The nursery where/which is fantastic for young children

Not where, makes no sense. Which is a little odd, a bit passive. I'd be tempted to just say:

The nursery is fantastic for children.

Your "sentence" is not a sentence at all. Try:

We like the XYZ nursery, which is fantastic for young children.

My child attends the XYZ nursery, where it is fantastic for young children.

Ohh.. I am sorry.
The nursery ________ looks after Amy is fantastic for young children.
should I put here WHERE or WHICH?

The nursery ________ looks after Amy is fantastic for young children.

'which' works, but like I said I prefer the more active 'that'.

'where' definitely does not work.

Would definitely prefer 'which'. Consider the following sentences. Both are acceptable, but their meanings are subtly different:

The books, which have red covers, are new.
The books that have red covers are new.

In the first sentence, the words "which have red covers" are adding information about the books. That is, they're telling you more about the books than you'd otherwise have known. (They're red, not some other colour.) All of the books are new.

In the second sentence, the words "that have red covers" are limiting which books we're talking about. We're no longer talking about all the books; we're only talking about the ones with red covers. So this time, only the red books are new.

Some people use which (surrounded by commas) if a group of words adds information, and that if to limit the set of things being discussed.

More:

Classes that are held on Wednesdays are in building 206.
Leap years, which have 366 days, contain an extra day in February.

In the first sentence, the words "that are held on Wednesdays" are limiting the type of classes that we're talking about. (We're not talking about all the classes, only the ones held on Wednesdays.) We thus use that.

In the second sentence, the words "which have 366 days" are adding information. We thus use which surrounded by commas.

Most people are unaware of this distinction and use that and which interchangeably. In most instances, this doesn't cause undue confusion.

In formal business or technical communications (for example, contracts, tenders or technical specifications), though, such ambiguities can give rise to serious legal and financial problems. A pedantic attitude to the difference between that and which may be very necessary for business or technical communications.

Hi contrex

I honestly can't see the distinction here.



But I've always leant to description rather than prescription - being an anarchist at heart.

Actually I can see the difference - but in this example I can't see any practical difference. In both cases red books are new. If all the books are red then in fact why not say 'the books are red and new'? It seems a needless complication. But I confess to be thinking in the framework of a spoken conversation, not a written communication

In a legal context there maybe examples where this matters but I would hope a decent contract writer would find a better way of removing ambiguity then to rely on fairly arcane usage rules. Overly optimistic, I'm sure.

an unwarranted assumption, and the answer to your problem lies there.

Happy Christmas.

It's not an assumption McT, it's one of two possibilities. In both cases red books are new; in one case all the books are red. Put down that eggnog. Merry Christmas.

You don't understand what Contrex is talking about, Hinge, because
Contrex doesn't know what he is talking about.

These are not "arcane usage rules", HH, they are simply fatuous usage
rules.

"which" 'cause the language doesn't hold a meaning that supports
"Where".

In,

The nursery where young children receive excellent training .