Talk:List of statutory instruments of the United Kingdom, 1996

message: I notice from the notes above that this page has previously been up for deletion and that many of the people that voted to keep it also suggested that it be tidied up or reorganised in some way. I also notice that Georgia guy's attempts to improve the situation have now been reverted. The only way I can see this avoiding a future nomination for deletion is if we come to some sort of compromise on how to take this forward. I feel that the first step to any compromise is if we define exactly what it is that is objectionable about this page. For the moment, I would prefer it if we keep subjective comments like "this page is non-notable" and "it has no encyclopedic value" to one side. Those arguments can be dealt with once we have at least tried to improve the situation. Therefore, I would like any interested parties to list below any problems you have with this page that wont involve outright deletion of the content. I will invite everyone who voted or commented in the deletion proposal to this discussion page so we can try to resolve this. Road Wizard 23:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Define the problem

message: Please add any ideas you have to solve the problems listed above. Road Wizard 00:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. Split the contents of the page into sub-pages Road Wizard 00:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: 2. Completely reorganise the content. Instead of simply having lists split by years, split the content by subject (e.g planning law, health, education, transport, etc.). This would then allow articles to form around the subjects and allow relevant links to be placed to existing articles. Road Wizard 10:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To help explain this proposal better, I have created a rough draft of what the planning law page might look like. It is currently residing in a Sandbox on my user page. Please leave any comments you have on this proposal somewhere on the current article's talk page. Thanks. Road Wizard 21:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: 3. Remove external links for individual SIs. This will reduce the size of each page. (Suggested by Kurando). Road Wizard 17:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Improvements

message: We have now had a week to discuss the problem, and we have come up with a few possible improvements. I think it is now time to move to the next stage and take action. As a first step, I am planning to remove all of the external links from the page tomorrow so that we can see what effect that has. Any objections? Road Wizard 21:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Make sure the improvement also takes care of the article's size. It is 299KB. Georgia guy 21:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Judging by things like the 2006 list this action should reduce the size of the article by about half. David Newton 22:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember, shortly before this discussion began, I split this into 4 articles, but just before the discussion began, someone put it all back into this big article. However, studying What Links Here, the 4 lists I split this into are also still available. Georgia guy 22:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once we have decided whether or not the split option is a good idea, we can then decide what to do with those pages. If we don't need them then they can be put up for deletion in a few weeks. Road Wizard 22:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think there's anything to be done to save the article.  It should be deleted.  A page Statutory Instruments of the United Kingdom, 1996 could discuss the significant ones and link to the government's list; this would be much more useful and shorter. --CRGreathouse 22:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, just move the page and either delete or make internal links out of the items of the lists, depending on how notable they are. Georgia guy 22:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the input, it is an interesting idea. However, can you expand it a little by saying what would be your criteria for defining an SI as a significant one? Also, what is your opinion on the pages before 1987 where there is no list outside of Wikipedia? Thanks. Road Wizard 22:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: One week on

message: Whilst I am waiting for a response on whether people think enough has been done to improve the article, I thought I would introduce a more complete debate on the subject of deletion. Earlier I asked everyone to avoid subjective comments, but now that we are over one week into the discussion it might be a good time to reintroduce them. Hopefully by revealing all of the concerns people have about this article, the editors who want to keep it will have the opportunity to either clarify the issues involved or correct oustanding defficiencies. At the very least, it will provide voters on any future AfD a quick list of the pertinent arguments.
I have made two sections below, one for keep and one for delete. Please place your arguments in the corresponding section unless you are responding directly to another user's argument. Thanks. Road Wizard 20:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep or Delete? 

message: Please add any arguments for keeping this article here. Road Wizard 20:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons to Keep

message: Please add any arguments for deleting this article here. Road Wizard 20:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons to Delete

message: Why were all the external links removed? They are very useful. It is frustrating seeing the title and not being able to then immediately access the content. Request for them to be restored. Tyrenius 20:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be collections of external links. Study Wikipedia's guidelines and check what it says about external links. Georgia guy 20:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: They were removed to try and reduce the size of the page in response to discussions further up this talk page (size in terms of disk space). The extra wiki-markup required for the links to the text adds a fair bit of space (299kB with links - 182kB without).Richard B 20:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: I see there was a long debate about this article some time ago. I note that there are 4 orphaned subpages with duplicate information that essentially I propose should be deleted. However, as I haven't analysed the content I have termed it a merger. These subpages are not linked properly from the appropriate template, unlike this page.
*List of Statutory Instruments of the United Kingdom, 1996 (1–1000)
*List of Statutory Instruments of the United Kingdom, 1996 (1001–2000)
*List of Statutory Instruments of the United Kingdom, 1996 (2001–3000)
*List of Statutory Instruments of the United Kingdom, 1996 (3001–4000)
welsh (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed mergers