Template talk:British legislation lists, Acts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Intention

This template is a more condensed version of its parent Template:British legislation lists. My intention in creating it is for it to be used on articles relating to Acts of Parliament in the United Kingdom, where readers will not likely need a complete list of all the Statutory Instrument and Statutory Order pages. However, by clicking on the Statutory Instruments link in the template, the reader will be presented with the complete parent template and be able to navigate to any article in the Statutory Instruments section. Road Wizard 17:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UK legislation infobox

As was suggested last year I have now created an infobox for UK legislation (primary legislation at least) which is based on the infobox for Australian legislation. As an experiment I've included this template within that infobox and I have put the results up at the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000. Please let me know what you think about this. David Newton 12:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting timing. I just clicked on the edit button here and received your message on my talk page at the same time.
Is your idea to merge the two templates and replace British legislation lists, Acts on each of the articles?
I think I can support the general idea of merging the two templates together in some way, however there are a few concerns I have regarding the layout. First is that currently the two don't mesh very well, so some stylistic modifications would be appropriate. Second is that it is nearly as wide as the old Template:British legislation lists, so some slimming down would be useful if it is at all possible. The increased height of the template will cause some interference with other templates on a few of the pages where it is already included, so a check will need to be made if you want to switch over to the new template all at once.
Regarding the new content, some thought may be needed as to usage notes on the "commencement" section, as a single act can have over a dozen different commencement dates. Also, the long title on some acts is a little too long for a template (see Trunk Roads Act 1936 where the long title is 49 words long). Finally, the number of amendments may be a little excessive for some Acts (perhaps we could include a usage note saying to remove amendments from the template and list them in the main article if they get too much?). Road Wizard 18:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Ultimately I was thinking of replacing this template with a combined version. The navigation template is useful but information about each individual piece of legislation would also be good. I agree about the stylistic concerns, but that's relatively minor thing to deal with. The width issue is a real concern, but again a bit of tweaking of the code should sort that out. I agree that the commencement issue is something to be concerned about. It's even worse than you suggest. The Criminal Justice Act 1988 has had 14 commencement orders and in addition parts of it came into force on Royal Assent, two months after Royal Assent and when parts of the Video Recordings Act 1984 were brought into force. That's 17 separate dates to worry about and I think there are still bits of it waiting to come into force. The single worst example I'm aware of is one act that had about 70 commencement orders! That is an extreme example however. David Newton 15:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I've now alterted the UK legislation infobox to hopefully address the concerns raised above. The abbreviated British legislation link table now fits properly inside the UK legislation infobox and the infobox has been shrunk so that it does not take up as much of the screen. I've also added comments to the instructions regarding use of the template to take account of acts with a lot of commencement dates and a lot of amending and repealing legisation. David Newton 00:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Should there be a place for the statute book chapter? Kurando | ^_^ 10:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
You're right there should be. I must have accidentally got rid of the row during my editing and not put it back in. I'll do that now. David Newton 16:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Navbox

I think that we should change to this ...

... to go at bottom of page.Cutler 20:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)