WikiProject United Kingdom	(Rated Template-class)	United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
United Kingdom portal v t e This template 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.  Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom	(Rated Template-class)	Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
British politics portal v t e This template 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.  Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Offices

I didn't realize this baby existed. Emsworth, do you think we might add a page that lists offices (rather than departments, and list it here? john 22:18, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Changes

I made several changes for a clearer arrangement; but I have to admit that I was stumped about where to put the Privy Council. It didn't really belong in any of the boxes; but it wasn't really important enough to get its own box. So, on the premise that the bottom box was a catch-all, I put it there. Comments? Doops 02:50, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have reverted it because I do not see any precendent for User:Lord Emsworth's changes. Look at Politics of the United States, Politics of Germany, Politics of New Zealand, Politics of the Republic of Ireland - all of those pages have the series box, so why should the Politics of United Kingdom series box be curtailed? In my opinion, the 'traditional' series box looks far more presentable and I see no valid reason why the introduction categories should mean the end of it. Deus Ex 00:33, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you are so particular, then I am sure you would not mind shifting all these series boxes back to the top of the page. I had shifted them all to the bottom of the page, where these would look better. -- Emsworth 02:19, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And, incidentally, I think that this format is not a very good one. It definitely intrudes into the text: see the example of the first section Lord Chancellor. To have the entire box at the bottom of the page, in the format I had proposed, appears to me to be a more reasonable solution.

I don't follow. Why would the boxes look better at the bottom of the page? If the box is at the bottom the page is extended accomodate the table, creating a large white space to the left of the page (see Departments of the United Kingdom Government). I understand the problem with text being intruded, but that happens with any element like an image and it does not really impact on the readability of the text much. Maybe the box could made smaller to minimise the effect of the box intruding in the first section, I suggest removing some of the links in the box and making the border smaller like this: Deus Ex 11:53, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think it works best as a vertical pane at the top of the pages, rather than as a tiny horizontal wedge at the bottom.

I'm happy to edit the couple of dozen pages to move it up, if you want...

James F. (talk) 13:38, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We could also remove the Royal Arms, which I do not believe we are supposed to be able to use under such circumstances. -- Emsworth 17:36, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, it's in general about HMG and the associated institutions, and so the 'correct' one would be the Royal Arms for some (PC, amongst other things), and the Parliamentary Arms (or whatever they're called - do we have them around?) for others (such as Parliament itself, and all the Departments and so on. Perhaps we could have both, with the two types split slightly?

James F. (talk) 18:11, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I meant that we were not allowed to use the Royal Arms, especially when we are not merely showing them to illustrate what the Arms of the Sovereign look like. Perhaps a Union Jack would be better. -- Emsworth 21:04, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We're not? Why? Is the image copyrighted, and used under Fair Use? If so, we really should see about getting a replacement drawing of it...

However, I still think that the Parliamentary Arms would be the best single image for the template, though the Union Flag will do for the time being, at least.

James F. (talk) 21:57, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I certainly think the portcullis would be better than either the flag or the royal arms. —Ashley Y 09:39, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)

The Crowned Portcullis

The Crowned Portcullis is the best symbol to use for this template. However, there may be legal issues. From [1]:

Use of the House emblem, the Crowned Portcullis, is governed by the following statement:

The principal emblem of the House is the Crowned Portcullis. It is a royal badge and its use by the House has been formally authorised by licence granted by Her Majesty the Queen. The designs and symbols of the House should not be used for purposes to which such authentication is inappropriate, or where there is a risk that their use might wrongly be regarded, or represented, as having the authority of the House.

It's not clear to me if this refers to copyright law (which would apply to a particular image) or to some kind of trademark or heraldic law (which might apply to any representation of the badge). There's more on that page, in any case. —Ashley Y 04:34, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

Lord Speaker

The "Lord Chancellor" bit (and the connected "Lord Falconer" line) will soon have to be removed/moved, to make way for the new office of Lord Speaker, which will have a newly elected Lord as its incumbant.

[2]

David 19:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Royal Arms in templates

As detailed by OPSI (previously HMSO) in all copyright notices issued, while the Royal Arms are covered by Crown Copyright, they are not to be considered free use, and can only be used with Fair Use/Dealing rationales. As such, the Royal Arms should never be placed in templates or onto user pages as discussed at Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy. Inclusions of this template make up a large number of the remaining file links on Image:UK Royal Coat of Arms.png, and while it should probably be removed, I'm loathe to turn the template into a plain bordered box. So does anyone have any ideas as to what image to replace the Arms with? GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 07:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

As a reference, the exact wording of the terms of use for Crown Copyrighted material is as follows (though individual departments may add their own requirements.)

"The material featured on this site is subject to Crown copyright protection unless otherwise indicated. The Crown copyright protected material (other than the Royal Arms and departmental or agency logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium provided it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. Where any of the Crown copyright items on this site are being republished or copied to others, the source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged." GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 19:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

As opposed to the Royal Arms currently featured in the template and explicitly copyrighted by the above statement there are the State Arms: the difference being they are surmounted by a simple St Edward Coronation Crown (commonly called a "Queen's Crown") as opposed the the helmet, lion, crown and surrounding paraphernalia. There is an example on the front cover of EU pattern British Passports (I'm not sure which arms older British Passports use). There used to be readily found examples of both coats of arms on the internet but I'm having trouble locating them today. The only example I can find is http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-badges/crowned-lion.htm (near the bottom). 194.203.110.127 11:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the flag to the state arms as it is used in the British Government stub and on the template for the court system in Courts of England and Wales --Barry^talk 12:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Counsellor of State

Similar to the question as to put the Privy Council, where would you put the Office of Counsellor of State as it has been part of the British constitution since 1937?

Advice, guidelines?

(Stephennarmstrong 22:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC))

Gordon Brown

Gordon Brown is still in the meeting with the Queen so he could still technically refuse the position - therefore he is not Prime Minister yet. 03swalker 13:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT a crystal Ball. He can still refuse the permission while the meeting is going on 03swalker 13:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Lib Dems

Should not the alleged third party have at least a one-link mention? Directly under the Tory Cabinet link? ^† DBD 00:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

editrequest

In re The above section about fair use images and the image in this template, Image:UK Royal Coat of Arms.svg has now been created, which is completely free and locally created. Since, copyright on images permitting, Politics of templates generally have the coat of arms on them and not the flag, I request that Image:UK Royal Coat of Arms.svg be inserted in place of the flag image there now. 68.39.174.238 22:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Thanks. GDonato (talk) 22:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Duplication

In some places, such as Greater London Authority, the UK navbar is used alongside the English navbar. No of course there are articles where both are necessary, but why not include all the UK data into the sub-national navbars (as they shrink down, we can put as much as we want in them) and so we have two-in-one. That way we de facto have the UK bar there as well as the English/Scottish etc. without double the clutter. Similar variations could be done for London etc. should the need arise.- _J.Logan`^t: 17:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)