Jump to content

Talk:Old Bailey

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Some of this article is in the first person i.e. 'I recommend'. Would it be better for this to be edited to read 'it is recommended' or 'it has been recommended' with the latter less likely to need a proper reference. 82.47.151.13 09:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

62.189.123.39 08:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move requested

[edit]

I'm no British-proper-names expert, but I thought it was referred to as "the Old Bailey", not "The Old Bailey", and in any event Wikipedia doesn't use initial articles except in exact titles (movies, books) and for disambiguation ("The Pentagon"). Am I the only one who thinks this article ought to be moved to Old Bailey? (Notice "What links here", by the way.) --Quuxplusone 21:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Support: The familiar name of the Central Criminal Court is the "Old Bailey". This is also the name of the road on which the court is located. The terminology is confirmed by reference to Her Majesty's Court Service website. JPF 22:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. "The" is not an inseparable part of the name itself, and so this move would make inline linking easier. Jonathunder 16:08, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 18:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Is there any need to have an entire section devoted to the plot of "V for Vendetta"? Does the statue of justice's appearance in one novel/movie deserve to be mentioned at all? Mixsynth 23:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why it is here. It does nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the Old Bailey. --PullUpYourSocks 00:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. JPF 09:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning popular culture is common in many articles. This article needs further development, and someone has referenced only the most recent appearance. Feel free to include other major appearances in pop culture. Rofti 20:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two lengthy paragraphs, making up an entire major section of the article, about a minor scene in V for Vendetta, aren't appropriate when Rumpole - an entire series in which the subject matter of the article prominently - only got two sentences tucked into a different section.129.97.79.144 19:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One might take into account the fact that the movie is the only context from which many people - well, pretty much anyone outside the UK - know of this building!

Obviously, an encyclopedic article focusing on the historical aspects of a British criminal court building would not mention a mere $54 million film's casual reference to it .. but this is Wikipedia, not the Britannica. :) Muad 07:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was too much information about the appearence of the Old Bailey in V for Vendetta. It dominated the page and made the article more like an article about the destruction of the Old Bailey in V for Vendetta rather than the building it's history or it's use.


The fact that this is not the Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't mean that such a protracted account of a comic and book should be included in the article. If that were allowed their would be no reason not to give detailed accounts of almost all of Rumpole's exploits or any other fictional goings on in the building.

For these reasons, and those given above, I have edited the offending section to just one line.

Isn't Old Bailey mentioned in the rhyme "Oranges and Lemons" in George Orwell's 1984? I don't have it in front of me to check.72.77.66.99 (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost?

[edit]

According to the List of haunted locations, there's a ghost here. Should it be mentioned on the wikipage for the Old Bailey?

equity?

[edit]

Is the balance really for equity or perhaps equality or justice? --AlanH 14:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pre 1907

[edit]

Clearly from the name, picture and Dickens reference there was a court before 1907. But the text says little about it. --Henrygb 14:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the Name?

[edit]

According to http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/history/the-old-bailey/ the court is named after the street on which it is located, not directly, as implied by the article, after the bailey part of a castle. --ukexpat 14:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recorder of London redirects here

[edit]

Why does Recorder of London redirect here? Recorder of London should have its own page. At the very least, the Recorder of London link in the Judges section should be removed, because it just brings you back to this same page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellyoyo (talk • contribs) 23:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the circular link. The Recorder of London page sounds like a good idea - you could turn the redirect page into a stub article to start it off. Richerman (talk) 01:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Number of court rooms

[edit]

Just to clarify the number: although some listings (eg XHIBIT suggest there are 20 courtrooms, number 19 is not used as such, and there is no number 20! --AlisonW (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Old-bailey.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Old-bailey.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

[edit]

This page appears to be about the Central Criminal Court and very little to do with Old Bailey which is a street. The page needs renaming or the information transferring to a new correctly named page and details of the street adding to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.2.55 (talk) 18:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Calling the court venue the "Old Bailey" through metonymy is pretty common in the media. The policy is to try to use the most common name, rather than the officially correct name. Anywikiuser (talk) 09:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Old Bailey. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Old_Bailey&oldid=1249115184"