Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges#Notability of U.S. Federal Judges

I'm noticing A LOT of federal judge articles were removed from their particular century categorization (i.e. 20th-century American judge, 21st-century American judge, etc.) and the reason given in summary is because said judge(s) are already in the "appointed by (insert president name)" category and that's seen as a subcat. So...going forward, that means they should only be put into their respective appointer's category and not respective century also, correct? I feel like this is something that should've gained consensus first, but maybe that's just me. Snickers2686 (talk) 23:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

:That premise seems rather questionable to me; appointing president only tells you so much about a judge's time period. Star Garnet (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

::I feel it's questionable too but it amounted to at least 600+ edits and I didn't feel like getting into an edit war Snickers2686 (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

::: I have rolled back two of these for judges who were appointed by 19th-century President William McKinley, but who did not assume office until 1901, therefore being entirely 20th century judges. For the most part, it is true that data appointment of a judge can be discerned by the appointing president, and the century in which they serve will correspond with that. Mckinley is the unique instance of a president whose tenure meaningfully straddled two centuries but even then, his presidency only lasted six months into the 20th century, when he was assassinated. The divide between presidencies is otherwise much more neatly marked by the turn of centuries, though a question legitimately arises with respect to the judges who are appointed late in one century and had the bulk of their actual service in the next. BD2412 T 03:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Regarding McKinley, both of those judges also had :Category:United States district court judges appointed by Theodore Roosevelt or :Category:United States court of appeals judges appointed by William Howard Taft (20th-century presidents). I left alone any dual century presidents, as the appointment could have come either side of the century (McKinley and Clinton), unless they were in other categories as with those BD has raised, so we're certainly on the same page there. Jevansen (talk) 03:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

A proposal has been made at Talk:John Roberts#Requested move 7 February 2025 to move John Roberts to John G. Roberts that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. BD2412 T 21:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I have created Draft:Maria Lanahan as her nomination has been announced. She lacks sufficient notability to go to article space prior to confirmation. Additionally, another editor created Josh Divine in article space. I will create the remaining two articles in draft space shortly. Safiel (talk) 03:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• Adding that I have now created Draft:Zachary Bluestone and Draft:Cristian Stevens as well. Stevens could conceivably pass the notability guidelines and go to article space prior to confirmation, but needs to be fleshed out first. Lanahan and Bluestone both need to stay in draft space until confirmation. Safiel (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Another editor has nominated Emil Bove for good article status, no review has been opened as yet. First of all, I think would fail as is. But more importantly, we are on the cusp of what will be an extremely contentious confirmation process where a lot of dirt will be dug up and rancor will happen, meaning the article will be in flux. NOT a good time to have a GA review. I am not sure if it is proper for a non-involved editor to deep six the process by removing the GA template before a review is opened, but this just seems a bad moment for this. I would like some insight. Just to be sure, I will NOT remove the template without receiving substantial positive insight from other editors here. Safiel (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{reply to|BD2412}} Definitely should get an admin's thoughts on this. Safiel (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• {{reply to|ElijahPepe}} Pinging in the editor who made the nomination. Safiel (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

: I would tend to agree that an article that is inevitably going to undergo substantial change in the near future would be too unstable to navigate the GA process in any sort of short order. A better picture is definitely needed, which is not exactly a GA concern, but is not a good look for an article nominated for that status. BD2412 T 18:43, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:Okay, here are my thoughts. Firstly, I was not blindsided by Trump's announcement nominating Bove to the Third Circuit; it was The New York Times{{'}} article revealing that Trump planned to name Bove that brought me to edit the article. The larger point here is about the stability of the article, and I wholeheartedly disagree so long as the review begins right now or after the confirmation process. It is impossible to determine the extent of what might be discovered in Bove's forthcoming confirmation hearing, and refusing to allow a GAN on the basis would be improper. Dan Caine is a similar case. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:58, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::*If you want to go ahead fine. I think you would have a better shot at a GA promotion if you wait a few months. Not to mention if the article is promoted and then gets shredded during the confirmation battle, it could turn around and be demoted. Go ahead if you like, I just think that patience is better suited for this situation. Safiel (talk) 19:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)