View source for Template talk:Infobox UK legislation

{{WikiProject Banner Shell|1=
{{WikiProject Infoboxes}}
{{WikiProject Law}}
{{WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom}}
}}
{{archive box|[[/Archive 1|Archive 1]].}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader       = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize      = 75K
|counter             = 1
|minthreadsleft      = 4
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo                = old(28d)
|archive             = Template talk:Infobox UK legislation/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{archives|search=yes}}

== Definite article ==

{{Infobox UK legislation
| short_title           = Magna Carta (1297)
| type                  = Act
| original_text         = https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pst.000017915496&seq=320
| revised_text          = https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw1cc1929/25/9
| use_new_UK-LEG        = yes
| UK-LEG_title          = Magna Carta (1297)
}}

In the above example, how do we make the link "Text of the Magna Carta (1297)" display instead as "Text of Magna Carta (1297)"? <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 16:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:This is still an issue. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 17:53, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

== TemplateData Type errors ==

I believe all the following are incorrect:
{|class="wikitable"
! Parameter !! Stated type !! Should be !! Comments
|-
| territorial_extent || Page name || Content || Page name implies the value is auto-linked, which it's not. An act may extend to multiple areas, e.g. England & Wales and Ireland. Local and personal acts may extend to an area (or person) with no Wikipedia article. 
|-
| expiry_date || Content || Date
|-
| repeal_date || Content || Date
|-
| amends || Date || Content 
|-
| replaces || Date || Content || 
|}

I suppose commencement is OK as type Content rather than Date, given that multiple dates seem to be permitted, unlike expiry_date and repeal_date. [[User:Jnestorius|jnestorius]]<sup>([[User talk:Jnestorius|talk]])</sup> 11:21, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

== Coat of arms  ==

Given the image of the coat of arms seems to have been updated to the following [[c:File:Coat of arms of the United Kingdom (2022, variant 2).svg]] on most pages where relevant, should it also be changed here? I'm aware it's a fairly minor change, but I'm a stickler for uniformity. [[User:Csexton345|Csexton345]] ([[User talk:Csexton345|talk]]) 23:07, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

:I also support this proposal; however, the coat of arms used from 1952-2022 is a simplified version, not the full version. Therefore, I suggest using this version ([[:File:Coat of arms of the United Kingdom (2024, lesser arms).svg]]) instead of the current one. [[Special:Contributions/&#126;2026-22607-91|&#126;2026-22607-91]] ([[User talk:&#126;2026-22607-91|talk]]) 20:36, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
::I made a mistake. The only difference between the 1952-2022 version of the coat of arms used here and the complete version seems to be the presence or absence of green grass at the bottom. [[Special:Contributions/&#126;2026-22607-91|&#126;2026-22607-91]] ([[User talk:&#126;2026-22607-91|talk]]) 20:56, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
:::The "green grass at the bottom" is called the [[Compartment (heraldry)|''compartment'']] and it's basically something for the supporters to stand upon. In the case of the UK Royal arms, it's also something for the various plants to grow out of. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] &#x1f339; ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 22:46, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
:The arms as presently used in this infobox are fine as they are. A heraldic achievement is created from a blazon. Provided a depiction adheres to the blazon then it is correct.
::
:None of the arms used here align exactly with the arms printed on acts of parliament anyway. Typically, a lesser arms is used, but not always.
::
:*This was used under Elizabeth II and is still used today: [[:c:File:Coat of arms of the United Kingdom (black and white).png]]
:*Used under George VI: [[:c:File:UK Coat of Arms.png]]
:*The latter half of George V's reign: [[:c:File:King George V Coat of Arms (from Statute of Westminster 1931).jpg]]
:*The first part of George V's reign: [[:c:File:Naval Prize (Procedure) Act 1916 (UKPGA Geo5-6-7-2 qp).pdf]]
:*Under Edward VII: [[:c:File:Coat of arms of the United Kingdom (New Zealand Acts,1908–1946).svg]]
:
:Each of these is completely different, but they all adhere to the blazon and are 'correct'.
:[[User:Dgp4004|Dgp4004]] ([[User talk:Dgp4004|talk]]) 07:48, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

== Excessive detail ==

The "amends" and "amendments" parameters should be reserved for the most important entries, and not attempt to be a complete list. Otherwise you get massive and unwieldy lists that don't help anyone and make the infobox too large; see for example [[Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008]]. Can we please amend the template documentation to say so? [[User:Richard75|Richard75]] ([[User talk:Richard75|talk]]) 13:17, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
:{{replyto|Richard75}} Have you asked {{user|Hughbe98}} why they are doing this? Another example, that recently appeared on my watchlist, is [[Identity Documents Act 2010]]. Virtually every UK Act of Parliament amends some earlier legislation (some do nothing else, e.g. [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2025/1/enacted 2025 cap. 1]). --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] &#x1f339; ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 19:50, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
::Good idea, I've left him a message on his talk page. [[User:Richard75|Richard75]] ([[User talk:Richard75|talk]]) 10:10, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
:::He seems to have no objection. [[User:Richard75|Richard75]] ([[User talk:Richard75|talk]]) 12:01, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
::::Oh, I've found one that ''doesn't'' amend previous legislation - [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/18/enacted 2015 cap. 18], coincidentally. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] &#x1f339; ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 12:28, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
The template documentation for 'amendments' already says "(note that for acts with a great deal of amending or repealing legislation only the most significant pieces of legislation should be listed)". So I have added similar wording to the 'amends' parameter. [[User:Richard75|Richard75]] ([[User talk:Richard75|talk]]) 18:31, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
:{{user|Hughbe98}} is {{diff|Railways Act 2005|1348005486|1346178634|still doing it}}. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] &#x1f339; ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 20:47, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
::I've left another message on {{u|Hughbe98}}'s page. Given prior notices on their talk page and the discussion here, I'd consider this to be [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|disruptive editing]]. [[User:Iveagh Gardens|Iveagh Gardens]] ([[User talk:Iveagh Gardens|talk]]) 01:36, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
:::Oh, it gets worse. Not just the infobox, but the article body as well. Consider {{diff|Railways Clauses Consolidation Act 1845|prev|1367154167|this edit}}: what on earth did Sections 91-93 provide for that they needed to be repealed? Why did phrases described as {{tq|the words from the beginning to " maintained and " and the words " board or "}} need removing? What does that even ''mean'' out of context? If people go to our article [[Railways Clauses Consolidation Act 1845]], they do so because they want to know what the act actually ''did'', not which sections and clauses are no longer valid.
:::Wikipedia is not a cross-reference for legal professionals, they have their own authoritative sources for that sort of thing (such as ''[[Halsbury's Statutes]]''), for which they pay huge amounts. In short: this is a clear [[WP:RAWDATA]] violation. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] &#x1f339; ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 11:10, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
:::Hey all.
:::Thanks for the honest feedback. First, @[[User:Iveagh Gardens|Iveagh Gardens]] thank you for withdrawing the [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#c-Narky Blert-20260805135900-Iveagh Gardens-20260805104300|ANI]] to allow us to get some consensus.
:::Before, I would like to reiterate the following.
:::* I do not believe wiki is or should be a legislation database or cross-reference for legal professionals. It is not a substitute for Halsbury's, legislation.gov.uk, Lexis Nexis, or whatever
:::* I agree that articles should be discursive
:::* Providing the public understanding and articles on notable acts of parliament is important and Wiki does act as a source to many approaching the law. That said, I do not believe it is our job to replace the tools and resources I mentioned above. It is also not our job to do original research or synthesise publications, even if they are not accessible to the public online and can only be found through specialist libraries or by buying expensive textbooks.
:::In terms of the edits to article bodies @[[User:Redrose64|Redrose64]] has cited, I was following precedent in other articles. For example, the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Offences_Against_the_Person_Act_1861&oldid=1240754877 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 - Wikipedia], which I would assume is a model for an article on legislation given the act's importance, lists many repeals in the article body. That said, we could for example, provide reasons for the repeals (which may be given in a Statute Law (Repeals) Draft Bill) and/or provide a description for the sections repealed.
:::With respect, I disagree with the assertion made that people come to Wikipedia to look at the act as made or as in force today. The timeline of notable amendments made to legislation is useful to readers. To name one example, it would be useful information to readers to know that an act that proscribed the death penalty for some new form of treason was reduced to imprisonment for life.
:::I will quote what we said on the ANI.
:::: I also apologise for not using preview previously and redlinking categories. As you say, this is partly due to the volume, but I have integrated preview into my editing workflow and am pleased that this hasn't been so much of an issue recently. The state of articles and infoboxes relating to UK legislation is poor. Many infoboxes are essentially skeletons. Many articles are uncited, non-standard and in need of improvement.
:::: I _would_ like to get some consensus on what we should include on wiki. It is clear that we should fill out metadata about acts (repealing acts, link to text, commencement dates, repeal dates, expiry dates, territorial extent etc.)
:::: On amendments, I believe there is a balance to strike. I accept in the past I added too many minor non-consequential amendments to infoboxes and that meant major items get lost in the noise. I do believe we benefit from including significant/notable amendments in infoboxes, for example:
::::# Acts that explicitly mention the act in the long title
::::# Acts that are mentioned in the article but not in the infobox
::::# Acts that materially add, modify or remove the provisions of the original
::::# Statute law revision/repeals acts
::::# Consolidation acts that affect the original
:::: On the reverse end, I do believe that there should be a parallel. If act A lists act B in the `amends` list, then B should list A in the `amendments` list.
:::To conclude, I feel privileged to have contributed so far to Wiki. Despite disagreements in the past (some minor, some more substantial), I look forward to working with you all to improve articles in this space further! [[User:Hughbe98|Hughbe98]] ([[User talk:Hughbe98|talk]]) 10:08, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
::::The structure of articles is one more for [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom]] than the talk page of this template. Though on that, I’m not sure the [[Offences Against the Person Act 1861]] is the model article for one on legislation, at least compared to one like the [[Reform Act 1832]], providing more discursive referenced content and context than a section by section breakdown. [[User:Iveagh Gardens|Iveagh Gardens]] ([[User talk:Iveagh Gardens|talk]]) 10:50, 13 August 2026 (UTC)