Talk:Diane Wood

message: A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/Diane Pamela Wood was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot (talk) 01:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Bot-created subpage

message: Judging from media reports, Ms Wood seems to be known most widely as "Diane Wood" rather than "Diane Pamela Wood". Given that there are no other Wikipedia articles for people called "Diane Wood" and there is no disambiguation issue, I propose the page be moved to Diane Wood. Any thoughts? — Lincolnite (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Apart from this article, all sources I've ever seen, and all lawyers whom I've ever heard refer to her, call her "Diane Wood", not "Diane Pamela Wood". Wikipedia naming conventions require that the most easily recognized name be used for an article. "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." Since such sources overwhelmingly call her "Diane Wood", that is the proper name for the article, not the current "Diane Pamela Wood". Krakatoa (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for a page move

message: It seems to me like the references I pulled out last week were more than we really needed, but now they're back in. Can anyone offer some insight on why we'd need 15 sources saying that Wood was a likely candidate? — Bdb484 (talk) 05:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: When it becomes difficult to read or edit an article due to reference overload, you're right, we need to use a bit of discretion in terms of references.  I just did some reference wrangling in that particular section.  The remaining ones fully and clearly cover the brief mentions, and I think provide more than adequate direction for further research.  For everything else, there's Google News.  :)  user:J aka justen (talk) 05:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Per MOS:BIO#Names: "While the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph, if known. Many cultures have a tradition of not using the full name of a person in everyday reference, but the article should start with the complete version."
I'd restored it from a vandal replacing Pamela with rofl. While I was restoring it, I figured I'd source it.
The above talk page section refers to the article title, not to mention in the lead. Her full name is encyclopedic and important. I would like to restore this, or you may. If you disagree, please state why. TransUtopian (talk) 01:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Moot as self-reverted. Thanks. TransUtopian (talk) 02:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  restoring her middle name to the lead 

message: We've been here before, as can be seen from the discussion in May 2009. Once again, there is a horrendous reference bloat. User:Winter5210 is convinced that we need 11 references in the lead and 7 in the body to establish that she has been widely considered one of the most likely people for Obama to nominate to the Supreme Court. Not only is that far more references than necessary, there is no reason for the lead to be the primary location for for these references. There is not real controversy here, so the need for references in the lead is exceedingly small. The lead section, per guidelines, is supposed to be a summary of the article. As such, support for its propositions should primarily come from the body text. Finally, many of the references Winter5210 is so keen to protect in the lead do not support the proposition they follow.
In addition to the references about the Supreme Court, Winter5210 also seems to believe that references regarding purely biographical information, her name and place of birth, and about a commentator's description of her must be in the lead, and not in the body. This is such an obvious of policy that I hope he will simply relent rather than prolonging that particular issue. -Rrius (talk) 00:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In the last few minutes, not only have Winter5210 and an IP editor inexplicably re-added the refs that do not support the post-Stevens retirement speculation, they have added more to the lead, bringing the total to 13, and removed all but one from the generic statement about speculation in the body text. This is truly getting bizarre. -Rrius (talk) 01:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

text: The statement, including the quotation, belongs in the body text. Whether it should be in anyway a part of the summary is a matter of debate. I tend to agree with you that her being considered an intellectual counterweight is significant enough to be summarized in the lead. However, it should be summarized, not duplicated. It is enough that the quote and reference are in the body text. -Rrius (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I stand corrected (on pretty much all points). (Winter5210 (talk) 20:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

text: We all have to be new sometime. -Rrius (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm not a veteran of many GAC efforts, but I think stability matters, and the article would destabilize is she is nominated. If I'm right about that, I counsel delay. -Rrius (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There's too much that's unsourced, especially in the first three sections, for this to succeed at GAN. And the sources that are used are law school bio's and the like, which aren't always the best.  Wasted Time R (talk) 23:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I was hoping someone might add a few refs to get this through.  How about the Stevens article? Somebody here could probably shepherd that one through.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)  01:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Stevens article was better than I expected when I looked at it a couple of days ago, but it would need some work for GA.  There have been some good newspaper articles lately about his style of work and personal demeanor that should be incorporated as well.  Last time I checked, the only SCOTUS justices at GA are Stephen Breyer (which got it several years ago and probably would need work to meet a GAR) and Sonia Sotomayor (which is recent and still in good shape).  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: This isn't a template, just a start. Some of these received no more attention than a single mention in a local paper while others were widely reported.   Will Beback  talk   22:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, so is your idea that all these cases are "noteworthy"?  Because blippy local news stories are not that impressive for Court of Appeals decisions.  Again, there are thousands and thousands of these.  Why is there now a sudden push to place all these in Judge Woods wiki bio?  And I still would prefer we come up with a list more in line with other wiki pages, or just plain common sense.  No encyclopedia entry would dedicate a quarter or more of the space to rote summaries of 10-20 opinions.  I don't even think Supreme Court Justices get that sort of treatment.  Shouldn't the criteria be something greater than 'some newspaper ran a one-off story on this decision' - because that would justify inclusion of hundreds and hundreds of these decision summaries for every single Court of Appeals judge.  Veritasjohn (talk) 05:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I certainly don't think that all of these are especially notable. But I'd say that nothing that isn't included here is notable, unless other signs of notability can be found. I don't think we should include all of these, or even half of them. The logical criteria would be those which have received the most attention. My guess is that something like five or so cases would stand out.   Will Beback  talk   06:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

text: I've removed some cases that didn't seem to have been covered in the contemporary press as listed above.   Will Beback  talk   10:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a couple of the cases you pulled are fine, but Bayo is the most recent decision of the whole Seventh Circuit (en banc), one of the few en banc decisions authored by Wood, and was supported by a citation. (Opalkt (talk) 13:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A blog doesn't count, but if it's notable you should be able to find better sources.   Will Beback  talk   18:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: More importantly, recency is not notability. -Rrius (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've trimmed the long descriptions a bit, to focus just on what Wood did and to leave out the background descriptions. Cases that are truly notable should get articles of their own.   Will Beback  talk   07:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's vandalism. We discussed trimming on this talk page. If you would like create separate pages, do so. Do not simply delete information based on your own personal preferences.(JD3000 (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Read WP:Vandal (and WP:Civil) before tossing around accusations of vandalism. More to the point, He is not "simply deleting information based on his own personal preferences". The discussion of how to reduce the size of the summaries has been going on for some time, and his edit was a reasonable step in furtherance of that discussion. -Rrius (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Rrius.  Additionally, given that a number of users like JD3000, Opalkt, Winter5210, and Bobbyt02 have been making changes almost exclusively to the Wood article, then some revert any good faith changes with specious charges as "vandalism," I think some greater discussion of future changes is in order. Zz414 20:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you are all in agreement, then I'm fine leaving it as is. I've been trying to keep a close eye on Judge Wood's opinions given the press attention, but it seems like the group has spoken. Cheers, (JD3000 (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Spare us the martyr act. I didn't pass judgment on the particulars of the edit. Rather, I found your accusation unwarranted and impolite. If you have specific issues to raise about the edits, go ahead and do so, but the edit was made in good faith, being in no way vandalism or POV. -Rrius (talk) 22:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Noted cases discussion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Diane Wood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i1TPc6IrFr67aXA_-BpEqwUvO_0gD9EVRBRO0
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120925021943/http://www.ali.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=about.officerslist to http://www.ali.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=about.officerslist
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120925021943/http://www.ali.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=about.officerslist to http://www.ali.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=about.officerslist
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Diane Wood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407082520/http://www.ali.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=projects.members&projectid=28 to http://www.ali.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=projects.members&projectid=28
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified