Talk:List of statutory instruments of the United Kingdom, 2011

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Split article?[edit]

Split - Article is over 600 kilobytes, and should be split into articles of between 500 to 1000 Statutory Instruments. Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whilst ridiculously long, the article is now complete and should not have m/any more edits, as it lists all the 2011 SI's. As a bare list, there should not be any comments or other changes made. Splitting the article will make searching for a 2011 statute much more difficult. Arjayay (talk) 18:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Modify Hi I have made an excel tool to reduce the overall size of the list, it keeps all functionality/links etc, and reduces the base data by more than 6.5%, I have placed a small example on my own page for quick reference. I believe ordering by SI number is valid and best practice, so I have placed this in primary position. I believe the TOC adds no value and takes up extra space, hence I suggest we remove this, reducing data a further ~2%. I have saved my tool and work and this can be replicated across all SI lists, whilst not a dramatic saving it allows more effective retrieval of this information. Any comments please feel free to leave here or on my page. The Original Filfi (talk) 03:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing this page to that on your talk page, I can see your example puts the number at the beginning - which I think is an advantage.
It also removes "S.I. 2011 No." from every line, which clearly makes it shorter - this doesn't bother me, although some may object.
I am not keen on removing the ToC - especially for users of tablets and phones, it is a very long way to scroll to the bottom.

I just wonder if there is a way of condensing the "http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2011/*/contents/made" where * is the SI number, which is on every line and is clearly a major part of the total file size. I'm not a "techie" but I seem to recall that some very common links (AllMusic comes to mind) have an abbreviated linking system. It might be worth asking at WP:VP(T) - Arjayay (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

still working on the nowiki or variable part, I have updated SI 1987 as a test case, all seems to be working, size reduced by 16724b or ~7.8%, time for bed now tho, may do some more investigating tomorrow and re-look at 1987 at this stage only, until final MU agreed and the test case has passed any testing. cheers The Original Filfi (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arjayay, the nowiki has been investigated and unless linked through a template the shortening is not possible at at current release, and linking this many through a template will slow things down somewhat I am told. 1987 SI have had a new update, I amended the TOC a minor amount, I have generated missing links, which I tested previously to see if 1. it worked. 2. It existed on dot gov site. based on my tests I have completed all links and notated the generated links for completeness. I believe this is now very close to as complete as we can achieve, if you agree I will adjust my "tools to upload" and start working on the 1986 SI as a test case on my tools functionality and from there replicate as and when I can. Thanks again for your time. The Original Filfi (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arjayay, I have uploaded as you may see, still very long and somewhat slow, I suggest we remove the Welsh language versions as 1. it is effectively a duplicate. 2. This is English wiki. 3. The links defaults to the English version (although I could modify). This would reduce the size by around another 10%,
Your thoughts
The Original Filfi (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The simplest way to reduce the size of this page is to replace external links with internal ones. This can be achieved by creating an article for each notable instrument and redirecting the others to the primary legislation under which they were made. The external links can then be moved to those articles. I estimate that this will reduce the size of the page by about a third. James500 (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree with James500, initially, the list was even longer and my effort was to keep functionality and still provide links which I then started replicating on the other SI listings, some of which, this one included, are still too long and slow to load. New plan as per above, although a more bold (ruthless?) approach, could be, I have saved all my previous work and I can remove all item links and reload, this should only take a few minutes or so for each page. This article then becomes a reference article only. Specific legislation can then be searched through the "page containing..." function, and provide year and SI number and title only, this will allow any editor creating or maintaining a notable instrument article a further resource for finding the relevant legislation(s). I am going to have a couple of days off the SI project and await any comments here, for or against this approach.
Regards
The Original Filfi (talk) 11:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did the first four entries to demonstrate what I have in mind. That removed 180 bytes. I estimate that will remove (3134÷4)x180=141,030 bytes ~ 140kB. James500 (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Top work James500, I have reposted the bulk data, ready to link to legislation articles and redirects etc. your estimate was a little out total saved ~180kb adding back the wiki links will increase (if all linked) around 12kb, I am going to work on a different article set and will come back to SI's in a couple of days, thanks for your help and input on this
Regards
The Original Filfi (talk) 05:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that in most of the entries, the calendar year is omitted from the end of the instrument's title. This is no good because it will have to be included to allow the entries to be wikilinked. If you must omit something, omit the definite article (the word "the") at the beginning of the title. It, unlike the calendar year, is not necessary for disambiguation and is not normally included in the title of Wikipedia articles. James500 (talk) 13:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]