Template talk:Infobox UK legislation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

White space bug and proposal[edit]

Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007
Long titleAn Act to create a new offence that, in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, is to be called corporate manslaughter and, in Scotland, is to be called corporate homicide; and to make provision in connection with that offence.
Citation2007 c. 19
Introduced byHome Secretary John Reid, July 20 2006
Territorial extent England and Wales; Scotland; Northern Ireland
Royal assent26 July 2007
CommencementApril 6, 2008 (2008-04-06)
Other legislation
Amended by
Repealed by
Relates to
Status: Not yet in force
History of passage through Parliament
Text of statute as originally enacted
Text of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, from legislation.gov.uk.

The current version of the template is bugged as it introduces random amounts of white space at the top of each article it is used on. The amount of white space generated appears to be linked to the use of the external link fields at the bottom of the template, though I have been unable to find a solution that doesn't break another part of the infobox code.

Rather than waste more time with debugging the current template, I have taken the opportunity to recreate the infobox based on the generic {{infobox}} template. This has the advantages of simplifying and standardising most of the code while at the same time removing the white space bug. The only draw back is that the template has had a marked change in style that some editors may not find appealing. I have prepared the replacement template in one of my sandboxes, and transcluded both the current and replacement version onto this other page for comparison.

I would welcome comments on this new proposal or assistance in making improvements (setting custom styles is not one of my strong points). Also, please note that the new template does not yet include the hCalendar Mark-up introduced to the current template a few hours ago. Road Wizard (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have taken the liberty of adding hCalendar to your sandbox version; it's working well. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 21:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TheyWorkForYou link[edit]

Road Wizard's comments copied from my talk page. This also follows on from a discussion on the help desk. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 13:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I have adopted the TheyWorkForYou link into my proposed revision of {{Infobox UK Legislation}}. This can be found at User:Road Wizard/Sandbox 4 where you can test how the code works. I am a little cautious about how it will work in practice though as the first test I tried (Peerage Act 1963) returned some very poor results. Restricting the field for use only on recent Acts may improve the quality of the search results. This will need further testing before inclusion in a live version of the template. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 23:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have identified another flaw with the search, as the Act is not called an Act until after Royal Assent. Therefore a search of Hansard for the Act will not return any debates except by shear chance. An alternative search would be Peerage+Bill (with no mention of year) though in the case of this search the results would be wildly off the mark (mainly pages that happen to mention peerage and bill). I am open to suggestions, but I am doubtful if we can find an acceptable solution. Road Wizard (talk) 23:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The other problem which I hadn't realised until just now is that their records only go back to 2001 for the Commons and 1999 for the Lords. The way you've set the template up in your sandbox, though, it's an optional parameter, so we can simply not use it on articles where TWFY's archive isn't useful. You've also set it up so that we don't have to pass the exact name of the act as the search parameter, so if it works better to search for "Example Bill" instead of "Example Act", we can do that. I think the field will be most useful, though, for searching for discussion of an act after it's passed - look at Extradition Act 2003 for an example of that. Are you happy for it to be added on that basis? --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 13:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bear in mind that http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/ has older records; searches of the form http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/search/peerage+bill+1963 might work well. (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This discussion might be connected to a the very trivial template {{UK Parliament}} which is intended to link to TheyWorkForYou transcripts, and could be reprogrammed to link to the millbanksystems webpage for earlier transcripts with an if-statement based on year. The people behind millbanksystems can be asked to redirect template-generated URLs so that things work better. (This is not the case for the Statute Law Database, which definitely should be coded by statute_book_chapter rather than this ridiculous database generated activeTextDocId number!)

Ideally, the TheyWorkForYou website should be serving the wiki-links from the pages for maximum convenience. You can see how it would work on the page: http://www.undemocracy.com/securitycouncil/meeting_5962 (Try also clicking on one of the grey "Link to this" boxes), which takes you the far more technical {{UN document}} citation template, linking to undemocracy.com whose purpose is to overcome some significant barriers to on-line access. The issues with UK Parliament and UN Resolutions are related enough to learn from the different practices.

Searching for Bills is a really tricky prospect, as they are undated and several Bills can have the same name in different years before it finally becomes an Act. No mistake: This is a very important feature to have, to be able to know the versions and amendments of the Bill, and which factors were voted on before it became the law, because it tells you what the alternatives were. Take Freedom of Information Act 2000, for example. This list on the PublicWhip is of all the votes on the Bill, and tells you what could have been, and puts the names the MPs who made each aspect of the law happen. This is a vital part of the history on close votes. There are other cases like this on the PublicWhip website. (It would be fantastic if all the votes on a Bill that became an Act were described and cited on Wikipedia so it could be imported into PublicWhip, but this is probably not quite practical.)

If you do implement it with a search for the text "Something Something Bill", it needs to be filtered by date range from the start of the session (year) to the date of Royal Assent. Perhaps this ought to be an automatic search feature actually embedded in TheyWorkForYou, which would make the URLs to it naturally formed from the Wikipedia Title. Unfortunately that website doesn't have Bills and Acts as recognized objects (as it does for MP's names). It's a feature people more people should request.Goatchurch (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your extensive comments. I think I will have to be equally extensive in replying to them.
One of the key problems I have with adding links to search result pages is that if the results are notable within the context of the article they should be mentioned in the article and referenced. If they are not notable then what is the point with linking them? It could even encourage laziness, as what is the point in mentioning a subject in the article when a single click will provide the result in a search? I will go with whatever consensus decides on this, but I would urge caution in its use if nothing else.
There is no real gain in searching for modern hansard records of bills as this is already provided by the "History of passage through parliament" link (which also includes reports, copies of the bills at different stages and details of amendments both accepted and not-accepted). Some argument could be made for a search of the archived hansard at millbanksystems for older acts, but as Goatchurch pointed out many bills share the same name as they are not dated before they become Acts. As a side issue, some way of searching for a fixed title would be useful rather than a combination of words. Is it possible to set a link to search for "Peerage Act 1963" as a whole phrase rather than the individual words Peerage, Act and 1963?
Goatchurch, can you please expand on the comment on the Statute Law links "definitely should be coded by statute_book_chapter rather than this ridiculous database generated activeTextDocId number"? Why is the current system ridiculous, what benefit would linking by statute chapter bring and can you suggest a link format that would provide the correct result in this way? I don't want to sound negative but {{UK-SLD}} is used on over 250 articles - there has to be some genuine benefit to justify all those corrective edits. Road Wizard (talk) 21:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

←TheyWorkForYou is run by MySociety. I've mentioned this discussion on their developers-public mailing list; feel free to raise requests for assistance, or changes to the way their site works, there. Andy Mabbett (aka Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy Mabbett; Andy Mabbett's contributions 21:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with Road Wizard that there's no point searching hansard for debates on bills before they are passed, since we already have that information from the history of passage through parliament link. I do think it's useful to provide a link to search hansard for debates about the acts after they're passed, though. has suggested a site that has older records, so we could create an optional parameter with a switch to select between the Mill Bank Systems site and TWFY. What do people think about that? --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 01:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another thought - I see what Road Wizard means - any debates on the act after it passes should be cited in the discussion of an Act. I still think the search is useful, though, to see a list of relevant parliamentary debates. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 01:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I seem to be the only dissenting voice in this discussion I will withdraw my objections for now. As it will be an optional parameter we can always remove it later if a consensus forms against it. Road Wizard (talk) 20:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed - and, since the parameter's optional, we don't have to use it in the articles where it won't add anything. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 14:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have added the millbank code and replaced the existing template. I am still not completely happy with the style, but I am sure that can be improved as time goes on. I will just do a quick sweep to see if any unforeseen problems have cropped up on the existing transclusions and then update the documentation. Road Wizard (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Coat of arms[edit]

The coat of arms in this template is anachronistic for any Acts before the ascension of Queen Victoria to the throne in 1837; see Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom. I would put date switches in, but the earlier coats of arms are without supporters. Thoughts anyone? — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If it is incorrect to use it on Acts before 1837 then it needs to be removed. As far as I can tell it is only there for decorative purposes, so I don't see any need to retain it. Unless someone has an objection I will remove it from the new proposal. We can always add it back in with an optional parameter if there are strong objections. Road Wizard (talk) 20:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't get me wrong, I'd much rather have an image in there; we should just make sure it's the right one! Infoboxes without images look for less appealing and draw the eye less (which is a bad thing, given they're intended to be a brief summary of information for users new to the topic. We should definitely add the image back, just with date switches so we can make it the right image for the right Act :o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 08:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have replaced the active template but retained the previous image code. You are welcome to add in some code restriction to limit the appearance of the image if you wish. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would it be possible to give the option to choose between the coats of arms of the UK Parliament and other legislatures in Britain, in order that the Infobox can be used for legislation from those bodies as well? There are a few Scottish statutes which already use this Infobox (e.g. Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004) but the coat of arms belongs to the UK Parliament, and therefore is inappropriate - File:Scottish royal coat of arms.svg would be better. I don't know how to do this myself. Thanks! Johnhousefriday (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've added parameters to the infobox so that the displayed coat of arms reflects which parliament is named in the "parliament" parameter. For examples of how this affects articles, see Tenements (Scotland) Act 2004, Summary Jurisdiction Act (Northern Ireland) 1953 and NHS Redress (Wales) Measure 2008. Gabbe (talk) 09:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello there; I don't know how, but can we change that long sentence about the active version of the legislation? "Text of current statute from statutelaw.gov" is sufficient, and will fit on two lines. Wikidea 11:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This infobox could make use of the new UK Government Legislation portal, perhaps via a sub template. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See related comments at Template talk:UK-SLD#www.legislation.gov.uk (new website has different URL scheme and is not yet fully functional). — Richardguk (talk) 01:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Coat of arms revisited[edit]

I've just made a relatively major upgrade to the template, so it will now display an appropriate coat of arms for any of old Parliaments (of England, of Scotland, of Ireland and of Great Britain) and for the UK Parliament since its creation on 1 January 1801. A small handful of coats of arms don't have versions with supporters, so the unsupported armorial are displayed, but the right coat of arms is shown for any combination of {{{year}}} and {{{parliament}}}. Limitations on parser functions available on en.wiki mean that the template assumes based on year, so acts passed at the start of any year where the armorial changed may show the armorial for later in the year, however.

To do this, I created a sandbox page and a suite of test cases, which should show every distinct combination of year and parliament, using the sandbox version of the template. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 00:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's excellent, well done and thank you! Are we missing the Northern Ireland Assembly though? ninety:one 12:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're right; I'd failed to notice that Parliament of Northern Ireland is the pre-1970s body, not the new devolved assembly. Not Now rectified, using File:Northern-ireland-assembly.png, as per the article Northern Ireland AssemblyOwenBlacker (Talk) 12:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Using the new legislation.gov.uk interface[edit]

I have written {{UK-LEG}} to replace {{UK-SLD}}. UK-LEG uses the new legislation.gov.uk interface, which allows an Act to be linked to using the short title as a parameter (which can be automatically passed most of the time). However, this isn't perfect, because commencement orders made in the same year seem to also be returned (such as if you pass "Fraud Act 2006", it returns "Text of the Fraud Act 2006 as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, from legislation.gov.uk. ", but the link is to a choice page - or at least it is some of the time, I don't seem to be able to get it now, which is very weird!). Anyway, I have written an automatic link to exact items of legislation which uses parliament, statute_book_chapter and year (you can see it in Template:Infobox UK Legislation/sandbox, where it's line 21). This works for items with regnal years as well, because the leg.gov.uk interface will translate them to calendar years automatically. The only problem is where there are two items with the same chapter number and calendar year, but different regnal years. I can't think of an easy way around this right now, except to have a manual override (the URI scheme says this will happen "on a few occasions").

So, we now have two ways of providing links. We can either use {{UK-LEG}}, which will work for any Act whenever passed, but it won't return a direct link where there are two conflictingly-named items, or we can use the automatic link building as in the sandbox, which won't return a direct link where two items have the same chapter number and calendar year, but different regnal years. Is one the lesser of two evils? ninety:one 13:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update: see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom#Legislation linking: new/updated templates for a general discussion on all of these changes. ninety:one 22:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think this is uk-leg thing sounds very complicated. Also, I am not sure, but it appears to me that Ninety-one is saying it can only link to a revised text on the legislation.gov.uk website. Can I make a simpler suggestion:

Create a new field called "revised_text" that works exactly the same way that the "original_text" field works now (i.e. you paste the link you want in manually). That can't fail to work.James500 (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I have now created this field. I have used it at Sheriffs Act 1887 and it seems to work fine. Please don't delete it as I find Ninetyone's field impossible to use. We do need a field for the revised text that is idiot proof.James500 (talk) 16:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good point, possibly got carried away, now working on much better version that can take full URLs in the same parameter. ninety:one 18:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Terriotorial extent[edit]

I think that this should be replaced with three separate fields (or these should be added as alternatives to that field, if that causes less disruption):

  1. Original extent
  2. Where in force now?
  3. Where repealed now?

The extent of Acts changes. They get extended to jurisdictions to which they did not originally apply. They get repealed in some of the jurisdictions to which they apply, but not others. Also a lot of UK legislation has been extended to and repealed in various Commonwealth countries.

At the moment it is impossible to explain this using the infobox. James500 (talk) 00:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Parallel jurisdictions[edit]

A recent edit to the article on the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Ireland) 1877 has made me realise that perhaps the template needs tweaking in relation to Acts that are in force to different extents in different jurisdictions. This particular Act has been repealed in relation to Northern Ireland, but is apparently still in force within the Republic. There have also been Acts which have been repealed for different parts of the UK at different times. However, the template assumes that an Act has either been repealed, or that it has not. Should the template perhaps be altered to provide different values to be entered for England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland (to 1922), Northern Ireland, and the Republic of Ireland? I'm thinking that the existing "repealing_legislation" field should be retained as the default, but that (say) "repealing_legislation_England", "repealing_legislation_NI", and (so on) fields could be made available as well for when they're needed; similarly additional "status" fields would be needed (displaying as "Status in England" and so on). Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Would it not be easier to provide mini-commentary instead? So something like |repealing_legislation= {{ubl|[[Something Act 2011]] (England and Wales)|[[Something Else Act 2010]] (Scotland)|In force (Northern Ireland)|[[Something Something (Ireland) Act 1918]] (Ireland)|[[British North America Act 1847]] (Canada)}} perhaps? — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I am going to change the value "substantially amended" to "amended", because "substantially" is not an objective expression. James500 (talk) 05:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have added a status "Not_passed" for bills that were not enacted. I have also enabled colour-coded representation of status. This corresponds with the generic Infobox legislation template. ferg2k (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I tried to add status=Spent to an Act and it came out as "Status: Unknown". Two things:

  1. A reader is likely to interpret this as meaning that the act's current status is unknown in the real world. Don't output debug information in a format that can be mistaken for content. Help:CS1 errors uses distinctive red error messages. Simpler is to show no message and just use a WP:HIDDENCAT.
  2. I think "spent" and "expired" should be separate statuses from in force.

jnestorius(talk) 10:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

added Spent. feel free to revert if I got it wrong. Frietjes (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Status again: do we need an 'In_progress' parameter?[edit]

The current parameters lack a clear option for bills currently being debated. 'Not passed' could be used for this, but it also (and maybe usually) means that Parliament declined to pass it. For examples see European Union Referendum Bill 2015–16 and European Union (Referendum) Bill 2013-14. ('Not yet in force' is surely for Acts that have been enacted but their date of coming into force is in the future). Do we need an 'In_progress' parameter? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I too find the expression "Not passed" rather ambiguous and confusing in this context. One possibility would be to use "Before parliament" for bills currently being debated and "Rejected" for bills which don't get through. These seem to be the terms that journalists use, though I'm not sure whether they're legally correct. Polly Tunnel (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Statute book chapter"[edit]

I think this might be a neologism or misnomer. If I recall correctly, O. Hood Phillips said in a book called "A First Book of English Law" that "there is no statute book". I suggest that this field should actually read "session and chapter" for pre-1962 Acts and "year and chapter" post-1962 Acts. These expressions are used in the Schedules of Acts of Parliament. James500 (talk) 12:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. The Irish statutes use the expression "session and chapter" for pre-1962 statutes as well. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 18:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Although in reality it would have been better if there were separate {{{year}}}, {{{session}}} and {{{chapter}}} parameters. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 19:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The first column of Schedule 10 to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 uses "chapter" in place of "session and chapter" and "year and chapter". This, if used, would not require separate fields or a date switch. James500 (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC) This is used in other statutes aswell, e.g. the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1978. James500 (talk) 14:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In Google Books, "statute book chapter" and "the statute book chapter" do not produce results that look relevant. "A statute book chapter" produces no results at all. I am going to change it to "Chapter". James500 (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A sidebar rather than infobox?[edit]

Hello. Instantiations of this template such as here (where almost half the template space is left unused) prompts me to think that it might better be a "sidebar" template that uses headings rather than a two-column infobox. Yes, no? (talk) 07:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Error handling[edit]

I've added a bunch of error handling and maintenance categorisation to the sandbox version of this template — as can be seen from the test cases — having swung past a couple of instances of this template with incorrect year values recently. I would have thrown it straight into the live template, except that Template:Error messages are displayed to all users, not just logged-in users (as I previously thought) and that seems rather inyerface.

Is it worth putting live a version of the sandbox without the {{error}} calls, so that the maintenance categorisation takes effect and bots can help correct the faulty articles? Given templatecount indicates there are "only" 1440 transclusions, it doesn't seem like it would be too difficult to correct any faulty ones before activating error messaging in the live template.

Thoughts anyone? — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inclusion of stages through Parliament[edit]

Is it possible to add parameters in this template for the various stages that a Bill goes through Parliament (e.g. First Reading)? The template "Infobox Legislation" does include those items like "1st_reading 2nd_reading, 3rd_reading, committee_report". I think it's quite useful information in the infobox. (I don't know how to edit a template or what the correct procedure is.) Seaweed (talk) 13:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Church of England general synod[edit]

As the General Synod of the Church of England have the legal rights to pass Measures which have the same effect as an Act of Parliament, would it be more appropriate if we could include the logo of the Church of England (as there isn't a General Synod arms) in place of the coat of arms in the template for Church of England measures? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly[edit]

Acts of the Northern Ireland Assembly are not Acts of Parliament. The latter is showing up in e.g. Assembly Members (Reduction of Numbers) Act (Northern Ireland) 2016. – Kaihsu (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lack of Royal Assent[edit]

What happens for legislation during the Commonwealth/Protectorate. Is the "Royal Assent" field to be left blank? GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Short descriptions?[edit]

Should we make the WP:Short description of pages with this template default to "United Kingdom Law"? Daviddwd (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Senedd Cymru[edit]

Hi. I'm not competent enough (or daring enough) to try to edit an infobox, but the National Assembly for Wales is becoming renamed to the Senedd Cymru (Welsh Parliament) in May 2020. Ahead of that change, we will need to update the list of legislatures. I would assume the best path would be to create a new legislature for all acts made by the Senedd Cymru after May 2020, rather than rename the Assembly to the Senedd. Acts prior to May 2020 will remain Assembly legislation so we don't want to rename those. Appreciate any thoughts others may have on this? Llemiles (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done - Originally added by MOTORAL1987 but without correct emblem switching or name. Should show properly now, with the correct image and name (previously it used Act of the Welsh Parliament which is not the official term either in English or Welsh)! See: Act of Senedd Cymru. Let me know if there are any issues. —Thunderstorm008 (talk · contributions)

Coats of Arms again[edit]

Looking at An Act for prohibiting Trade with the Barbadoes, Virginia, Bermuda and Antego from 1650, the coat of arms shown is that of 1801-1816, so Hanoverian rather than English Commonwealth.2A00:23C7:7B18:9600:89F8:8062:5F2F:B75A (talk)

It's because |parliament=Rump Parliament is not a valid value, so it's assuming Parliament of the United Kingdom. For that parliament, when the value specified by |year= is less than 1816 (in this case 1650), it uses File:Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom (1801-1816).svg. To get File:Coat of Arms of the Protectorate (1653–1659).svg to show, you need |parliament=England together with |year=1650. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Compressed form of this template?[edit]

I am working on New Towns Acts, which pulls together into a single article a number of (very) stub articles about some of the extraordinarily large number of Acts on this topic. Before I added it to the 1946 Act article with this diff, none was using the Infobox UK legislation template. But now of course the question has arisen as to whether the summary of each act (as per the template) can be provided against each one. Now here is the problem: for most of these acts, the description runs to no more than two or three lines (see for example New Towns Act 1959), making use of the standard template wildly disproportionate.

Which leads me to this question: would it be practical to have a condensed form of the template?  – such as no crest, no long title, no citation, no 'other legislation' – to be used only in multi-act articles such as this one. Comment and other ideas, please? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah I think that can be done. I'm wary about losing information which is in the infobox which actually might be useful, so perhaps the other information could be provided in a collapsible section? I'll make a prototype? --Thunderstorm008 (talk · contributions) 02:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pinging John Maynard Friedman. -Thunderstorm008 (talk · contributions) 02:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thunderstorm008: I don't understand how I missed both this ping and the update to the talk page (since it is on my watchlist), but miss it I did so my apologies for delay in replying.
As no-one else has chipped it to support and because now I don't think that the New Towns Acts page really needs a template instance for every one of the Acts, I withdraw the proposal. Thank you for taking the time to look at it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Could the status= parameter please be amended to accept status=Revoked? This is the natural wording to use for for Statutory Instruments, which are revoked rather than repealed. There are a lot of articles covering now-revoked English COVID regulations that I would like to update. Strictly speaking the repeal_date= parameter isn't quite right either for SIs, but I wouldn't bother changing that as the template instructions already note that that is intended to cover both repealed and revoked. MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done @MichaelMaggs, apologies for the five month delay but I've fixed this oversight. Any more suggestions or needed features let me know. - Thunderstorm008 (talk · contributions) 05:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thunderstorm008 Many thanks! MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]