Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of county courts in England and Wales
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted 20:00, 8 February 2008.
Self-nom. As the name suggests, this is a complete list of county courts in England and Wales (Scotland and Northern Ireland being separate legal systems). Hardly any of the courts are notable enough to have their own articles, so this is put forward as a "ground 3" usefulness list. It is stable and uncontroversial, and has fully-referenced opening dates, together with as comprehensive a list of name-changes since opening as I can manage, using a mixture of on-line and off-line sources, all reliable. I hope you will consider it both informative and well-constructed. All but one of the photos were either taken by me or added to Commons by me from the Geograph website, so no problems there. I consider that it meets the criteria, but I would welcome your comments on how it can be improved! Support as nom. BencherliteTalk 23:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Looks really good, but why do many of them have no references? Do those fall under the general references? --Golbez (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Short answer: yes. Long answer: (a) I didn't add in specific references for courts opened in 1847, because that is covered by the general reference to the 1847 Order, to $save having 170+ references to that Order; (b) I didn't add in specific references for each court still being open in 2008, because that's covered by the general reference to the HMCS CourtFinder, to save having 217 references to that. BencherliteTalk 09:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- OK, that's what I thought. In that case, maybe a short note should be provided saying something like, "For all courts opening March 15 1847 see this reference". It was just weird to see some of the rows so well-referenced, and then see so many empty ones. I for one like having general references, but we need to know where to look. :) I dunno, just a minor quibble. That said, Support. --Golbez (talk) 14:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Done. Thanks. BencherliteTalk 20:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- OK, that's what I thought. In that case, maybe a short note should be provided saying something like, "For all courts opening March 15 1847 see this reference". It was just weird to see some of the rows so well-referenced, and then see so many empty ones. I for one like having general references, but we need to know where to look. :) I dunno, just a minor quibble. That said, Support. --Golbez (talk) 14:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Short answer: yes. Long answer: (a) I didn't add in specific references for courts opened in 1847, because that is covered by the general reference to the 1847 Order, to $save having 170+ references to that Order; (b) I didn't add in specific references for each court still being open in 2008, because that's covered by the general reference to the HMCS CourtFinder, to save having 217 references to that. BencherliteTalk 09:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. This is impressively informative and thorough. However, I'm not so impressed by the appearance of the table, particularly the tall and skinny shape of the table cells under "Notes." To improve things, I suggest that you combine the Notes and Ref columns into a single column for "Notes and References" (that should improve the appearance for everyone) and remove the width specifications from the individual columns (that should further improve the appearance for users who have wide monitor screens). --Orlady (talk) 18:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks for the comments. How's it looking now? BencherliteTalk 12:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- I like the new and improved version. --Orlady (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support. --Orlady (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment Footnotes, whenever there is more than one, should be in numerical order.--Crzycheetah 23:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)- Out of interest, where is that required? The footnotes were in chronological order, and putting them in numerical order would have lost that (as well as being terribly tedious to do). So, I have addressed your concern in an equally tedious manner, by moving each reference to the end of the sentence that it specifically references. The only sentences in the notes not specifically referenced are those dealing with the name of the court building or whether the court shares premises with a crown/magistrates' court, which is covered by one of the general references (which I have reworded to make even clearer on the point). Is this better now? BencherliteTalk 00:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think it will do. The topic has been brought up in FAC before (though never in FLC, because it occurs less commonly), and while I agree with the fact it can be a bit jarring, I wouldn't consider it a good reason to oppose. Circeus (talk) 05:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, most of the reviewers at WP:FAC always bring this up, so I just wanted to mention it here. The list is very useful with a lot of pictures; therefore, I support.--Crzycheetah 07:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think it will do. The topic has been brought up in FAC before (though never in FLC, because it occurs less commonly), and while I agree with the fact it can be a bit jarring, I wouldn't consider it a good reason to oppose. Circeus (talk) 05:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Out of interest, where is that required? The footnotes were in chronological order, and putting them in numerical order would have lost that (as well as being terribly tedious to do). So, I have addressed your concern in an equally tedious manner, by moving each reference to the end of the sentence that it specifically references. The only sentences in the notes not specifically referenced are those dealing with the name of the court building or whether the court shares premises with a crown/magistrates' court, which is covered by one of the general references (which I have reworded to make even clearer on the point). Is this better now? BencherliteTalk 00:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Looks alright to me. Maybe link Crown Court somewhere early in the article? Circeus (talk) 05:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Done. Added Some county courts share a building with the Crown Court for the area (Maidstone Combined Court Centre, for example); others share a building with the local Magistrates' Court (e.g. Oswestry County Court). BencherliteTalk 08:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.