Talk:Cruelty to Animals Act 1876

Edit conflicts
We seem to be edit conflicting. All yours. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you are doing a great job. Crum375 (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No really, after you :) I'm not sure I have anything else to say about it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

WTF

 * "The see also are under review". What part of the MoS do we disagree with?
 * pretty much every article has the laws table. I find it useful - more so by far than cats. This article has two animal tables which very closely overlap.
 * Do you sense disagreement & displeasure? --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a current dispute over the issue of when and where to use See also. I happen to support the liberal side, that See also can be used even if they are linked as refs somewhere, so that the user can still read them at depth when he gets to the bottom, not needing to hunt through footnotes. Regarding that laws table, it is huge, just has dry numbers, and is ugly. I think people are more likely to navigate through AR links than random Acts and years. Obviously this is editorial judgment, and if you feel strongly, perhaps we can get more people to review and opine. Sorry if this gave you any displeasure. :-) Crum375 (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm more annoyed about the law table than the see also, fwiw. I think it is dead wrong that the two animal tables have about 70% overlapping content but that you're reverting a template that every other law page (except those exceptions you find to refute my argument) have. The act is first & foremost a law & should IMO share the characteristics of other laws in wikipedia. After that it's something to do with animals. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I took out the alib template &mdash; I think you are right about overlap with the testing template, plus it's very heavy. The laws template is really ugly too &mdash; I can see some rare specialist readers going semi-randomly through laws by year, but I am sure the vast majority are topic oriented, and would like to follow similar topics, not scan random obscure laws, most long obsolete. Crum375 (talk) 04:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. I think you're generalising from your own perceptions. My preference is for the table, since I'm interested in law more than in animals. The general established preference on law articles is to have the table. I don't think it is for this article to buck that trend 'cos you don't like the table. Meanwhile perhaps there's aneed for a table that combines animal experimentation & animal rights, for articles on which those two subjects coincide. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your point. I guess it boils down to what people believe the typical reader would be looking for, and for that it may make sense to get more viewpoints from other editors. Another possibility is to use a show/hide version of both alibend and the law table (both at the end preferably), that would hide the ugliness while allowing the functionality for those who really need it. Crum375 (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Cruelty to Animals Act 1876. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080118102555/http://newsite.navs.org.uk/about_us/24/0/299/ to http://newsite.navs.org.uk/about_us/24/0/299/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)