Template talk:FederalCourtsOfCanada

Proposed changes part 2

I would like to see the "Court of Appeal" section moved to above the Federal Court section to better reflect the hierarchy of the court system. --Bepa (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed changes

I have three proposed changes to this template:

• The title should indicate Current Canadian Federal Court Judges or Current Canadian Federal Court System Judges, rather than the the current title of Current Canadian Judges. Otherwise, someone might confuse this template as a list of all Canadian judges...

• The Court of Appeal heading should be changed to Federal Court of Appeal to distinguish it from other courts of appeal.

• Since this template focuses on the Federal Court system, I am concerned that the Supreme Court of Canada should not be included. The Tax Court, Federal Court, and Federal Court of Appeal are all obviously grouped together. But the Supreme Court of Canada is really a related, but seperate entity.

Singularity42 (talk) 06:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, changed.

Disagree, we don't say "Supreme Court of Canada" to distinguish it from the provincial, for example. But I'm not terribly upset by either route.

Believe SCC belongs, it is a federal body.

Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 06:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. The first one was the real big one. As long as it say Federal in the title, then there should be no confusion about the Court of Appeal heading. The Supreme Court of Canada is just a personal opinion of mine, and I have no problem agreeing to disagree :) Singularity42 (talk) 06:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that it's interesting point about whether people say "Supreme Court of Canada" or not. When I'm in court, we always say "Supreme Court of Canada", although we will just say "Court of Appeal" to refer the province's court of appeal. Yet in the news, they always just say "Supreme Court". Interesting, anyway... Singularity42 (talk) 06:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• eyes "when I'm in court...", wonders with vague sense of amusement if you're on this list*

btw, would appreciate help on some biographies here; I'm just creating stubs for now - but I know at least four of the biographies I intend to flesh out a bit since they are linked from other articles about notable cases over which they've presided. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 06:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look when I wrap up some of my other current projects. But I'm not as familiar with the Federal court as I am with other areas... Singularity42 (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This might help: [1] Singularity42 (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Tax Court Judges - Noteability

I just wanted to put a note here that this template may be strongly affected by the result the following proposed policy: WP: Notability (law) - specifically the proposed policy regarding judges, as the Tax Court of Canada does not set binding precedent. Singularity42 (talk) 19:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather create the articles, and give them six months to grow naturally (look at Russel Zinn for example, with 24 hours of creating the stub, a newbie began expanding it) and then look to see if any of them seem to fail Notability tests; some seem to fit WP:BIO regardless of that one narrow circumstance, and others may as well. AfD can clear out any remaining judges if necessary (but again, I'd urge people to wait six months before moving to that step) Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 04:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. Singularity42 (talk) 05:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)