From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


MOS:COLOUR/ MOS:COLOR

LacrimosaDiesIlla, Snickers2686, JocularJellyfish, and BD2412: It has recently been brought to my attention that this page may be in violation of MOS:COLOUR (or MOS:COLOR, if you prefer). This is specifically regarding the passage Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information. Especially, do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method, such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels. Otherwise, blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a color screen will not receive that information. Right now, nominations that have been announced by the President, are pending before the Judiciary Committee, and reported by the Committee are all assigned different colours but no other identifying features. It has been suggested to me that *, **, †, ††, and ^ are the most commonly used. Does anyone have any thoughts regarding how this change (if it is to occur in the first place) should be implemented?

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

In a few weeks it will be a moot point. As soon as the current Congress is gaveled to a close on January 3, 2021, all pending nominations not yet acted on fail. It is possible that some can be resubmitted to the next Congress, convening that same day, but not terribly likely. BD2412 T 03:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply
@ BD2412: I agree that this problem will soon be moot, but it is not moot now. Nor will it be moot once Biden begins making judicial nominations. Just because an issue will become moot in the future should not preclude us from acting on the issue now. Sdrqaz ( talk) 12:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply
It will only be moot soon in the sense that it will stop mattering in this particular article. But there will soon be another article which will presumably be patterned quite exactly after this one to keep track of Joe Biden's judicial nominations, so we might as well take the problem seriously now and try to solve it. Seems simple enough. Currently we use different colors for the different committees, but obviously that's not really necessary, so I think we only need to consider four cases: confirmed nominees, nominees waiting for a floor vote, nominees pending before a committee, and those whose nominations have been announced but not yet sent to the Senate. I think we can get away with not using a symbol for the confirmed nominees, so we only need three symbols. I think the dagger is awkward because, next to a person's name, some people's first instinct will be to think that it means the person has died. So I would skip the daggers and I think the caret is kind of ugly and inelegant, and we're dealing with three consecutive phases in an ongoing process, so I would suggest using degrees of asterisks: (*) for nominees waiting for a floor vote, (**) for nominees pending before a committee, and (***) for announced nominees waiting to be nominated. If there are strong feelings against using triple asterisks for the relatively transient cases of the announced-but-not-yet-nominated (of which there tend to be few at any given time), I would suggest using the caret (^). LacrimosaDiesIlla ( talk) 16:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply
LacrimosaDiesIlla, I concur. We might as well get this resolved before the new administration takes office. The colours used for the Finance, Veterans' Affairs, and Armed Services committees are slightly off-putting; standardising it across the page would be useful. The use of asterisks sounds good, but I would say that the (***) would not be necessary for announced nominees waiting to be nominated; they have pending in their nomination date, which should be enough to differentiate them from other nominees. Sdrqaz ( talk) 17:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Sdrqaz I don't mind using different colors for the different committees, and I think it helps visually differentiate the fact that different nominees are processed by different committees in a way that strikes the casual viewer of this page (since it's a possibility that may not have occurred to readers before they arrive here). However, I would absolutely be open to reworking the color scheme for the other committees to make them more pleasing. If you think we can get by with no additional marking on pending nominees, I have no objection. What's the next step? LacrimosaDiesIlla ( talk) 16:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC) reply
LacrimosaDiesIlla, since we're just enforcing the Manual of Style, I think we can just go ahead and make the change. You make a good point about using different colours for different committees; I just think that the yellow used for the Armed Services Committee and the red used for the Veterans' Affairs Committee were a little garish. Sdrqaz ( talk) 18:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC) reply
@ LacrimosaDiesIlla and Sdrqaz: I'm just catching up on the discussion here. I generally agree with the change, but can we move the asterisks to the # column, so colorblind users can sort by the status of the nominees? It might not matter for this page at this point, but it will for the Biden one. – JocularJellyfish Talk Contribs 02:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply
@ JocularJellyfish: Edit carried out. Sdrqaz ( talk) 13:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

RfC on table format

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

Changes involved:

  • "Began active service" to "Commission date"
  • "Ended active service" to "Termination date"
  • Split "Ended senior status" to "Reason for termination" and "Senior service"

A mockup made by LacrimosaDiesIlla below:

# Judge Circuit Nomination
date 		Confirmation
date 		Confirmation
vote 		Commission
date [S 1] 		Termination
date 		Reason for
termination 		Senior
service
30 D. Michael Fisher Third May 1, 2003 December 9, 2003 voice vote December 11, 2003 February 1, 2017 Assumed senior status Incumbent
31 Charles W. Pickering Fifth May 25, 2001 N/A N/A January 16, 2004 December 8, 2004 Appointment expired –
32 William H. Pryor Jr. Eleventh April 9, 2003 June 9, 2005 53–45 February 20, 2004 Incumbent – –
33 Franklin Van Antwerpen Third November 21, 2003 May 20, 2004 96–0 May 24, 2004 October 23, 2006 Assumed senior status 2006–2016
45 John David Kelly Eighth January 27, 1998 July 31, 1998 voice vote August 3, 1998 October 21, 1998 Death –
46 Kim McLane Wardlaw Ninth January 27, 1998 July 31, 1998 voice vote August 3, 1998 Incumbent – –
47 William Byrd Traxler Jr. Fourth July 10, 1998 September 28, 1998 voice vote October 1, 1998 August 31, 2018 Assumed senior status Incumbent
48 Sonia Sotomayor Second June 25, 1997 October 2, 1998 67–29 October 7, 1998 August 7, 2009 Elevated –
22 Ken Starr D.C. September 13, 1983 September 20, 1983 voice vote September 20, 1983 May 26, 1989 Resigned –
48 Alex Kozinski Ninth June 5, 1985 November 7, 1985 54–43 November 7, 1985 December 18, 2017 Retired –
  1. ^ This article uses the date that judges receive their commission to represent the beginning of their service because this information is readily available from the Federal Judicial Center. However, since a judge must take the judicial oath "before performing the duties of his office" 28 U.S.C.  § 453 and judges may receive their commission and take their judicial oath on different days, this may result in inconsistencies with other articles or sources as to when judges began service.

Survey

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

Discussion

Agree with 'commission date' change, disagree with 'termination date' as FJC doesn't use that term for judges assuming senior status, may I suggest having a column called 'Notes' like this or some such. 69.116.73.107 ( talk) 18:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply

# Judge Circuit Nomination
date 		Confirmation
date 		Confirmation
vote 		Commission
date 		Ended active
service 		Notes Ended senior
status
5 Amy Coney Barrett Seventh May 8, 2017 October 31, 2017 55–43 November 2, 2017 October 26, 2020 Elevated –
1 Gerard E. Lynch Second April 2, 2009 September 17, 2009 94–3 September 18, 2009 September 5, 2016 Assumed senior status Incumbent
That's a good point. The FJC page of Franklin Van Antwerpen, one of the examples in Lacrimosa's mockup, has a termination date of 2016 instead of 2006. Sdrqaz ( talk) 18:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment So which version of the table is under consideration here? Snickers2686 ( talk) 19:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Snickers2686, I had envisioned the RfC as an up-down vote on Lacrimosa's proposed format, but if you disagree with some aspects of it (like the IP editor above), you can vote on each of three 'proposed changes' listed. Sdrqaz ( talk) 17:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Done with Trump?

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

@ 2600:6C48:427F:F84E:D9B6:A9A5:F381:B676: The White House announced some nominations were sent back to the Senate on January 20th. I added them because of that. Please see this link. – JocularJellyfish Talk Contribs 22:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Nominations

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

ABA ratings

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

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Donald_Trump&oldid=1228967999"