal Courthouse and Post Office (Moorhead, Minnesota), I just finished creating articles for all the entries in U.S. Post Office and Courthouse disambiguation page. In the process i made many links from corresponding List of United States federal courthouses state-specific list-articles. I am pretty sure that all, or almost all, of the items on the disambiguation page are now covered in the state list-articles (unless Federal court vs. State or local court status is not known). But, I notice many places in the state list-articles with "Post Office" and "Courthouse" or "Court House" in their name, which don't appear on the dab page. The dab page was meant to assist readers in finding any place with either in their current or former names. I am not able to take on the task of updating the dab, wonder if anyone else would. It should perhaps be put on a To Do list for this wikiproject? --doncram (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about Alito and so-called fundraising activities
An editor added some information criticizing Alito for participation at so-called fundraising activities. The editor and I are debating the issue and, in my view, going nowhere. Surprisingly, no one else has joined in the discussion. I just placed an RfC template at the discussion, but I thought I'd solicit input specifically from this group. The discussion is here. Comments would be helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

A consideration for cross project consolidation of talk page templates
I have started a conversation here about the possibility of combining some of the United States related WikiProject Banners into WikiProject United States. If you have any comments, questions or suggestions please take a moment and let me know. --Kumioko (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Can I clarify the WikiProject template?
Would anyone here mind if I clarified the project banner by changing it from WikiProject USCJ to WikiProject United states courts and judges? This longer title is what is currently in use by the other templates relating to the project such as the Member user box as well as the project itself and I think would be better for clarity. I would also like to add some instructions for using the template if thats ok. --Kumioko (talk) 19:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I added documentation for the template based on the Documentation in use by WPUS. I added some examples of articles in a class but I didnt want to guess on what was High, Mid or low priority for the project so I left what was in place in WPUS as examples. A member of the project might need to review it. --Kumioko (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have any objection to that, although some might find it more cumbersome to type. bd2412  T 01:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I can understand that. You can still type the abbreviated version if its easier. There are 3 or 4 bots at the moment with a list of WikiProject templates and their redirects that will change it to the longer version. Do you think I should wait for other members to comment or go ahead and do the change? we can always move it back later if project rejects the idea. --Kumioko (talk) 01:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Seeing no objections, I think you can go ahead with this. Cheers! bd2412  T 14:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggested policy change to the tagging of non article items
I have submitted a proposal at the Village pump regarding tagging non article items in Wikipedia. Please take a moment and let me know what you think. --Kumioko (talk) 02:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

US Collaboration reactivated & Portal:United States starting next
Casliber recently posted a suggestion on the talk page for WikiProject United States about getting the US Wikipedians Collaboration page going again in an effort to build up articles for GA through FA class. See U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTM. After several days of work from him the page is up and ready for action. A few candidates have already been added for you to vote on or you can submit one using the directions provided. If you are looking for inspiration here is a link to the most commonly viewed articles currently under the scope of Wikiproject United States. There are tons of good articles in the various US related projects as well so feel free to submit any article relating to US topics (not just those under the scope of WPUS). This noticeboard is intended for ‘’’All’’’ editors working on US subjects, not just those under WPUS.

The next item I intend to start updating is Portal:United States if anyone is interested in helping. Again this is not specific to WPUS and any help would be greatly appreciated to maximize visibility of US topics. The foundation has already been established its just a matter of updating the content with some new images, biographies and articles. Please let leave a comment on the Portals talk page or let me know if you have any questions or ideas. --Kumioko (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Richard A. Baddour, Jr.
Hello. I'm a member of a wikiproject working through referencing BLPs having no sources and came across Richard A. Baddour, Jr.. I can verify that he is a North Carolina Superior Court judge. But my question is whether he would be considered notable. My understanding is that he is a judge at court of first instance which wouldn't be considered notable. But I would like to get opinions from those closer to this subject matter. Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 15:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We have started piecing together a notability guideline at WikiProject United States courts and judges/Notability, but so far have only addressed federal judges. A state trial court judge would not be inherently notable, but may obtain notability through longevity on the bench, presiding over several important cases, or through routes for other professions (such as publications). bd2412  T 18:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Featured portal candidate: United States
Portal:United States is a current featured portal candidate. Please feel free to leave comments. -- RichardF (talk) 14:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Adding "Popular pages" to U.S.-related projects
A very interesting tool of the Wikimedia Toolserver is called WikiProject Popular pages lists. These lists are similar to project-related article lists like U. S. article lists used for generating assessment statistics. The Popular pages lists include the rank, total views, average daily views, quality and importance ratings for the listed articles. Here is the full list of projects using popular pages lists. An FAQ also is available at User:Mr.Z-man/Popular pages FAQ.

I recently added links to lists of popular pages as shown below to the U.S. Portal - WikiProjects box and the nominations sections for each of the selected articles boxes.

Portal:United States/Projects/Popular pages

Because this project was not included, I am bringing up the popular pages tool here. This tool makes it very easy to track three of four balancing dimensions when selecting articles for showcasing at a portal - quality, importance and popularity. When tracking the fourth dimension, topic, the related article lists tool (such as for U.S. article lists tool) also might be useful by filtering on categories of interest.

If you do decide to use this tool, feel free to update Portal:United States/Projects/Popular pages as well.

Regards, RichardF (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it looks pretty useful. bd2412  T 02:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool. By the way, the "deadline" for this month's round of additions is the 25th. :-0 RichardF (talk) 13:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Image copyrights
I recently tried uploading images from the Northern District of California's website (http://www.cand.uscourts.gov) to Wikipedia and thought I had accounted for copyright, but the files have been tagged for deletion. This is new territory for me, so if anyone has any tips or feedback, I'd be grateful. The files in question are: Billyboy01 (talk) 05:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Lucy_Koh_District_Judge.jpg
 * File:Richard_Seeborg_District_Judge.jpg
 * I have untagged them and identified the District as author, since the government would almost certainly own judge photos taken for its website; hopefully that will abate concerns. Cheers! bd2412  T 15:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I went ahead and uploaded a bunch of other files from that website, which amounts to all current/senior judges except for Wilken, Illston, Hamilton, Davila, and Schwarzer. Billyboy01 (talk) 06:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Seats on the U.S. Supreme Court
There's a question about whether the associate justices of the USSC can be said to occupy numbered seats, with one justice succeedig another, or if they are all simply undifferentiated seats. See Talk:John Paul Stevens and Talk:List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States by seat (same questioner). Any informed opinions would be helpful.  Will Beback   talk    19:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Since vacancies arise one at a time (rather than turnover of many Justices at once), it is generally possible to trace the history of a particular seat on the Court back through time. Whether a Justice holds "seat #2" or "seat #7" or whatever has no practical meaning in the work of the Court (what does matter is seniority of appointment), and the Justices never use designations like that, but it does sometimes happen that a Justice will refer to his or her predecessors in a particular seat on the Court (for example, Justice Blackmun publicly mentioned more than once that he occupied the seat that Justice Story once held.
 * Identification of specific seats on the Court was formerly more important than it is now; in prior eras, there was "the New England seat" and "the Virginia seat" (geographical balance was crucial in the 19th century when the Justices actually rode circuit), and for a long time "the Catholic seat" and later "the Jewish seat." These designations would no longer fit today, but they are highly relevant in historical contexts Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Norman H. Wolfe
The article on United States Tax Court special trial judge Norman H. Wolfe has been nominated for deletion on the grounds that Tax Court judges are not inherently notable. Please contribute to the discussion. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

1986 California Supreme Court retention election
I've just completed a copy-edit on Cruz Reynoso that turned into a major rewrite. In the course of researching this fascinating man, I turned up a wealth of sources. Many of them could be used to improve the articles for Rose Bird and Joseph Grodin, the two other justices who were ousted in the 1986 California Supreme Court retention election. For that matter, I'm surprised that last is a red link, given its lasting impact! I'm sort of burned out after the work on Reynoso, so I'm hoping someone else would like to pick up the ball and run with it. I'm cross-posting this invitation to WikiProject California as well. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This actually raises a question about the scope of this project that we have never squarely addressed: are we taking responsibility for overseeing all courts and judges in the United States, including those at the state level? I suppose that there is not going to be any other project that addresses such articles. bd2412  T 19:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Created new portal = Supreme Court of the United States
I've created a new portal for this topic. Collaboration and help would be appreciated, just drop a note at Portal talk:Supreme Court of the United States. -- Cirt (talk) 17:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Portal:Supreme Court of the United States
 * Great! bd2412  T 03:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Portal:Supreme Court of the United States at peer review
A new portal Portal:Supreme Court of the United States is now up for portal peer review, the review page is at Portal peer review/Supreme Court of the United States/archive1. I put a bit of effort into this and feedback would be appreciated prior to featured portal candidacy. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Portal:Supreme Court of the United States at Featured Portal candidates
Portal:Supreme Court of the United States is a candidate for Featured Portal, with discussion at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Supreme Court of the United States. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Portal:Supreme Court of the United States

Notability of federal judicial nominees
Recent district court nominee Gregg Costa has been nominated for deletion with the following comment: ''Has not been confirmed. With current politically climate, he might never be confirmed or could take a long time. With sports players, they have to play a game in major professional game first, same hold here. Re-add page when he is confirmed.'' Does the project have an official stance as to the notability of nominees? I seem to recall a discussion where it was decided that a nominee would either be confirmed (in which case they were notable), or otherwise they'd likely warrant a separate article as one of the few failed judicial nominations. I think that's what kicked off the practice of creating articles for any and all Obama nominees to date, and no one had really objected till now. Billyboy01 (talk) 04:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As it happens, I have been working for a very long time on a proposed set of criteria at WikiProject United States courts and judges/Notability. Under that criteria, a district court nominee would not be inherently notable, but might become notable by the circumstances of their confirmation or rejection. Obviously, a person who happens to be nominated for such a position might well already be notable for other reasons, since the President doesn't pick nominees out of the phone book. In any case, I think it is time for us to finalize and implement our own notability criteria. This project has taken the lead and borne the brunt of labor in making articles on federal judges and federal courts, and we are the ones who have developed the expertise to know what makes a topic under our heading notable. Cheers! bd2412  T 15:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent resource. Everything you've laid out seems reasonable to me. The only class of nominees I don't see explicitly covered at the moment are nominees who are not acted upon before a president leaves office (i.e., all the "returned to the President under the provisions of Senate Rule XXXI, paragraph 6" nominees; the John J. Tharps and John S. W. Lim of the world). I think the guidelines for such nominees would be identical to "Nominees whose nomination has not yet come to a vote are not inherently notable", and in fact might be covered by the same bullet items given minor rewrites. Billyboy01 (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to make any changes you feel are appropriate - this draft should be made as thorough as possible before being proposed for ratification by the community. Cheers! bd2412  T 20:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I know this is a bit off-topic, but in your draft section on magistrates and bankruptcy judges, you have a bullet point about "nominees or potential nominees". Magistrates and bankruptcy judges are not nominated. Magistrates are appointed by the district court, and bankruptcy judges are appointed by the circuit.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is true, I'll fix it now. bd2412  T 00:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I wanted to chime in rather late with my opinion. I feel it is wise to continue the practice of creating articles on all judicial nominees.  At the end of the President's term, it would seem easy enough to purge those that have 1. not been confirmed AND 2. are not otherwise notable. Safiel (talk) 04:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree, as current nominees may be of more interest than those who were nominated but for which nothing came of it. However, I understand that it is our policy that fleeting notability is not notability. bd2412  T 14:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Ewing Werlein, Jr.
The biography for district court judge Ewing Werlein, Jr. was recently deleted. Billyboy01 (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I restored it, and it has now been proposed for deletion again at Articles for deletion/Ewing Werlein, Jr.. Please weigh in. Cheers! bd2412  T 18:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Fall 2011 Photo Contest
WP:NRHP is having a Fall Photo Contest running from Oct. 21-Dec. 4, 2011. I'd like to encourage anybody who enjoys photography, and anybody who is interested in historic places to participate as a photographer, a sponsor, or both.

One way that an individual editor or a project can participate is to sponsor their own challenge. For example, somebody here might want to include a challenge such as "A barnstar will be awarded to the photographer who adds the most photos of previously non-illustrated NRHP sites of courthouses to the NRHP county lists." To sponsor a challenge all you need to do is come up with an idea, post it on the contest page, and do the small bit of work needed to judge the winner(s).

Any and all contributions appreciated.

Smallbones (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Charles Bernard Day
Former district court nominee Charles Bernard Day, who recently withdrew after being blocked from receiving a hearing, has been nominated for deletion. This is a borderline case per the notability guidelines, so it would benefit from a multitude of opinions. Billyboy01 (talk) 05:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have proposed in that discussion that we should perhaps adjust our guidelines to give additional weight to someone who, like Day, was actually twice nominated and still not confirmed. When that happens, it shows that the appointing President is particularly interested in having this person confirmed, and the Senate is particularly reticent to comply. Cheers! bd2412  T 15:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Notability of elected judges
Judge Adams's article has been nominated for deletion, mainly based on WP:BLP1E. The creation of the article is clearly an attack piece on the judge, but it has nonetheless spawned an interesting discussion on whether Adams is automatically notable per WP:POLITICIAN. I think that issue should interest the project, and it would be helpful if people contributed to the discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't tell if anyone from this project is contributing to the Adams discussion about his notability as a judge. I seem to be the only one arguing in any depth, but the argument centers on WP:POLITICIAN, how it should be interpreted and how it should be applied to elected judges. It's a very frustrating discussion. In looking at this project's notability guidlines, I'm curious where you would put Adams. Would he fall in the section "Judges of state trial courts of general jurisdiction"? I don't see anywhere else for him to be put, but it's not clear to me what is meant by the phrase "general jurisdiction". I'm also not sure what is meant by "specialty court judges". Like a judge who hears only family law matters? If that's true, although that kind of thing varies from state to state, in California, judges are moved around. One superior court judge in one county may for a time hear only family law matters, but may then be moved to hear only criminal matters, but then may be moved again to hear all kinds of civil matters. Might be better if these terms were defined.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Judicial nominations of November 10, 2011
I have completed stubs for all five Article III Judicial Nominations of November 10, 2011. I was unable to find birth date and/or birth location info on a few. Feel free to fill in the blanks if you can. Thanks. Safiel (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I anticipate that if these nominees are confirmed, the FJC will provide that information. Of course, that may be a long wait. bd2412  T 17:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

List of judges of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
I added the six most recently appointed judges to the article List of judges of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The main article was getting updated ok, but this separate list got ignored. I left the update tag on the article as it still may not be completely up to date in regards to judges who have retired or taken senior status. Safiel (talk) 03:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note! bd2412  T 03:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I broke up the table into three separate tables, one for active judges, one for senior judges and one for past judges. That should make it slightly easier to navigate. Safiel (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Richard F. Cebull and notable decisions
This really isn't about the e-mail incident. One editor has added two "notable" decisions by Cebull to his bio. I removed the second (I'm not crazy about the first, either), and now there's a discussion about it. People here have more experience as to what constitutes a notable decision by a federal district court judge at Wikipedia generally, so it would be helpful if you would comment on his Talk page. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Seal of the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
Can we please get a picture of the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, like we have for commons:Category:Seals of the United States district courts ?? I wasn't able to find one, can someone help me with this?? Thank you, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * They appear to have one on the court website. I would guess that to be the District's official seal, and that being a U.S. government website, it's in the public domain to be copied and uploaded here. bd2412  T 04:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah but that one looks pretty generic, nothing about Wisconsin on it, compare with top left here, you see? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I note that that the bankruptcy court for the W.D.Wis. has its own seal. There is also a Facebook page with some seal images, but I see nothing there to provide confidence that this is in any sense an official seal. bd2412  T 17:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if it's their official Facebook page, then those should be fine. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The name on the page is "Western District of Wisconsin U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services", which would certainly seem to be an office within the court itself. It is odd that I haven't been able to find those images anywhere else, but if they come from an official U.S. government source - even one that is posting them on Facebook - then they are in the public domain and free to upload and use here. bd2412  T 13:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, thank you! :) &mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and Andrew S. Effron
I updated United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and Andrew S. Effron for the fact that Judge Effron's term expired on September 30, 2011 and the fact that a vacancy now exists on the court. Both articles probably could stand some TLC at some point, however. Safiel (talk) 05:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Biographical Directory of Federal Judges
A note that the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges website has been down since about April 1 and continues to be offline as of April 4. Safiel (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It continues to be offline after close of business on April 6. Safiel (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If something is broken, I wouldn't anticipate any further change in status until after the holiday. bd2412  T 23:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like as of the afternoon of April 10 they have gotten their problem resolved and the site is online. Safiel (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:SCOTUSjustices
Template:SCOTUSjustices has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 01:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Start U.S. magistrateship
Template:Start U.S. magistrateship has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- N Y  Kevin   02:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:United States Customs Court judges
Category:United States Customs Court judges has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Safiel (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I nominated the above category for deletion, as it duplicates Category:Judges of the United States Customs Court. I have already depopulated the redundant category and its deletion should be non controversial, but I am placing a notice here as a courtesy. Safiel (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Judges of the United States Court of International Trade/United States Customs Court
I have noticed that we are missing articles on numerous judges of the Trade/Customs Court, particularly those who had no other Article III service. As these are Article III Judges, they are inherently notable and should have articles. I have gone ahead and got the ball rolling. I have improved the existing article on Jane A. Restani and have created a new article for Herbert N. Maletz. All the Trade/Customs Court judges have articles at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. Not sure why polbot did not create stubs for them when it was adding the remainder of the Article III judges. Somehow the Trade court judges got overlooked. There are roughly 40 missing articles. I can probably handle adding these myself, but if anybody wishes to contribute an article or two, go for it. Safiel (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like only those judges whose service extended till or past 1956 or who were appointed on or after 1956 are Article III Judges, so that will chop about 20 names off the list, leaving about 20 to do. Safiel (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We should probably have articles even on those who served before the court became an Article III court. This has been an important court since its establishment. bd2412  T 18:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you are correct. However, I will go ahead and just do the Article III Judges first, for the simple reason they have Articles at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges and thus it will be easier to write those article. It will be harder to track down information on the other Judges, so better to leave them for later. Safiel (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I will go ahead and enter the missing Judges in reverse order of their appointment, or basically as they appear at the United States Court of International Trade article. I did Herbert N. Maletz out of order, but starting with Delissa A. Ridgway, which I have just completed, I will work on down the list, for the convenience of anybody who wishes to review/improve my work. Safiel (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Update
I have completed work on all the judges that are currently active or senior judges on the court. I added the 9 articles that did not exist and updated the 3 articles that did exist. I am now proceeding through the "Past Judges" section on the United States Court of International Trade article. Herbert N. Maletz is complete, Edward Dominic Re is partially complete. Ooops, I didn't sign this comment the other day. Safiel (talk) 06:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Finished the "Past Judges" section and am heading in reverse chronological order (bottom up on the list) through the "United States Customs Court" section. Knocking these out a lot faster than I thought and I should be done with them in a few days. Safiel (talk) 06:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Really excellent work - thank you for doing this! bd2412  T 17:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Your welcome. Also, good news, the biographical information for the Board of General Appraiers/Early Customs Court Judges are available at the FJC, it was just in a different section. So I will be able to complete the articles back to the beginning. Safiel (talk) 02:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Further Update
Just a note that I have just completed back through the appointees of William McKinley and am starting on the ten individuals appointed by Benjamin Harrison, the final ten individuals on the list. 9 articles to create and 1 to improve. Once those are done, I will do a major update of the Judge tables in the United States Court of International Trade article. I also intend to create a category for Members of the Board of General Appraisers. At some point, separate articles need to be created for the Board of General Appraisers and United States Customs Court, but I am not going to jump into that at this time. Safiel (talk) 19:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Final Update
Ok, DONE. :) Everybody who served on the Board of General Appraisers/United States Customs Court/United States Court of International Trade has a decently set up article. In addition the category (Members of the Board of General Appraisers) has been set up and populated by the 23 individuals who served on that body. I will go ahead and update the charts tomorrow in the United States Court of International Trade article and that should wrap it up for the time being. Safiel (talk) 06:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I should also note that we now have at least stubs on everybody who ever served as an Article III judge. Safiel (talk) 06:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you again for an excellent and efficient job done. bd2412  T 17:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I only follow and contribute to this WikiProject in really minor ways, including in the past about certain National Register of Historic Places-listed courthouses. But WOW, it sounds like some spectacularly productive helpful stuff has been done!  Thanks on behalf of readers! -- do  ncr  am  21:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Your welcome. Also, I have updated the tables at United States Court of International Trade. Safiel (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

AfDs
Articles for deletion/Arlene Rosario Lindsay and Articles for deletion/Nandor Vadas (2nd nomination). Both of these articles are about United States Magistrate Judges, both were nominated as failing WP:GNG. Safiel (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, this. Articles for deletion/List of judges of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. Safiel (talk) 02:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: per the AfD, the List of judges of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York was resolved by being merged into United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, with the names of individual judges unlinked for lack of indicia of notability. Of course, if these judges are notable for other reasons (authorship of significant publications, involvment in other notable events), articles can be made and linked here. bd2412  T 19:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

William Schofield: error = combined with UMinnesota prof, judge is now 150 years old!!
The psychiatry prof at UM wrote a 1964 book on psychotherapy, discussing 'YAVIS" which is a Wiki page. The YAVIS page link for 'William Schofield' leads to the judge, and the judge's information has been modified to reflect a death this year. Dr. Schofield died in 2006:

"Influential psychotherapist William Schofield, By Ben Cohen, Star Tribune, August 17, 2006

William Schofield of Minneapolis, a retired University of Minnesota psychology professor whose book is a standard for psychotherapists around the world, died Saturday in St. Louis Park. He was 85.

"He was a master psychotherapist. His book ['Psychotherapy: The Purchase of Friendship'] is a classic," said Jacob Sines of Iowa City, Iowa, a retired University of Iowa psychology professor who worked with Schofield on issues for the U. S. Public Health Service and the Veterans Administration. The book taught colleagues that psychotherapy "really involves resonating to one another, appreciating each other's worth," Sines said.

Schofield taught and advised graduate students in psychology and undergraduate premed students at the U of M for 40 years. He offered seminars for psychiatric residents and provided clinical assessment and treatment to psychiatric patients. He became chief of psychological services at the University Hospitals and Clinics in 1982."

Posted by: Cathie M. Currie, Ph.D. cmcurrie2@aol.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.6.30 (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Cheers! bd2412  T 19:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Article merge S.D.N.Y.
I have merged List of judges of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York into United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The combined article is not overly lengthy, thus no need to have a separate article. The "list" article now redirects to the main article. Also, I reconstructed the current/senior judges table. Safiel (talk) 17:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism alert - SCOTUS justice Sherman Minton
I wanted to alert the powers that be: Somebody has repeatedly deleted verified information and inserted falsehoods on those Wikipedia pages about Sherman Minton, a former justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Minton attended law school at Indiana University and graduated in 1915. His alma matter is now known as the "Maurer School of Law." As evidence, his Congressional biography indicates this, and the Maurer School's website indicates this. http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=m000800; http://law.indiana.edu/students/competitions/mootcourt/minton.shtml Somebody has been editing Wikipedia to indicate that Sherman Minton attended a different law school, a school now known as the McKinney Law School in Indianapolis. This is incorrect. McKinney itself does not claim Sherman Minton as a graduate. Of note is that while the McKinney school is currently affiliated with Indiana University, this affiliation did not begin until 1944. http://indylaw.indiana.edu/admissions/about.htm. Whoever is editing Wikipedia with the incorrect information has cited, as authority, "Gugin (1997), p. 51." I looked that book up, and checked it out from the library. That page from that book includes the following sentences: "One day when a flash flood swelled the normal trickle of the Jordan River, actually a creek that winds through the Bloomington campus, Minton plunged into the churning water and was swept away. With great effort he managed to pull himself to safety after grabbing hold of a bush." That exact same page also includes a story about him building scaffolding outside of Assembly Hall, which is on the campus at Bloomington, "to see an all-girl show." The scaffolding collapsed, and he was injured. It is absolutely and abundantly clear that Sherman Minton attended law school in Bloomington, at what is now the Maurer School of Law.

I posted this information on three pages, including on the talk pages. Sherman Minton, List of law schools attended by United States Supreme Court Justices, and Indiana University Maurer School of Law All three pages were changed. On one page, my verification on the talk page was also deleted.

I would appreciate help watching this sort of vandalism. Thank you. Musskel (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Watching all of them now. bd2412  T 00:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you!Musskel (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

A Small Inquiry
Hello. I've worked some on the William Suter article. He's the current Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States. He wouldn't fit within the scope of this Wikiproject, would he? If not, are there any that you guys recommend? Rockhead126 (talk) 14:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose he would, since we cover courts, and he works for one. bd2412  T 15:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with BD2412. (And as a point of interest, see James R. Browning, who was Clerk of the Supreme Court for several years, and then was named a Ninth Circuit judge.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool. That's what I was thinking; I just wasn't sure, considering he's not actually a court or justice. Adding him now. Rockhead126 (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

PolBot federal court judges mergings
Looking at the Merge category for April 2010 it is dominated by Polbots federal court judges. Are they still being merged by your project? Is it worth deleting them or at least moving them to separate page so they don't fill the backlog up. AIR corn (talk) 22:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * They are being worked on, bit by bit. They can be deleted if all of the information on the user page is already in the target page (including the fjc link, appointment and confirmation dates, prior occupant of the office). I would not object to replacing the merge template on these pages with another template that places them in a different category. bd2412  T 23:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Any ideas what? I was thinking that it would possibly be better to have a link on the talk pages going to the respective Bot pages. AWB should handle that pretty quickly. That way interested groups, not just people who know about the Bot pages can merge them if necessary. AIR corn (talk) 23:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think replacing the existing merge template with a modified version that puts the pages in a different category would be best. It's useful to have a category listing all the pages needing to be merged in. bd2412  T 00:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Would I be correct in assuming that if we remove from the current template at Merge FJC then it should just remove these articles from the merge backlog, but still keep them in the Category:Bot-created FJC subpages needing merge action. AIR corn  (talk) 00:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually changing it to this would need to be done to jeep the category. AIR corn  (talk) 00:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed Category:Articles to be merged from Category:Bot-created FJC subpages needing merge action. That may do it. bd2412  T 01:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Played with the template and it has now seemed to work. AIR corn (talk) 06:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

List of United States federal courthouses in Illinois and comparable pages for other states
Is there a good reason that these fifty-or-so pages all have "United States" in their names? It's necessary at List of United States federal courthouses and probably List of United States federal courthouses in Georgia, but since the other states don't share names with non-US jurisdictions and since there aren't any federal courthouses in US states that aren't United States courthouses, I don't see why "United States" must be included. Nyttend (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * First, Georgia is not the only ambiguous name among states. For example, there is a Florida Province in Bolivia, a Florida District in Peru, and a Florida Department in Uruguay. There are places called California, Colorado, Arizona, Virginia, Carolina, and so forth in other countries which might have "federal" courthouses. Second, the courthouses themselves tend to be named "United States Courthouse". bd2412  T 03:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

US Supreme Court members
What should be done with the infoboxes of associate justices bios, concerning numbering? IMHO, we shouldn't number them atall & instead, impliment the compromise at William O. Douglas. The infobox doesn't adequately handle the numbering of these justices who served concurrently & as a result less familiar readers can be confused. An example: Associate Justices X & Z can easily be erroneously considered the 9th & 11th associate justices, if Associate Justice Y is numbered as the 10th. GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism on associate members of Supreme Court
User:GoodDay has a bot that systematically erases the numerical order of all associate judges. that is, erases 77th from " 77th Associate Justice of the Supreme Court" He says the numbers are "confusing" and refuses to listen to other editors. here's some of the debate from my talk page:
 * I don't have a bot & I wasn't vandalising the articles. GoodDay (talk) 06:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Howdy. In future, it would be more productive if you contact me first & seek an explanation for my edits. Rather then simply blancket-revert me, as though I were a vandalist. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No it would be more productive if you had taken this issue to WikiProject_United_States_courts_and_judges and asked what other editors thought....William 21:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was curious as to which WikiProject. GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * systematic changes to 100+ articles that deleted standard information based on a misunderstanding leaves a bad impression. Rjensen (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * GoodDay is at it again, systematically vandalizing scores of articles because of his misunderstanding of the judicial and political system. Rjensen (talk) 22:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

This issue deals with the standard formatting of major articles in this Project. Rjensen (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you're making this personal, but that's your choice. GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Reverted pending discussion. The designations are accurate and informative. I support their continued inclusion. bd2412 T 02:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So you prefer to confuse less familiar readers? Those numbering are not accurate in the infobox setup & therefore are misinformative. GoodDay (talk) 02:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The numbering accurately reflects the order in which Justices were appointed. bd2412  T 03:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * But it has the potential to mislead readers, concerning the infobox. For example: readers seeing that Thurgood Marshall is the 86th Associate Justice, could easily conclude that Clarence Thomas is the 87th. GoodDay (talk) 03:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a load of nonsense. GD reverted something that was done this month. Per BRD, it should have then been discussed, perhaps in a central location such as this. What's more, calling removal of this "information" vandalism is laughable, showing striking ignorance of what vandalism is. In any event, no one has bothered to present evidence that AJs are numbered this way, and we've had people turning those AJ numbers into justice numbers, making the thing untrue. We've also had no evidence that this provides any benefit whatsoever, especially for an office that has always had multiple holders at once. Exactly what does it convey to say what number Justice David Davis was? These are the questions people should have been here or somewhere similar answering instead of edit warring to restore something recently added en masse without consensus or even explanation. -Rrius (talk) 03:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Bulba2036 unilaterally added the numberings on November 11, without consensus. Therefore, my deleting those numberings was the correct move. GoodDay (talk) 04:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We are, at the moment, in the discuss part of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Since Rjensen wasn't the editor who added these, he did nothing wrong in reverting GoodDay's removal of these additions (even if this removal was itself not vandalism). I don't see anything wrong with including them, but let's reach a consensus on the matter. Maybe the order of appointment for the Justices can be included in a less obtrusive way. bd2412  T 04:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, no—GoodDay's reverts were the "R" in BRD. My point is that he shouldn't have been reverted, and that the allegations of vandalism are ridiculous. Whether or not Rjensen was the editor who added the material in the first place is not at all the point. The material was added, GD reverted it, and that should have stood. Instead, Rjensen reverted, then called GD a vandal when he re-reverted. That was inappropriate, and yet he made asinine allegation in multiple locations.


 * As for the order business, It doesn't make sense where it is. It has no context and gives no useful information. In the prose, it can be presented in a much more effective way. In the infobox, the numbers just don't have context. I don't actually think this numbering is terribly useful in the individual articles, but providing it the infobox is just not as effective as with a single-person office such as Solicitor General. This is in part for the precise reason GD mentions. If the office listed in the infobox is "100th Associate Justice", then the "preceded by" becomes ambiguous. Without it, it is clear that she is an associate justice and her predecessor is John Paul Stevens. By including the order, it would seem that the person before her is the 99th Associate Justice, who would actually be Sonia Sotomayor, not Stephens. The potential for misunderstanding is not worth it. If this really needs to be included, the prose is a better place for it. -Rrius (talk) 05:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * And another thing: Rjensen accused GoodDay, with no basis, of using a bot. Are the edits marked with a little "b"? No. How would anyone, let alone GoodDay, remove a different number from the infobox of a bunch of different articles using a bot? Usage of bots is something watched over by WP muckety-mucks, meaning that in addition to an undertone of cheating, Rjensen is effectively accusing GD of violating yet another policy. So I insist that Rjensen apologize for making spurious allegations about vandalism and running unauthorized bots. It is bad enough Rjensen treated GD's initial edits as though they were moving some long-standing content without bothering to inform him- or herself, but casually throwing around accusations demands the editor either bring forward proof or do the decent thing. -Rrius (talk) 05:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Plainly, the numerical order of the appointment to Associate Justice (e.g., Thurgood Marshall is the 86th Associate Justice should appear in both the Thurgood Marshall article and the Associate Justice Article list. It is historically important. I tend to think that repetition in the infobox is unneeded redundancy, however; and to the extent there are discussions about individual seats on the court (e.g., in succession boxes), it isn't helpful. As to GoodDay's removal of the information, I think we should WP:AGF and leave it at that. Calling this "vandalism" is not helpful.  Let's spend more effort developing a consensus and fix the problem, and less time trying fix the blame.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 10:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Historically important"? Well, everything is relative.  I guess it is more "important" than recording what color tie Marshall wore to his swearing-in.  But it is relatively less important than nearly every other fact stated in the article.  I don't object to including the numerical order of the appointment somewhere in the article, but let's not give it undue prominence.  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, let's eliminate referring to Thurgood Marshall, for example, as the "86th Associate Justice". He was the 96th person appointed to the Supreme Court, which is at least somewhat historically significant.  His order of appointment among the Associate Justices, however, is strictly trivia.  Although I admit I haven't personally read every published source relating to SCOTUS, I've read a number of them, and I'd be fairly surprised to find any reliable source that even mentions the order of appointment of Associate Justices, as opposed to the sequence of appointments of Justices overall.  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

He was the 86th appointed associate justice. Between Abe Fortas and Harry Blackmun. If that is incorrect, then this needs to be corrected: Associate Justice. That fact may be unimportant to you, which is of no consequence to me. I don't argue about tastes, either. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 17:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, your last edit to Thurgood Marshall contained the incorrect statement that he was the 86th justice. He was the 86th associate justice but the 96th justice overall; either one is correct but the latter I think is more likely to be relevant to most readers.  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed that we shouldn't argue about tastes. But I notice that you didn't respond to my earlier comment about reliable sources.  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to amend my own comment, I see that at the time of Kagan's appointment some attention was paid to the fact that she was the 100th Associate Justice, and even the Court itself made note of this. So the count is not entirely without reliable sources.  (Also, and this is just an aside, the list of all justices in List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States only counts Rutledge and Hughes once each, contrary to the practice of counting Grover Cleveland as two Presidents.  Frankly, the latter strikes me as the stranger of the two ways of dealing with this issue.)  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The infobox is the problem, though. Marshall's predecessor & successor aren't Fortas & Blackmum. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Only you seem to be confused. You are making a strawman argument. Except for you, nobody said that Marshall was the successor to Fortas or the predecessor to Blackmun. I understand that one could assign him a number as an appointed Justice, i.e., 96th, but that does not negate that he was the 86th Associate Justice. I can't imagine that anybody thinks that there are 96 sitting justices.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 17:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Strawman nothing. Are Marshall's imediate predecessor (Clark) & successor (Thomas) the 85th & 87th associate justices? of course not. But that's impression giving in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with GoodDay; the usage of this sequential numbering in the infobox in close conjunction to the "predecessor" and "successor" has entirely too much potential for confusion. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't necessarily call the inclusion of the numbers confusing but more unenlightening. I graduated from the same law school that has spawned more Justices than any other and have practiced law (albeit not litigation) for more than 35 years and I was never aware of the sequential numbering tradition.  Personally, I think it is appropriate to include it in the text but I would prefer not to include it in the information box. -- DS1953 talk  00:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * First, it is not a strawman; GD is making a positive argument, not making up a false argument for your side and knocking it down. Using this numbering certainly has potential to cause confusion and beyond doubt creates ambiguity for no purpose. It is highly unusual to use numbering for multi-person offices like that. I have never seen this for judges in any court for any of the many countries whose judges I follow. For example, Beverley McLachin has "17th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada", but simply "Puisne Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada" for her time as what we would on our top court be called an associate justice. The same pattern holds for the High Court of Australia and the various UK courts.


 * The consensus that appears to be emerging here is that the numbering should not be in the infobox, with the real question surrounding what if anything should be in the infobox. Russ pointed out that Kagan was noted as the 100th AJ even by the court, but what needs to be singled out there is the "100". If you search for sotomayor "99th associate justice", all hits come from Wikipedia (her article here, a copycat, and two derivative Ask Jeeves hits) The full numbering (112th for Kagan) is used more often, not just on the web, but in books, so to the extent this is worthy of a mention in the prose, it should be to the full number, not the associate justice one, with the exception of Kagan since the fact of her being the 100th was made. So once again, I don't object to having the order in the prose, but it is of little to no value in the infobox, and needlessly creates an ambiguity—one that three or more editors have pointed out, not just GD. -Rrius (talk) 08:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

What we have, so far
From what I can tell, a majority of editors are supporting my recommendation. GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Later this week, I'll delete the numbering 'again'. Those who reverted me earlier, don't seem interested in discussing the subject. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * How would you feel about removing the numbering from the infobox, and adding at some other standardized point in the article a line indicating that the Justice in question was the nth Associate Justice to be appointed to the Court (and, perhaps, the nth Justice overall)? bd2412  T 23:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't object to another editor making such additions in the content, assuming they'd do it in a clarifying way. I'm more concerned about deleting the confusion from the infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 02:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree that there is now a consensus for removing the numbering from the infoboxes. bd2412  T 03:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll make the deletions on Friday. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Implimentation of consensus
I've completed re-deleting the numbering from the inboxes-in-question, per the consensus reached. GoodDay (talk) 04:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Question regarding copyright
Is a painting, commissioned by a Federal District Court, painted by a private artist and donated to the Federal Court considered a "work of an officer or employee of the United States" for purposes of copyright. The case in point is a number of commissioned paintings done for the U.S. District Court for Puerto Rico which are available online. http://www.prd.uscourts.gov/bios_flash.aspx links to the Judges bios and the attendant paintings. If they are eligible to upload to Commons, I will do so, but I need some definitive word first. Thanks. Safiel (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually had exactly this discussion with a federal judge who is quite an authority on the question, who indicated that judicial portraits are always works for hire commissioned by friends of the court, and then donated - copyright and all - to the courts, the subject matter of the portrait thereby becoming the property of the United States, and therefore entering the public domain. This was told to me in the context of said judge authorizing me to upload to Wikipedia all of the portraits of the judges of that particular court, which I have to admit, I have not gotten around to. bd2412  T 00:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. :) I am going to start uploading the whole caboodle for the U.S.D.P.R. Safiel (talk) 01:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Just a note that I have uploaded all the images to Commons, and they can be found here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Judges_of_the_United_States_District_Court_for_the_District_of_Puerto_Rico Note that this includes all Article III Judges of the District Court as well as all the Article IV Judges of the preceding territorial court. Safiel (talk) 20:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Further note
I am going to go ahead and upload a collection of portraits that I have found for the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and also the D.C. District Court. The ones for the Court of Appeals are all high res and good quality, the ones for the District Court are of acceptable resolution, but have the appearance that the picture was snapped at an angle, as though the picture was hanging fairly high and the photography was having to photograph at an upwards angle to the portrait. Even so, they are of good enough quality to be used in articles. I only have a handful uploaded, including this one of Robert Bork: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Robert_Heron_Bork.jpg  I will post links to the Commons categories once I have completed uploading. Safiel (talk) 01:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, excellent work! bd2412  T 03:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Your welcome. Link to the Court of Appeals collection, consisting of 36 portraits and 3 sculptured busts: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Judges_of_the_United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_District_of_Columbia_Circuit Safiel (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Progress on cleaning up judges.
Cleanup of judge articles is being done along several fronts:
 * By appointing president: All judges appointed by George Washington through James Buchanan are done; working on List of federal judges appointed by Abraham Lincoln.
 * By district: Working on judges of the Northern District of Alabama.
 * Supreme Court Justices: Working through the list of Justices chronologically; done through Nathan Clifford.

Query
I'm not familiar with this task; is there any way I can help? -Rrius (talk) 01:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, absolutely! These pages were created by a bot importing information from the Federal Judicial Center website. Consequently, they have the hallmarks of bot-writing - awkward phrasing, strange capitalization, and repetition. See, for example, the cleanup of Richard L. Young. The bot-created subpages to merged are a bit more complicated. Basically, those were created because an article already existed on the judge. The task there is to make sure that all of the information on the subpage (occupations, nomination and commission dates, the FJC webpage link, etc.) is reflected in the article. Once that is done, the subpage can be tagged for speedy deletion. Cheers! bd2412  T 11:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * My intention is to start with the Northern District of Illinois, and move through the district courts alphabetically by state. What I did was spawn a tab for every single judge listed at ILDN and remove any of them that didn't have the FJC template at the top. Then, using a nifty extension for Chrome, I saved the session so I can go back and edit them at my leisure. Am I doing it right or is there a better way? -Rrius (talk) 03:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know of a better way. However, I don't see how an alphabetical sequence would start in Illinois. bd2412  T 03:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * My intention is not to duplicate effort, so I figured Illinois forward would help accomplish that (plus I'm from Chicago). -Rrius (talk) 23:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico
The article United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico is not in the best of shape. Some POV, some original research and a fair amount of bad writing/grammar, probably due to the fact that the article is being edited by Spanish speakers who are probably not dually proficient in English. Happened to notice it while uploading/posting images of the P.R. judges. Safiel (talk) 06:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've worked on this article in the past and will try to do some editing over the weekend. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A while back we had a project-wide effort to work United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri up to a model state. It is now an excellent article, and I think that we should try to bring all of our District Court articles up to that level. bd2412  T 01:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

List of federal judges appointed by Barack Obama
Obama renominated all 33 individuals today and I restored them to the list and updated the coloration. I have not updated the renomination date or renomination references yet, I am going to do the individual articles first and if nobody has done so, I will update the list, a few entries at a time. Safiel (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a note that I got a few done and an IP did the rest. Everything should pretty much be done for the transition between the 112th and 113th. Safiel (talk) 02:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Stephen Breyer
Stephen Breyer, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. AIR corn (talk) 12:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have closed the reassessment as no consensus. Safiel (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Notability guidelines, Judges of the United States Tax Court
Having reviewed archived discussions here and elsewhere, I am of the understanding that this project considers Judges of the United States Tax Court to be inherently notable. I have gone ahead and created articles on Obama's three successful appointees to the Tax Court, to wit, Albert G. Lauber, Ronald Lee Buch and Kathleen Kerrigan. One question I would like to have clarified. Should the articles on these individuals be created at the time of the individual's nomination (as is the case with Article III nominees) or should we wait for confirmation? At the present time, I do not believe any individuals are currently nominees for the tax court. Safiel (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We have a draft notability guideline that addresses this at WikiProject United States courts and judges/Notability. It is not official, but I think it's about time we made it so. bd2412  T 22:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, didn't see that one. I will go review it. I had read the failed Notability (Law) guideline. Safiel (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to make suggestions for improving the draft. Cheers! bd2412  T 01:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

US copy[rite]
The Western District of Arkansas' Honorable Jimm_Larry_Hendren article mentions the judge ending one AR ban on Harry Potter Books in libraries but does not mention the ruling that indisputably makes United States [sic]"copyright" a ritual that protects no authors' rights whatsoever.

Neeley v NameMedia Inc, et al, (5:09-cv-5151) is the only ruling in history that addresses the Visual_Artists_Rights_Act for photography and held the 1991 Visual_Artists_Rights_Act does not apply when photographs are used online. This ruling keeps the United States from being compliant with the Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works despite signing this treaty.

Google Inc spent hundreds of thousands in legal fees during this litigation and no other use of the Visual_Artists_Rights_Act exists as should be noted.

I can not add this superb encyclopedia content for reasons that should be obvious. This information could be researched by anyone with a PACER account or using the free mirror of the docket with PACER links included for verification. PACER Docket or the Free Docket mirror CurtisNeeley (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Elissa F. Cadish
Once the official confirmation comes down that Obama has officially withdrawn Elissa F. Cadish's nomination, I intend to redirect the page to the appropriate section of Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies. Her career has been relatively uneventful, other than the contested nomination, and it appears that she is likely to fade back into the woodwork. Thus, she falls under WP:BLP1E. The page does need to be maintained as a redirect and for attribution purposes, but the controversy can be fully covered on the Obama judicial controversies page. Nothing else about her requires Wikipedia coverage. Safiel (talk) 18:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Obama has formally withdrawn her nomination and I have redirected the article per WP:BLP1E. I have updated the appointment controversies article. Safiel (talk) 00:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I rather wonder whether the circumstances of the return of this nomination suffice to make Cadish notable. bd2412  T 03:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Notability isn't temporary per WP:NTEMP though I disagree. Character in popular television show is deemed worth a article but same show is almost forgotten 10 years later....William 10:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I should note that the last line of WP:NTEMP reads "In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual.", linking to WP:BLP1E. The one event being her appointment controversy. While the controversy is notable, clearly, the guidelines point to NOT having a separate article on Cadish. A redirect and coverage of the controversy in the controversies article should be sufficient. Safiel (talk) 15:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Our own (unofficial) notability guideline (WikiProject United States courts and judges/Notability) states as to Judges of the United States district courts:
 * Nominees who withdraw, die, are withdrawn by the President prior to a vote on the nomination, or are returned by the United States Senate without being processed are not inherently notable. If a withdrawal from consideration is prompted by conflict over the nomination, which makes it tantamount to a defeat in the Senate, such a nominee is evaluated as though they had been rejected by the Senate.
 * It further states:
 * Nominees whose nomination is rejected by the United States Senate are not inherently notable; however, as the rejection of a nominee to such a position is a rare and politically important event, this is strong evidence of notability that can be established by any other indicia of notability.
 * Finally, the separate section on Judges of state trial courts of general jurisdiction states:
 * Such judges are not inherently notable, but holding such a position is strong evidence of notability that can be established by other indicia of notability.
 * Taking all of this together, I would agree that this person is not notable, either as a state court judge, or as a rejected nominee. Barring a revelation that she authored some substantial book or paper, or meets some other criteria for notability, I agree that an article is not warranted, and the redirect is appropriate. Perhaps we should add a line or two in this project's notability guidelines indicating that the names of otherwise non-notable rejected or failed nominees can be redirected to the judicial controversies article for that President. bd2412  T 03:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Infobox question
In the infoboxes for the circuit and district courts, should the "number of active judges" be the number of authorized judgeships (including vacant seats), or the number of active judges currently serving (vacancies excluded)? Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe it should reflect the number of authorized Judgeships. Safiel (talk) 02:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. The number of judges serving in active status is a bit too fluid for this purpose. We could change the title to reflect "authorized active judgeships". bd2412  T 11:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

List of judges for United States district courts in Missouri
Just did some major work on United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri and List of judges for United States district courts in Missouri. As a result, I feel that List of judges for United States district courts in Missouri may now be superfluous. The entire list of current and former judges are now included in the respective District Court articles, thus the separate list article is no longer needed. I will wait for feedback here, before I PROD or nominate for AfD. Safiel (talk) 16:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see why we would need to delete the list, as it is still the only place to see all of the District Court judges who have served in Missouri in one place. bd2412  T 17:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If people are interested in keeping it, I won't PROD or nominate it, just want to get some thoughts on it right now. Safiel (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The only issue is that people may neglect to update it, while updating the other articles. Prior to my edits, it was outdated and inaccurate, showing 12 active judges for the Eastern District that has only 9 authorized judgeships. Safiel (talk) 17:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The list is pointless. It lists in two separate sections what is already listed at two separate articles, only adding a third section (which is copied from List of former United States district courts) containing a list with two line-items (and one of those two is a judge who is already listed under Western District). Maintaining it means that someone needs to update both the appropriate court's article and this article with no obvious purpose served. At best, the article should be a dab page pointing people to the three articles the information is copied from. -Rrius (talk) 22:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It can't be a disambig per WP:DABCONCEPT, since it is obviously possible to write an article on the topic. It would, at least, be a list of lists. I would rather see this deleted then subjected to an ill-conceived attempt to turn it into an errant disambig. bd2412  T 01:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether you call it a dab or a list of list is of no important. I think the article should just be deleted since it does not present anything different (or even in a different form) from what is presented elsewhere, but if someone sees value in having a centralized place dealing with all Mo. district judges, then a skeletal list is all that is required. -Rrius (talk) 05:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Since we have Category:Judges of the United States District Court for the District of Missouri, Category:Judges of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, and Category:Judges of the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri‎ perhaps the better solution would be to merely have a Category:Judges of United States District Courts in Missouri containing those three subcategories. bd2412  T 17:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan

 * I have been going through all the District Court articles, converting tables from wikitable to template format and adding succession of seats. Got to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Cluster**** is really the only descriptive term that describes the mess the Judge tables in this article were in, particularly the Former Judges wikitable. One particularly egregious example was Judge Feikens, as his entry appeared before and as it appears now:


 * No indication was given in the former table at all that Feikens was renominated by Nixon successfully. Also, a couple of Judges listed in senior status that had died and one Judge on the Former table that is listed by the FJC as still being in senior status. It is all fixed now, but I thought I would leave a note here anyway, because it just seemed odd that this particular article was in such bad shape. I have encountered sundry errors in other District Court articles, but none of the others were nearly in as bad a shape as this one. Safiel (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Feikens is on the relatively short list of Unsuccessful recess appointments to United States federal courts; all of the judges on that list probably need to be treated with kid gloves, given the unusual circumstance of a judge serving without confirmation, and being terminated from the judiciary for lack of confirmation - and the even more unusual circumstance (three times in all of U.S. history!) of a failed recess appointment later being renominated and successfully confirmed. The other two are Roy Winfield Harper and Jesse Smith Henley, but Feikens is the only one ever to have a recess appointment lapse under one president, and be successfully renominated under another president. Since the successful nomination was nine years after the first ended, it might make better sense to treat this situation as if we were speaking of two different judges. bd2412  T 17:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Just finished succession of seats. As for Feikens, I will have to give that a thought. There are three ways I can go. 1. Leave it as is. 2. Separate and move his appointment by Nixon to its proper chronological spot and number it as 18.1. Or 3. Separate and move his appointment by Nixon to its proper chronological spot and number it chronologically (and renumber all subsequent judges). But I agree, it is a very unique situation. Safiel (talk) 17:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I note that on the List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, Charles Evans Hughes is listed twice, for his two distinct terms of service (although not numbered separately). bd2412  T 17:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I will go ahead and break the entries up then, retaining the same numbering for both. Safiel (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Notability guidelines
I added a line to clarify notability for bifurcated state systems, like Oklahoma and Texas. Both of these have a separate Court of Criminal Appeals that is the high court in those states for criminal cases. In both states, the state Supreme Court does not have criminal jurisdiction. GregJackP  Boomer!   22:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, good point. I think these notability guidelines are in shape to propose for formal adoption. Cheers! bd2412  T 00:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Scope of project and notability of United States Attorneys
General question. Under the scope of which WikiProject do United States Attorneys fall and do United States Attorneys hold automatic notability as a result of their post. I would think they would at least partially fall in the scope of this WikiProject, as they are officers of the courts they serve. I don't think the proposed guidelines mention U.S. Attorneys at all. Safiel (talk) 22:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That is an interesting question. I would say that United States Attorneys fall under WikiProject:Law, generally, and I would not consider them to be inherently notable. Although they are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, their appointments are for limited terms, and they can be fired (as we have learned) almost on a whim. However, I would say that a United States Attorney, like a state appellate judge, is highly likely to be notable, if some other factor can be shown (unusual longevity of service, involvement in a notable case, significant publications, etc.). bd2412  T 22:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I bring it up, because there does not seem to be any rhyme or reason as to who among U.S. Attorneys has an article. For example, in the Western District of Kentucky, the previous attorney, David L. Huber had an article, with no particular claim of notability, while the current attorney, David J. Hale, did not have an article. I just created the article, as he is in the final stages of vetting for nomination to the District Court. I will poke around over at the other WikiProject and see what the feeling is there. I think, as a rule, you are probably right, in that they should NOT be inherently notable. Safiel (talk) 22:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well he will soon become notable either for being confirmed, or for being rejected. ;-) bd2412  T 23:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Just a general note in regards to Judge tables across all Article III Court articles
I have completed the process of converting wikitables to templates on all 94 Article III District Court articles, plus the U.S. Court of International Trade article and the First Circuit. That includes both the current and former judges tables, as well as succession of seats. Will convert the remaining Circuit courts as time permits. Safiel (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

On a slightly different note
Speaking of the United States Court of International Trade. If somebody is interested in doing so, it would probably be worth the while to separate Board of General Appraisers and United States Customs Court out of the Trade Court article, as they are certainly noteworthy enough to have articles in their own right. Something too ambitious for me to take on right now, but if anybody is interested. Safiel (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have expanded the article a bit. It seems noteworthy to me that the court went through a lot of name changes, but not a lot of changes in jurisdiction or procedure. By the way, Safiel, you have done a great job tackling the listing of judges from that court. Would you like to try your hand at the United States Court of Federal Claims? bd2412  T 14:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking at it now. Going to have to go through and create all the missing Judge articles first, because I will need that information before I can actually mess around with the main court article. It will be a bit slower, as, unlike with the Article III Judges, there is no centralized record database for Article I Judges. But I agree, this court article needs to be fleshed out. BTW, good job with the "you know what" mess you've been dealing with elsewhere on Wikipedia. Safiel (talk) 03:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. And... thanks. bd2412  T 12:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Jerome Frank
A discussion is underway as to whether Second Circuit judge Jerome Frank is the primary topic of that name. Please feel free to provide your opinion. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

RfC on Bluebook citation style
For anyone that might be interested, there is a Request for Comment on the appropriateness of the Bluebook citation style for Wikipedia articles at Photography is Not a Crime. Regards, GregJackP   Boomer!   07:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding legislative day of confirmation
I have not done so yet, but after the Senate confirm-a-thon is done, the articles will need to be updated, to reflect the fact that while the calendar day of the confirmation may have been the 12th, the legislative day of confirmation was the 11th, and any other similar situations that will likely occur as the Senate takes advantage of the new rule. It is likely that we will have several more overnighters that will create the same situation. Safiel (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Overnight sessions are one thing, but in general, we can't have a precedent that the legislative day rather than the calendar day will typically be used, because in prior Congresses, there were "legislative days" that lasted for weeks or months. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I would like to see what the FJC does with this. We don't need to make our own rule if there is an authoritative source to which we can cite. bd2412  T 03:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC) 01:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of just doing what I did on a couple of other occasions, using the calendar day and then adding a notation of the legislative day. Safiel (talk) 02:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We can always make a note of it in the body of the article. bd2412  T 03:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What is the purpose of this? The only relevance legislative days have is for things within the rules of the legislature. The real-world timing of the confirmation is totally unaffected by any distinction between the two. The only result of adding the legislative date to the articles will be creating confusion, making people wonder what the hell a legislative day is and why it is relevant to the article. -Rrius (talk) 04:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think WP:USCJ is inactive :)
Just noticed that WP:USCJ was marked as being an inactive wiki-project. Looks like it is plenty active to me. The courts and judges articles seem to be getting prompt attention as needed. Not much activity on this talk page recently, but other than that, nothing appears to be neglected. Safiel (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Definitely not inactive. Even the most recent activity on this page was not that long ago. bd2412  T 16:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I made this determination based on Template:WikiProject status as the last main page edit was January 17, 2012‎. The status page states that a WikiProject can be designated inactive if there hasn't been any main page edits in four months and it's been over two years.
 * But status designation can be easily changed and the inactive one says to do so if it is incorrect or a WikiProject becomes more active. I'm glad to see this WikiProject is, indeed, active! Liz  <b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 17:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Progress on cleaning up judges.
Cleanup of judge articles is being done along several fronts: bd2412 T 17:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * By appointing president: All judges appointed by George Washington through James Buchanan are done; working on List of federal judges appointed by Abraham Lincoln.
 * By district: Working on judges of the Northern District of Alabama.
 * Supreme Court Justices: Working through the list of Justices chronologically; done through Nathan Clifford.

Melville Fuller
Does anyone know if he lived at anytime in Bangor Maine? Sources, Here and here put him in Augusta not Bangor. Fuller is not categorized as 'People from Bangor, Maine' and his article's only mention of Bangor was unreferenced and I removed it. The reason I'm asking is I was doing some cleanup to the 'List of people from Bangor, Maine'....William 19:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Project page formatting broken
There is some broken formatting on the main article page. Somebody that is more familiar with it may want to take a look. It is on the Article Information section of the project page. Safiel (talk) 02:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)