Talk:Robert Goff, Baron Goff of Chieveley

Assessment comment
Substituted at 04:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Robert Goff, Baron Goff of Chieveley. 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/20050206145809/http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ouclj/patrons.html to http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ouclj/patrons.html

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) 23:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Chieveley House
- very beautiful. And Grade II*, with an Arne Maynard garden. It should have its own article. KJP1 (talk) 17:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Good call! I'm happy to create it. I'm a little new to gardens though - is Arne Maynard well-known? Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 00:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've done a basic, stub-level article here, and I'll probably progressively update it. Took some inspiration from some of the great work you've already done around listed buildings. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 03:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Great work - I was going to do it for you, but you beat me to it. I’ll touch it up a little. Maynard is quite a famous garden designer, but I’m not sure he’s English. KJP1 (talk) 04:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, it's nice of you to help. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 04:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Architectural Digest refers to him as British here:, so I'll edit the page to reflect that. I suppose that's healthier than assuming he's English from "Maynard". Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 04:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * A thought on Goff at FAC - I wonder if 1b - Comprehensiveness, will require a bit more than name-checks/bluelinks for his biggest cases? Spycatcher / Blake / Pinochet / Hillsborough. Appreciate you might think it a little "sensationalist", but they make the lead in his Guardian and Telegraph obits, and I'll bet The Times is the same, if I could get in to read it. I shall certainly drop by to review. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 05:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a very fair point, thank you. I'm wondering how to integrate it. Do you think a new section with sub-headings for the big cases followed by details of them makes more sense instead of just a list? I was concerned that it might get too large and unwieldy. Thank you also for reviewing, I'm very grateful. This is my first FAC. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 06:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Yep - maybe something like a Level 4 header under Judicial career, with a heading something like Major cases. Then a summary of those that made the national broadsheet headlines, as opposed to those where coverage was limited to the legal press. KJP1 (talk) 06:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The level 4 header approach would work - see my reverted version. But Major cases isn’t quite right, as you describe some major, “law” cases above. It’s something like, Cases of national importance / Cases which made the headlines / Cases with wider implications - none of which quite work either. I’ll have a think. KJP1 (talk) 07:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * This is a good call. The reversion was helpful - thanks. I'll think about it too - I think "landmark" or "leading" might work. There are cases where the issue is of national importance, or cases which have pushed the law forward, and I think both fall into that category. I'll work on summaries as well. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 02:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think “Leading cases” would work well. KJP1 (talk) 06:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm about halfway through the summaries and should have them up in the next day or two. If you're still willing and able to review, would you mind weighing in on the FAC subpage here: Featured article candidates/Robert Goff, Baron Goff of Chieveley/archive1? Many thanks. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry it's taken me so long to respond to your very helpful comments at the FAC page. I very much appreciate the time and effort you spent on the article. I'm actually having exams now - silly of me to have put the article up for FAC now - but I also really don't want this FAC to fail. Could you have a look at User:Kohlrabi Pickle/sandbox/Lord Goff of Chieveley and let me know if this is along the lines of what you're thinking? In particular, are you thinking of the level of detail in the Airedale NHS Trust v Bland section, or does one/two-liners make more sense to you? Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 12:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

"Robert Goff" and "Lionel Goff"
Hi, in the instance of "Robert Goff" where you removed "Robert" (per MOS:SURNAME), the rationale for leaving "Robert" in there was clarity and ease of reading. Since I refer to the father and son a few times, I thought it useful to start the para by reminding the reader that the subject is Robert, and his father is Lionel. Of course, one might expect the reader to remember that the subject's first name is Robert, but as a judge, he's usually simply called "Lord Goff", and many readers might only remember that. I still think it would be good for the reader's convenience to trump consistency in this one instance. It would be helpful to know what you think, now that you know what the rationale was. If the opinion isn't too strongly held, then it would be good to revert it to how it was before. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 02:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * MOS is just that and not something written in stone. I will defer to you on this and revert back. Cheers, --Malerooster (talk) 02:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 04:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Née is a word
I have checked that it is a word, but User:Flix11 says it is a grammar error, and wiktionary says it is english word not just french even tho it looks french. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.77.115.26 (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Unless the word is not allowed because it is not supposed to be used in encyclopedias, but User:Flix11 only said it was a grammar error. 174.77.115.26 (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * It was clicked by mistake, chill up. Flix11 (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * What was clicked by mistake, if the edit was a mistake why did you put it back? 174.77.115.26 (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think Flix is saying that clicking the revert was a mistake. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 23:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, Ok I understand now, thanks 174.77.115.26 (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)