Definite article

Magna Carta (1297)

Act of Parliament
coat of arms
Text of statute as originally enacted
Revised text of statute as amended
Text of the Magna Carta (1297) as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, from legislation.gov.uk.

In the above example, how do we make the link "Text of the Magna Carta (1297)" display instead as "Text of Magna Carta (1297)"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

This is still an issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:53, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

TemplateData Type errors

I believe all the following are incorrect:

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. jnestorius^(talk) 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. 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. ~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. ~2026-22607-91 (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

The "green grass at the bottom" is called the 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. --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'.

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? Richard75 (talk) 13:17, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

@Richard75: Have you asked Hughbe98 (talk⧼dot-separator⧽contribs) 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. 2025 cap. 1). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Good idea, I've left him a message on his talk page. Richard75 (talk) 10:10, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

He seems to have no objection. Richard75 (talk) 12:01, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I've found one that doesn't amend previous legislation - 2015 cap. 18, coincidentally. --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. Richard75 (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Hughbe98 (talk⧼dot-separator⧽contribs) is still doing it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I've left another message on Hughbe98's page. Given prior notices on their talk page and the discussion here, I'd consider this to be disruptive editing. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 01:36, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh, it gets worse. Not just the infobox, but the article body as well. Consider this edit: what on earth did Sections 91-93 provide for that they needed to be repealed? Why did phrases described as 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. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:10, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Hey all.

Thanks for the honest feedback. First, @Iveagh Gardens thank you for withdrawing the 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 @Redrose64 has cited, I was following precedent in other articles. For example, the 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:

1. Acts that explicitly mention the act in the long title
2. Acts that are mentioned in the article but not in the infobox
3. Acts that materially add, modify or remove the provisions of the original
4. Statute law revision/repeals acts
5. 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! 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. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 10:50, 13 August 2026 (UTC)