Talk:List of Canadian appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council

Should the list be divided up further by decade?
This list is very useful, but I'm concerned that it's getting too unwieldy, by having just two categories: 1867-1899, and 1900-1960. What about breaking it up further by decade? E.G., 1867-1880, 1881-1890, and so on. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks good! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and suggestions! I am trying to build a reliable an accessible page regarding the Canadian cases from the Privy Council, if you have any further lay-out recommendations please do not hesitate to share them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Original Documents Canada (Original Documents Canada (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The article is way too long — well over six times the size of the suggested max.

The article is now over 697,000 bytes, making it one the longest article at the Project. WP:SIZERULE states: "Some useful rules of thumb ... What to do ... > 100 KB ... Almost certainly should be divided".--Epeefleche (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it would be appropriate to divide it, by keeping this article as the main page, and with a separate page for each decade, with a re-direct to each of the decade pages. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 07:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I think the page would benefit from being split according to decade, and with this page remaining the main page. I would be happy to help orchestrate splitting the page by decade but I would also be happy if someone with more experience was interested in splitting the page? Thank you for your advice and interest! I really appreciate it. Original Documents Canada (talk) 10:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've split it off to a series of new pages, divided by decade. Did not tinker at all with the format of the tables or the contents. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 11:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks great! Thank you for your help! --Original Documents Canada (talk) 14:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Why "(Canada)" after the case names?
I understand why there was "(Canada)" after each case name when it was part of the main list of JCPC cases, but since this list is just Canadian cases, why retain it? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 05:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and I will remove the name Canada from the cases individually. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Original Documents Canada (talk • contribs) 20:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Breaking List into Sub-pages
I think this is a useful suggestion, as the page is getting very long. However, I don't know how that is done. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 11:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

While I also agree that the page is long, it is intended to be an exhaustive list of cases. Original Documents Canada (talk) 5:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * sure, but we could keep this as the main page, and then have a separate page for each decade, with re-direct from the table of contents on the main page to each decade page. It's just like having chapters to the list if it were in a hard copy version. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Styles of Cause
I would suggest that the Styles of Cause should be the shorter versions used in the Law Reports, rather than the full name of the case used in the BAILLI database. The reason for this suggestion is that other cases and articles usually cite to the short style of cause rather than the full name. I have access to the law reports and can assist with this. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 11:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've made a few changes to the list on cases that have wikiarticles to show what I mean by the above suggestion. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

This is great! Anything to make the page more succinct and accessible. I really appreciate your help! Original Documents Canada (talk) 5:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Judge giving Decision?
Another point that just occurred to me - would it be possible to add a new column, giving the name of the judge who gave the decision in each case? I don't know how much additional work that would be, but it would be very interesting to have a comprehensive list of which judges gave decisions, and in what areas of the law. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 05:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree and I have begun the process of highlighting which justice delivered the decision by making the name bold. While it will require much additional work I think it is important to note which justice delivered the decision. I am not sure what you mean by the area of law though. Are you referring to the page in general? Thank you for all of your help along the way, I really do appreciate it! --Original Documents Canada (talk) 03:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Check against Law Reports: Privy Council
I've started checking the entries against the Law Reports: Privy Council to add  information from the reports. To assist anyone else who wants to help, I'll start a list of the volumes, and will mark of the ones that have been checked as I go along. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 09:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ L.R. 1 P.C.
 * L.R. 2 P.C.
 * L.R. 3 P.C.
 * L.R. 4 P.C.
 * L.R. 5 P.C.
 * ✅ L.R. 6 P.C.

Why delete summaries from the 1860s?
I'm confused - why delete the summaries from the 1860s? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't sure how the cases from the 1860's were being handled when the splitting occurred. Then I noted that you included 1867-1869 at the bottom of the original page and removed my edit of removing your edit. (Sorry for the hasty 'undone'.) Eventually, my goal is to add on additional preceding decades (back to 1804) from Bailii. (I originally started with the date 1867 in observance of the BNA Act.) --Original Documents Canada (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)