I cannot see the reason for the spliting off of this page from Public Order Act. James500 ( talk) 22:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Hi James, I created it for the benefit of Template:Riots in England, so that we could link on the template to a page listing the Public Order Acts that pertain only to the UK, rather than having to link to the Acts individually, or link to a dab page that includes non-UK legislation. SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 23:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I have nominated for speedy deletion, this is an unnecessary disambiguation and the link was only used in your template. You got a lot of space in your template, why not link relevant legislation. Also, the articles on the riots often link to the relevant legislation.--
SasiSasi (
talk)
10:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- There is also Public Order Act.-- SasiSasi ( talk) 10:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- I have nominated for speedy deletion, this is an unnecessary disambiguation and the link was only used in your template. You got a lot of space in your template, why not link relevant legislation. Also, the articles on the riots often link to the relevant legislation.--
SasiSasi (
talk)
10:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- This is the kind of thing that makes me want to stop editing Wikipedia. :)
- I created a template to help people find things. I added the page Public Order Act, which lists the relevant Acts.
- Someone removed that link and replaced it with a link to only one piece of legislation.
- I therefore created a page that listed only the UK legislation Public Order Acts (UK).
- Someone then added a tag to that page saying it's not a proper page for some reason.
- Someone else removed it from the template and again added a link to just one of the Acts, though a different one from 2.
- Someone else added a speedy tag to Public Order Acts (UK).
- Now we have this discussion.
- What is the problem with just using common sense, and linking to one page that lists all the English riot legislation to make it easy for people to find? SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 18:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. I (the first "someone") never said this is not a proper page. I said that identifying it as disambiguation page was incorrect. The reason, which is explained if you take a few moments to follow the link in the template, is that the term "Public Order Acts (UK)" refers to a collection of legislation on a unified topic. The title is not ambiguous just because it refers to a topic that is a collection rather than a single item. I have no objection to a Wikipedia page about the development of UK law pertaining to riots and public order; that is a perfectly valid topic. Just don't call it something (a "disambiguation page") that it's not. -- R'n'B ( call me Russ) 19:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Then why not fix it (e.g. move to List of ...) rather than tagging it? SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 19:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I have no objection to the template "Riots in England" being included on the page Public Order Act at this time, although I would prefer it to display in a closed state. I have it in mind to replace it unless someone objects.
You could include a piped link to Public Order Act#United Kingdom on the template. I have it in mind to do that unless someone objects. I do not think that the link to Public Order Act should have been removed from the template in the first place. Then it would not have been necessary to create this page in the first place. I think you should have just said "no" to the person who removed the link to Public Order Act in the template in the first place.
I think may be scope for a pages at Public order offences in English law and Riot in English law. I think those would be better locations for a general discussion of these laws. James500 ( talk) 21:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- I've reverted the template to the way I first had it, linking to Public Order Act, which avoids all these issues. If anyone changes it again, I'm going to scream the place down. :) SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 01:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I cannot see the reason for the spliting off of this page from Public Order Act. James500 ( talk) 22:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Hi James, I created it for the benefit of Template:Riots in England, so that we could link on the template to a page listing the Public Order Acts that pertain only to the UK, rather than having to link to the Acts individually, or link to a dab page that includes non-UK legislation. SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 23:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I have nominated for speedy deletion, this is an unnecessary disambiguation and the link was only used in your template. You got a lot of space in your template, why not link relevant legislation. Also, the articles on the riots often link to the relevant legislation.--
SasiSasi (
talk)
10:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- There is also Public Order Act.-- SasiSasi ( talk) 10:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- I have nominated for speedy deletion, this is an unnecessary disambiguation and the link was only used in your template. You got a lot of space in your template, why not link relevant legislation. Also, the articles on the riots often link to the relevant legislation.--
SasiSasi (
talk)
10:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- This is the kind of thing that makes me want to stop editing Wikipedia. :)
- I created a template to help people find things. I added the page Public Order Act, which lists the relevant Acts.
- Someone removed that link and replaced it with a link to only one piece of legislation.
- I therefore created a page that listed only the UK legislation Public Order Acts (UK).
- Someone then added a tag to that page saying it's not a proper page for some reason.
- Someone else removed it from the template and again added a link to just one of the Acts, though a different one from 2.
- Someone else added a speedy tag to Public Order Acts (UK).
- Now we have this discussion.
- What is the problem with just using common sense, and linking to one page that lists all the English riot legislation to make it easy for people to find? SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 18:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. I (the first "someone") never said this is not a proper page. I said that identifying it as disambiguation page was incorrect. The reason, which is explained if you take a few moments to follow the link in the template, is that the term "Public Order Acts (UK)" refers to a collection of legislation on a unified topic. The title is not ambiguous just because it refers to a topic that is a collection rather than a single item. I have no objection to a Wikipedia page about the development of UK law pertaining to riots and public order; that is a perfectly valid topic. Just don't call it something (a "disambiguation page") that it's not. -- R'n'B ( call me Russ) 19:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Then why not fix it (e.g. move to List of ...) rather than tagging it? SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 19:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I have no objection to the template "Riots in England" being included on the page Public Order Act at this time, although I would prefer it to display in a closed state. I have it in mind to replace it unless someone objects.
You could include a piped link to Public Order Act#United Kingdom on the template. I have it in mind to do that unless someone objects. I do not think that the link to Public Order Act should have been removed from the template in the first place. Then it would not have been necessary to create this page in the first place. I think you should have just said "no" to the person who removed the link to Public Order Act in the template in the first place.
I think may be scope for a pages at Public order offences in English law and Riot in English law. I think those would be better locations for a general discussion of these laws. James500 ( talk) 21:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- I've reverted the template to the way I first had it, linking to Public Order Act, which avoids all these issues. If anyone changes it again, I'm going to scream the place down. :) SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 01:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)