![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm removing Queenstown, Singapore from the list of towns, and changing the Millennium Communities Programme to a 'see also' section, as they don't relate directly to the 1946 act. Meesher ( talk) 17:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I have just created New Towns Act 1965 to resolve a red link. But standing back a little, I wonder if that is just a band-aid solution. There were New Towns Acts in 1948, 1959, 1963, 1965 and 1981. This (the current 1946 article) already has most of what needs to be said about the legislation side of things – including a lot of material that was not governed by the 1946 Act.
I think it useful to keep the legislation article separate from the more general New towns in the United Kingdom article, but could be persuaded otherwise.
Comments? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 21:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Done --
John Maynard Friedman (
talk)
00:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
According to Hansard, there are 30 New Towns Acts (or variants thereof). Almost all are red links. Didn't they use SIs?
[...] (moved, see next)
Help welcome! -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 00:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
To avoid clogging everyone's watchlist with my frequent save points, I have moved the list to my sandbox so I can work on them. If anybody wants to help, drop a note on my talk page, please. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 20:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
I believe that I have completed the list, though New Towns Acts#New Towns Acts 1971, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1980, 1982 and 1987 is a bit of a cheat. If anyone has access to the actual Public General Acts books for these years, please fill in the gaps. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 21:45, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
There isn't an obvious right or wrong answer to this one but let me state the problem. Maybe someone has a solution.
The infoboxes are collapsed for desktop interface but not for mobile. When the article is about a single Act, this is not too great an imposition. But in an article like this, about a series of highly inter-related Acts, it seems to me to be just disruptive (NB not as in WP:DISRUPTIVE). It makes the narrative thread very difficult to read. For the same reason, it would be extremely user-hostile to split the article twenty ways.
Could we put all the infoboxes in a row at the end? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 15:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
When such features are used, take care that the content will still be accessible on devices that do not support JavaScript or CSS, and to the greater than 60% of Wikipedia readers who use the mobile version of the site, [a] which has a limited set of features and does not support collapsing (any collapsible templates will either be automatically uncollapsed or hidden entirely).– MOS:COLLAPSE. So not going to change any time soon. -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 16:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
References
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm removing Queenstown, Singapore from the list of towns, and changing the Millennium Communities Programme to a 'see also' section, as they don't relate directly to the 1946 act. Meesher ( talk) 17:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I have just created New Towns Act 1965 to resolve a red link. But standing back a little, I wonder if that is just a band-aid solution. There were New Towns Acts in 1948, 1959, 1963, 1965 and 1981. This (the current 1946 article) already has most of what needs to be said about the legislation side of things – including a lot of material that was not governed by the 1946 Act.
I think it useful to keep the legislation article separate from the more general New towns in the United Kingdom article, but could be persuaded otherwise.
Comments? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 21:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Done --
John Maynard Friedman (
talk)
00:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
According to Hansard, there are 30 New Towns Acts (or variants thereof). Almost all are red links. Didn't they use SIs?
[...] (moved, see next)
Help welcome! -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 00:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
To avoid clogging everyone's watchlist with my frequent save points, I have moved the list to my sandbox so I can work on them. If anybody wants to help, drop a note on my talk page, please. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 20:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
I believe that I have completed the list, though New Towns Acts#New Towns Acts 1971, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1980, 1982 and 1987 is a bit of a cheat. If anyone has access to the actual Public General Acts books for these years, please fill in the gaps. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 21:45, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
There isn't an obvious right or wrong answer to this one but let me state the problem. Maybe someone has a solution.
The infoboxes are collapsed for desktop interface but not for mobile. When the article is about a single Act, this is not too great an imposition. But in an article like this, about a series of highly inter-related Acts, it seems to me to be just disruptive (NB not as in WP:DISRUPTIVE). It makes the narrative thread very difficult to read. For the same reason, it would be extremely user-hostile to split the article twenty ways.
Could we put all the infoboxes in a row at the end? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 15:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
When such features are used, take care that the content will still be accessible on devices that do not support JavaScript or CSS, and to the greater than 60% of Wikipedia readers who use the mobile version of the site, [a] which has a limited set of features and does not support collapsing (any collapsible templates will either be automatically uncollapsed or hidden entirely).– MOS:COLLAPSE. So not going to change any time soon. -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 16:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
References