Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 7 |
Courthouses and wp:HSITES
There are many historic courthouses in the U.S. which are listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places. Also there are many which are not NRHP-listed, but which are included in state or local historic registers. There is also a new wp:Wikiproject Historic Sites, which could co-host a task force to address all of these. wp:HSITES is just getting going, but it will be creating some task forces for some other narrow types of historic sites soon. Good luck with your wikiproject here! doncram (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Anyone know where we can get a list of current and former U.S. Federal courthouses? Also, further to the above, anyone know where we can get a list of registered historic places that happen to be courthouses? bd2412 T 00:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'll provide a report of courthouses that are listed on the U.S. NRHP at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges/Courthouses listed on the NRHP. This will include some Federal, some state, some local courthouses, any that are NRHP-listed. I think there is on-line, a website detailing all of the Indiana courthouses, or maybe it is an adjacent state. doncram (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- I was thinking of the off-line book Ohio County Courthouses by Susan W. Thrane, which was used as a source by User:Bwsmith84 to start a number of wikipedia articles such as Guernsey County Courthouse. There is a navbox to all the Ohio courthouses. doncram (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- The Federal Judicial Center has info, with hi-res photos, on all Federal court buildings here (choose a state on the left). It doesn't specifically say which are NRHP-certified, but it includes photos from the NRHP, so that credit can help, e.g. the Charles A. Halleck Federal Building in Lafayette, Indiana. I could have a bot pull in the info on these courthouses... but I'm not able to have a bot import the images. – Quadell (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'll provide a report of courthouses that are listed on the U.S. NRHP at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges/Courthouses listed on the NRHP. This will include some Federal, some state, some local courthouses, any that are NRHP-listed. I think there is on-line, a website detailing all of the Indiana courthouses, or maybe it is an adjacent state. doncram (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Neat! NRHP report on "courthouse" hits done. It's in a worklist format, what i can run myself using a tool provided by User:Elkman. Someone else might be able to generate tables a lot like List of bridges on the National Register of Historic Places in Maryland for courthouses in each state, including addresses, latitude & longitude coordinates, space to insert thumbnail photo. With the coordinates info, then the list-article can have a Google map link using the "GeoGroupTemplate" tool, which a reader can click on and see all their locations in Google maps, and zoom in using satellite view. In the Maryland bridges article, the Google map link is at the bottom right. For most geo-based list-articles of NRHP sites, like List of RHPs in Syracuse, the map link is given at the top right. (Indiana's NRHP listings have not yet been put into that table format, but 35 or so other states have, indexed at List of RHPs.)
wonderful collection of courthouse photos
If you want a wonderful collection of courthouse photos, there are 328 photos from 46 states available at this USDA website. These are often very beautiful photos. Explanation from the USDA page:
Calvin Beale, a senior demographer at ERS with over 60 years of Federal service, visited the majority of counties in the United States. He typically stopped at the county seat and talked to USDA staff, extension service agents, and others about the county and current trends. During his visits, he'd photograph the county courthouse, combining his interests in architecture and rural small town America. This is a sample of his collection.
Using these was discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 17#County courthouse photos online, and it was felt that wikipedia could indeed use them. I'm glad i could find the link there again. doncram (talk) 07:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Those photos are in a set labelled "County courthouses". Does that mean they are not Federal courthouses, or are some of them Federal and of interest to this wikiproject, while some of them are not? Sorry for the dumb question, i don't understand well how the court systems are set up. Actually, the wikiproject name could be clearer, if it is supposed to only cover the Federal courts, not all courts in the U.S.... doncram (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Usually the same building is used for multiple purposes -- the U.S. Custom House and Post Office, for instance, has held a circuit court, a district court, and an appellate court, (all federal), as well state courts, and even private offices. Some of the buildings in the lists above hold (or have held) federal courts, and others have not; it's a mixed bag. Also, discussed earlier whether this project covers state courts or not, and we informally decided that sure, state courts could be covered, but no one has yet been motivate to add them. We have our hands full with just the federal courts at the moment. – Quadell (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- I would bet that there are a number of buildings titled U.S. Custom House and Post Office - we will likely have to disambiguate by city soon. bd2412 T 23:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- You're right. BD2412's link redirected to just one, United States Customhouse and Post Office (St. Louis, Missouri). I just replaced the redirect with a pretty good starter disambig list at U.S. Custom House and Post Office: it includes every NRHP-listed place with "Post Office" and "Custom" in its primary NRHP name. This is one dab list that i somehow omitted developing. Similar ones, developed, include:
- I would bet that there are a number of buildings titled U.S. Custom House and Post Office - we will likely have to disambiguate by city soon. bd2412 T 23:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Usually the same building is used for multiple purposes -- the U.S. Custom House and Post Office, for instance, has held a circuit court, a district court, and an appellate court, (all federal), as well state courts, and even private offices. Some of the buildings in the lists above hold (or have held) federal courts, and others have not; it's a mixed bag. Also, discussed earlier whether this project covers state courts or not, and we informally decided that sure, state courts could be covered, but no one has yet been motivate to add them. We have our hands full with just the federal courts at the moment. – Quadell (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- There's a real problem with courthouse names. For instance, U.S. Post Office (Hannibal, Missouri) is alternately called the U.S. Post Office, the U.S. Post Office and Court House, the Federal Building, or the Naval Reserve Center. That's a lot of disambiguations. We can't even go with just the address, since the address is alternately given as 600 Broadway or 801 Broadway (it's a big building). – Quadell (talk) 02:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Having been to the one in Miami, I can tell you that there is a complex of buildings there - five of them, now. Four are courthouses (including the James Lawrence King Federal Justice Building), one is a federal prison facility, and another of the courthouses used to also be a post office (and is still locally know as "the old post office"). It may take time to sort them all out, but that's why we have the project. bd2412 T 02:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
See also List of courthouse buildings in the U.S. – Quadell (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yikes, that was me, back in October! Pretty similar starting list to the new one i started here. My newer one here is actually better as i have better skills now and/or slightly better tools available. doncram (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Summing up
Okay, so photos, stats, and information on courthouses in the U.S. can be gleaned from the following public-domain sources:
- National Register of Historic Places: good info, but NRHP-certified buildings only. example
- USDA County Courthouse Photos: modern photos, scanty info. example
- nr.nps.gov: clunky and really difficult, but tons of info example
- Federal Judicial Center: basic info, old photos, federal courts only. example
- General Services Administration: great info, modern photos, but hard to search. example
- National Historic Landmarks: good info, NHL-certified only. example
There is a list of NRHP courthouses at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges/Courthouses listed on the NRHP, but not all are federal courthouses. Additionally, I could (if people want) produce a list of FJC buildings. – Quadell (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Not sure what a Federal Judicial Center =FJC list would mean. But sure, would you please produce a list of FJC buildings. I am willing to create some articles on courthouse buildings, using these various resources, given some indication of which are of more interest. By the way, though, the nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com site is just a private mirror site of the public domain National Register Information Service database of the National Register. So I prefer to just draw data from and to credit the National Register's NRIS system directly, instead. doncram (talk) 10:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Infoboxes
Most district courts use {{Infobox U.S. district court}}, but United States District Court for the District of Oregon uses {{Infobox High Court}}. Which is preferable? – Quadell (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- High court is supposed to be for a country. I think we should make all U.S. District Courts conform to a single model - that's part of the reason I wanted to get the E.D. Mo. to GA status, so we could have an article to use as a model for the information and layout that every District Court should have. If there is stuff in the High court box worth having in the District Court box, we'll just add it to the latter. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- I left a note on the article talk page. bd2412 T 02:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- No, the High Court is not supposed to be for a country. It was designed to be for any high court, or more specifically for state supreme courts (and the like in other countries). But it has been used for pretty much any court, and should really be re-named as "Infobox Appellate Court". The district court one should be used for the District of Oregon, but I implore this project and implore that the infobox be made to be more general user focused and not so much law focused. In that this is a general encyclopedia, not one for lawyers. For example with the infobox, general readers might want to know where the court is (as far as I know all have a main courthouse, though you could have an area to list all the courthouses in a district), and the court abbreviation for citations is rather worthless for most readers, so if that is to be included I would make it a regular component along the lines of the judge # and when it was established. As to in general, take for example the court you hope to get to GA, I would suggest relegating the law citations for when the court was created to footnotes, as most readers do not have a clue as to what these mean, only us folks with legal training tend to know or care (I'm guilty of adding these to articles too, but they need to be moved to footnotes). Aboutmovies (talk) 07:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- You make some good points. I'll see if I can incorporate these suggestions into {{Infobox U.S. district court}} and United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. – Quadell (talk) 12:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- I tend to suspect that the people most interested in actually reading a Wikipedia article on a district court are likely to have enough legal background to know what a case citation is. However, I also agree that it need not be given any more prominent of a position than the number of judges or the identity of the enacting legislation (which is in the High Court infobox, and missing from ours). I absolutely agree that our infobox should include the location of the "main" court, and I think it should also list the locations of branches. Have a look at our United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri article - we strung that together in a week, and once it achieves GA status, I hope to use it as the model for the rest of the districts. I think the Oregon article is excellent, by the way, and would like to incorporate some features of that article (like the list of counties by division) into our articles in general. bd2412 T 13:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- With the Oregon one, the statutory cite and the Art. III part looks awkward, so if you incorporate that, maybe do it as two lines: enacting statute and Constitutional authority or something similar. Again, the infobox used their was designed more for state appellate courts, so whether the court was authorized by the state's constitution or some sort of statutory enactment would be more pertinent and vary from state to state (or other political subunit), so only one line would trend to make sense. With the MO court, I would suggest moving some of the long lists of judges to a list of judges (see Oregon Supreme Court, a GA), as in general it is preferred to turn lists into prose, and some GA reviewers nitpick on that sort of thing. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Also, as to location in the infobox, I might suggest as you have added, but maybe have it as a separate section and include the courthouse name and then also a spot for the coordinates, plus a spot for the other courthouses/cities. Sections similar to say {{Infobox building}}. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- I like the idea of a separate section for geographic info (main location, courthouse name, geocoord, other duty stations). As for the long lists of judges, I did that with Judges of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (133 judges)! bd2412 T 12:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Also, as to location in the infobox, I might suggest as you have added, but maybe have it as a separate section and include the courthouse name and then also a spot for the coordinates, plus a spot for the other courthouses/cities. Sections similar to say {{Infobox building}}. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- With the Oregon one, the statutory cite and the Art. III part looks awkward, so if you incorporate that, maybe do it as two lines: enacting statute and Constitutional authority or something similar. Again, the infobox used their was designed more for state appellate courts, so whether the court was authorized by the state's constitution or some sort of statutory enactment would be more pertinent and vary from state to state (or other political subunit), so only one line would trend to make sense. With the MO court, I would suggest moving some of the long lists of judges to a list of judges (see Oregon Supreme Court, a GA), as in general it is preferred to turn lists into prose, and some GA reviewers nitpick on that sort of thing. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- No, the High Court is not supposed to be for a country. It was designed to be for any high court, or more specifically for state supreme courts (and the like in other countries). But it has been used for pretty much any court, and should really be re-named as "Infobox Appellate Court". The district court one should be used for the District of Oregon, but I implore this project and implore that the infobox be made to be more general user focused and not so much law focused. In that this is a general encyclopedia, not one for lawyers. For example with the infobox, general readers might want to know where the court is (as far as I know all have a main courthouse, though you could have an area to list all the courthouses in a district), and the court abbreviation for citations is rather worthless for most readers, so if that is to be included I would make it a regular component along the lines of the judge # and when it was established. As to in general, take for example the court you hope to get to GA, I would suggest relegating the law citations for when the court was created to footnotes, as most readers do not have a clue as to what these mean, only us folks with legal training tend to know or care (I'm guilty of adding these to articles too, but they need to be moved to footnotes). Aboutmovies (talk) 07:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- I left a note on the article talk page. bd2412 T 02:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Cutoff point for having lists of judges in the articles.
It has been pointed out in the review of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri that a lengthy list of judges unbalances the article. As some courts have had relatively fewer judges (e.g. Alaska, Idaho, the Central District of Illinois), it seems to me that we should set a cutoff for the number of judges that justify (or necessitate) having a separate article for "Judges of..." I'm thinking somewhere in the range of 25-35 (which would definitely require a separate article for the E.D. Mo. bd2412 T 15:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- S.D.N.Y. has that many current judges. But yeah, that number sounds about right. It seems there are a couple ways to organize this.
- Leave things as they are.
- Have a separate List of United States district court judges for the Eastern District of Missouri. Same for each district.
- Have a List of United States District Court judges for Missouri (or perhaps List of judges for United States district courts in Missouri), which would cover the Eastern and Western Districts along with judges of the former (defunct/extinct/subdivided/obsolete) United States District Court for the District of Missouri as well.
- Have a List of Missouri judges covering all federal courts and state courts. (Oregon currently does this at List of Oregon judges.)
- I lean toward option 3. – Quadell (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, it's nice to have options. I suppose the direction to go would also depend on the number of judges we are talking about. We could easily fit the ~70 Missouri federal judges into an article, but I'd be hesitant to have such an article for New York federal judges, there having been well over 200. I don't care for the Oregon option simply because the types of judges at issue are so different. Imagine doing that for an older and more populous state like New York (or even Missouri). So, I like option 3 with a caveat that if we are talking about a total of more than 100 judges from the state, we go with separate lists per District. bd2412 T 17:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- List of Missouri judges is insane. It's merging apples and oranges, plus there are hundreds, maybe thousands, of Missouri state-court judges at any one time (and do we include traffic-court judges?), which would overwhelm the list of far more notable federal judges. THF (talk) 12:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I tried it: List of judges for United States district courts in Missouri (and the new Category:Lists of United States district court judges. I'm sure it can be improved. – Quadell (talk) 03:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
As a sidenote, I'm not a fan of having red and blue (Republican and Democrat) columns in the judges lists. I think it's potentially misleading, since judges don't run under a party. In my opinion, those should be removed from all lists that still have them. – Quadell (talk) 03:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. After all, Maryanne Trump Barry and Sonia Sotomayor were both appointed to district courts by a Republican, and to the courts of appeals by a Democrat. bd2412 T 03:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Inviting an expert.
In light of this book on the history of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, I'm going to drop the author a note and invite him to work on our article on the subject. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Next collaboration?
I think we've brought the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri about as far as it can go, and List of judicial appointments made by George Washington is approaching featured territory as well. I'd like to propose that we stake out our next collaboration target, and I'd particularly like to suggest we pick a judge. One for whom we currently still have a Polbot stub or the equivalent, but for whom there's more to tell, to see if we can't take that to GA status in the next few weeks. Any suggestions? bd2412 T 02:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- If no one objects, I'd like to pitch Mark W. Delahay - appointed by Lincoln, with whom he had a friendship, and later forced to resign under threat of impeachment for intoxication on the bench. bd2412 T 05:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I think we should also make a "Collaboration of the month" (or fortnight?) an official part of this project. – Quadell (talk) 05:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- I absolutely agree. I think one a month is enough, if we want to get them up to GA or even FA status. I'd propose we alternate between courts, judges, and courthouses. Or maybe have one article of the month and one list of the month, since lists will probably take less work. bd2412 T 05:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- If so, List of judges for United States district courts in Missouri is a type of list we haven't worked on yet, but since material was moved here from other places it's pretty good. I could see it becoming featured next, if we wanted. – Quadell (talk) 05:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Oyez oyez oyez
Good news!
- Learned Hand is currently on the main page.
- George Washington judicial appointments was promoted to be a featured list.
- United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri was promoted to a good article
Hoorah for us all! – Quadell (talk) 13:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Awesome work! I would add that in addition to these achievements, we have created thousands of new articles and are progressing on making each of them into a work of art. bd2412 T 23:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Not that it matters at this point (this article will clearly be kept), but it occurred to me that USCJ-realted AfD's should be mentioned here. Also, this one reminds me that we only have these articles going back to Kennedy, and my intention was to take them at least as far back as FDR. So, after our above collaboration (Mark W. Delahay) is done, I'd like to propose that the next one be on Dwight D. Eisenhower Supreme Court candidates. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
GA Sweeps invitation
This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.
We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.
If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
courthouses disambiguation using (City, State) vs. (State)
Comments invited at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#courthouses disambiguation using (City, State) vs. (State). This is about whether wikipedia article names for courthouses should be, for example, as Marshall County Courthouse (South Dakota) or as Marshall County Courthouse (Britton, South Dakota). doncram (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- My two cents is that it doesn't hurt to include the city name so long as the state-only name redirects there (if that's the only courthouse by that name in the state). I'll comment there as well. bd2412 T 00:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Merge List of United States district courts by case citation into List of United States district and territorial courts?
Merging the list of case citations into the holistic list of courts would basically only amount to adding another column to the existing setup on the list of courts. Should we do this, or keep them separate? bd2412 T 02:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- A merge seems like a great idea. I'll do it tomorrow (assuming I remember and nobody beats me to it...). --MZMcBride (talk) 02:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree this is a good idea, thank you MZM for volunteering :) MBisanz talk 02:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. List looks great, by the way - now, to do articles on all those courthouses! bd2412 T 02:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, I'm inclined to replace the "State" column with the "Citation" column (instead of adding another column). State is a bit redundant when it's patently obvious which state the "Middle District of Georgia" belongs to and it avoids calling places like D.C. and Guam states ('cause they're not). On the other hand, you use the links to the state articles.... Any thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree with that (although we should add a state column to the table for defunct courts, some of which did not use the state in the name). bd2412 T 16:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Done (mostly). A few of the extinct courts probably need to be listed in the "Defunct" courts section. A few of the active courts for non-states didn't have a citation. I put appropriate comments in the text area regarding these issues. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- All current courts should have a citation, it may just be a matter of finding out what it is. I think some of the defunct courts (especially the short-lived ones) never properly had a citation (some never reported a published opinion). I've added the ones I know for sure. bd2412 T 20:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Done (mostly). A few of the extinct courts probably need to be listed in the "Defunct" courts section. A few of the active courts for non-states didn't have a citation. I put appropriate comments in the text area regarding these issues. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree with that (although we should add a state column to the table for defunct courts, some of which did not use the state in the name). bd2412 T 16:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, I'm inclined to replace the "State" column with the "Citation" column (instead of adding another column). State is a bit redundant when it's patently obvious which state the "Middle District of Georgia" belongs to and it avoids calling places like D.C. and Guam states ('cause they're not). On the other hand, you use the links to the state articles.... Any thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. List looks great, by the way - now, to do articles on all those courthouses! bd2412 T 02:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Alert on Samuel B. Kent
The House has just voted to impeach Judge Kent. Should be fireworks to follow, keep an eye on this article. bd2412 T 21:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Follow-up: Kent has resigned (for real this time). End of story, more or less. bd2412 T 00:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
This should help us figure out what we have and what we need. A lot of work will go into setting this one up, though! bd2412 T 07:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Proposed renaming of List of judicial appointments made by Barack Obama
There has been a lot of discussion on this article's talk page as to whether it's appropriate to list Obama's pending judicial nominations in this article. A lot of the confusion seems to stem from the article's title. When I first saw "judicial appointments" I figured this would be a natural place to list all nomination info, and it seems like at least a few other people interpreted the title in the same way. However, after reviewing the article's history and some of the articles in this project, it seems this article is intended to only capture seated judges, similar to List of judges for United States district courts in Missouri or List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. Is there any objection to renaming this article to List of United States federal judges appointed by Barack Obama, or something similar that uses "judge" rather than "appointment" as the noun in the title? Any approved rename should of course be applied to the series of articles. Billyboy01 (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that a name adjustment is in order. I would submit, however, that "United States federal judges" is redundant, since U.S. Presidents don't appoint federal judges for other countries, and there are no state court "federal" judges. I had made the point in the other discussion that some Presidents have previously been governors, and we do not want to use this seies of articles as a vehicle to list every state court judge that George W. Bush or Woodrow Wilson appointed. I suppose if we wanted to be nitpicky about it we could discuss whether U.S. Tax Court judges and U.S. Court of Claims judges and the like should also go on the lists, and if that would affect the naming at all. bd2412 T 00:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have no objection to List of federal judges appointed by Barack Obama. That title would support listing Article I judges in the same place as Article III judges. I don't have a preference as to what we should do now with respect to Article I judges, but I wouldn't be surprised if at some point someone interprets "federal judges" such that they try to include them. Billyboy01 (talk) 03:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have renamed the entire series accordingly - "List of federal judges appointed by X" is more accurate for two reasons, since it indicates that the list includes only judges appointed (as opposed to all nominees), and since it restricts the appointments to federal judges (excluding state court judges which may have been appointed by governors who later became president). I have no real objection to listing Article I judges so long as they are clearly judges and not commissioners or committee members with quasi-judicial powers. U.S. Tax Court Judges, U.S. Court of Claims Judges, and Court of Veteran's Appeals judges come to mind. bd2412 T 00:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- I understand that there is no more space for pending nominations in the series, meaning there is (still) a difference in opinion if the series was intended to include them or not and there is no patience to wait for a consensus, see discussion pages on List of federal judges appointed by Barack Obama. Supposing that a consensus can not be reached I would propose to create a new article Judicial nominations by Barack Obama where pending nominations, completed appointments and (future) nomination controversies can be included.BjoernZ (talk) 13:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- We have, from what I have seen across the discussions, a pretty clear consensus (not unanimous agreement, but consensus) that the titles needed to be changed. Still a separate issue from the inclusion of pending noms. bd2412 T 16:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- I fully agree, sorry for the confusion. See also general discussion.BjoernZ (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- We have, from what I have seen across the discussions, a pretty clear consensus (not unanimous agreement, but consensus) that the titles needed to be changed. Still a separate issue from the inclusion of pending noms. bd2412 T 16:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- I understand that there is no more space for pending nominations in the series, meaning there is (still) a difference in opinion if the series was intended to include them or not and there is no patience to wait for a consensus, see discussion pages on List of federal judges appointed by Barack Obama. Supposing that a consensus can not be reached I would propose to create a new article Judicial nominations by Barack Obama where pending nominations, completed appointments and (future) nomination controversies can be included.BjoernZ (talk) 13:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have renamed the entire series accordingly - "List of federal judges appointed by X" is more accurate for two reasons, since it indicates that the list includes only judges appointed (as opposed to all nominees), and since it restricts the appointments to federal judges (excluding state court judges which may have been appointed by governors who later became president). I have no real objection to listing Article I judges so long as they are clearly judges and not commissioners or committee members with quasi-judicial powers. U.S. Tax Court Judges, U.S. Court of Claims Judges, and Court of Veteran's Appeals judges come to mind. bd2412 T 00:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have no objection to List of federal judges appointed by Barack Obama. That title would support listing Article I judges in the same place as Article III judges. I don't have a preference as to what we should do now with respect to Article I judges, but I wouldn't be surprised if at some point someone interprets "federal judges" such that they try to include them. Billyboy01 (talk) 03:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Has anyone heard of Judgepedia?
There is a website called Judgepedia, which apparently is like a Wikipedia for the various judicial systems of the USA. Has anyone had any experience with this site, either positive of negative? --Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 00:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- I've imported a few of their articles, but have been told that although they have a GFDL license, they do not have the proper license for mass imports (although the articles I imported were ones that were basically scrapes of public domain websites, from which I made substantial improvements). bd2412 T 00:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Sixth Circuit biographies
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit maintains an excellent database of biographies of all District and Appellate judges who have served there, including pictures and references. I am going to try to confirm that all of this is in the public domain. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
With the impending elevation of Sonia Sotomayor, I'd like to try to get Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States up to FA status. Any additional eyes would be appreciated! I've also listed this article for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States/archive1. bd2412 T 16:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Law notability guideline
You are invited to comment on the preliminary law notability guideline. Criticism, comments, better ways of phrasing things - even suggestions of other things it should cover - are welcome. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 02:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
General Services Administration building descriptions.
I came across the U.S. General Services Administration Historic Building Posters & Brochures series, which provides detailed descriptions (with images) of about a hundred buildings, almost all of which are in the NRHP. The administrator of that program has authorized our use of the text, and I have copied all of the text of those pages to my userspace, indexed at User:BD2412/courthouses (most of the structures are courthouses, although some serve or have served other purposes). The text needs much work in terms of wikification, layout, tone, templates, etc. bd2412 T 02:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)