Template talk:Singapore Legal Profession

Comments
just a few comments on the new navigation box: — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 10:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it may be confusing that some sections (i.e., "Minister for Law", "Attorney-General" and "Chief Justice") list all the persons who have held the office in order of their appointment, while others (i.e., "Judges of Appeal" and "Judges") apparently only list current officeholders (and, in the case of "Judges", only those that have Wikipedia articles about them) and in alphabetical order. Perhaps you need to indicate this in the labels, for example, "Current Judges of Appeal", and possibly with footnotes.
 * Chan Sek Keong is a current Judge of Appeal. He was reappointed in January 2015 and will serve till January 2018 (see "Judicial officers of the Republic of Singapore"). If the list of Judges of Appeal is intended to indicate all current JAs, then it is odd not to include him in the list. If the list is intended to indicate all persons who have ever held that post, then V. K. Rajah (2007–2014) and Sundaresh Menon (August – November 2012) also need to be included.
 * I'm not sure why Andrew Phang appears before Chao Hick Tin in the "Judges of Appeal" list. This is neither alphabetical by surname, nor chronological (Chao was appointed before Phang).
 * I also think it is confusing to list the "top four" local law firms first, followed by other firms. First, what criteria is the selection of the "top four" based on, and is the template going to be updated each time the list changes? Secondly, if you are going to have this arrangement, then the logic needs to be mentioned in a footnote somewhere in the template. Personally, I think an alphabetical arrangement avoids these problems.


 * Yes I agree it's confusing since "Minister for Law", "Attorney-General" and "Chief Justice" are all single person offices and they, as I have previously mentioned, are listed in succession, or as you say, in the order of their appointment. For "Judges of Appeal", because there can be multiple officeholders at the same time, they are not listed in order of succession. As such, I have listed whoever is a JA and not listed previous JAs who has gone on to become AG/CJ (as their names would already be inscribed) to avoid clutter. For "Judges of Appeal" (note the 's'), it's definitely not for current JAs only. If there is a retired JA who did not go on to become AG/CJ, I think his name should appear here too. In the case of "Judges", astute observation on those who have Wikipedia articles only, you are most welcome to add the names of those without Wikipedia articles here and then create them later on (for the more notable ones at least). I sincerely hope some kind soul will see the red text and create new articles from there. Without a navbox, it's hard to keep track who has an article and who does not.


 * Thanks for the info on Chan Sek Keong. I was under the impression that he had retired and was not aware of his reappointment. Have added his name back to the list.


 * Because Andrew starts with an A so I subconsciously put him at the front. Have rearranged in alphabetical order.


 * I would think it's quite a common practice to list the "big four" (i guess in terms of firm size?) first but I am okay with them in alphabetical order.

Thanks for the advice on the comments, have added them in too. Let me know if I miss anything. Appreciate your advice and input. Thanks! Bpc.sg (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)