England Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom Template‑class

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.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

The vast majority of politics templates use a coat of arms or other official government emblem in their infobox - see for example UK, Scotland, Wales and further afield Afghanistan, Australia, France, Germany, Ireland, the USA and Zimbabwe. Notwithstanding the fact that there is no "English Government" as such, are there any heraldic-style alternatives to the flag of England that would bring the template more into line with the other UK nations and elsewhere? Maybe the Tudor Rose would be appropriate as the traditional heraldic emblem of England? Or perhaps the template should use the arms of HM Government, on the basis that many Whitehall departments are now essentially exercising powers and functions in England only? Pondle (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does the template need an image at all then? The rose, flag, crest, whatever, just seems volatile and decorative, and against the spirit of WP:MOSFLAG anyway. To an outsider, the rose is likely to confuse in my opinion. Not reverting, but just expressing my concern. At least the flag was clearer in that respect. What about a map? --Jza84 |  Talk  23:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would prefer an image of some sort, if only for consistency with the vast majority of other politics & government templates. Perhaps the arms of HM Government, used at Template:Politics of the United Kingdom, would also be appropriate here? Many UK Government departments - Health, Communities, and DCSF - are now essentially 'English' post-devolution. Pondle (talk) 12:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree Pondle. The Royal Arms are used by the major UK departments, and are the traditional English arms for the Realm. Majestica (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I changed the image yesterday to an image of the arms of England, but it was changed back to the UK arms almost immediately. England is not a sovereign state, it is part of a state (the UK) and as such has no real government but a sub-national regional government. I therefore thought it was more appropriate to use the traditional arms of the land rather than the arms of the whole country of which England is a part, even if the arms of England also is part of the arms of the UK. John Anderson (talk) 06:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand your reasoning John, and this template does present some rather unique problems. The convention is to use an official government emblem in a national politics template, and of course one does not exist for England since there is no 'English government' as such. The best we could think of was to use the UK Government's version of the royal arms - since in practice, after devolution several UK Government departments - Health, Education, Communities - have become "England only" outfits. Not an ideal solution perhaps, but I don't think that we could agree anything better.Pondle (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The use of the coats of arms of a country with its "Politics of [country/division name]" template is standardised in Wikipedia: see Politics of India, Politics of the United States, Politics of New York, Politics of Senegal, and so on. --George2001hi (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Mais oui!" hasn't addressed the point. --George2001hi (talk) 11:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Using coats of arms may be the norm for sovereign states but in the case of UK constituent countries, there is no established consensus - a flag is used for wales and now also for Scotland. Northern Ireland uses an ad hoc "politics of northern ireland" iamge. The UK constituent countries do not have individual de jure coats of arms and their flags are long established and well known to the general public. The UK arms are not appropriate as they reptesent the country as a whole, not each individual constituent country. Using flags for England, Scotland and Wales appears to be the best way of having a recognisable and appropriate image for their politics infobox. Dn9ahx (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Cordyceps-Zombie: has objected to changing the image without discussion. Does anyone else object to the change?

The standard practice on Wikipedia is to use a coat of arms "Politics of..." info boxes. If a suitable coat of arms or similar device is not available, the established practice is to use a flag instead. There is no established practice on Wikipedia for using a plant badge on politics info boxes. Additionally, the plant badge of England is probably not very well known outside of UK so the image will not aid readers in identifying which polity the info box refers to.Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 08:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Cordyceps-Zombie: The long-accepted heraldic badge of England is no less well known than in the coat of arms of the Plantagenet kings, and have been used officially centuries more recently. How is a heraldic badge not a "similar device"? As for it being very well known outside the UK, the Template:Politics of Denmark and Template talk:Politics of Estonia already have very similar images, so if anything the Tudor rose, which is also the logo of England's official tourist board, VisitEngland, is a better choice than an obsolete shield which has not represented England since the reign of Edward III in the 14th-century. GPinkerton (talk) 08:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The arms might de jure be obsolete but they continue to be used as a de facto symbol to represent England. They are featured within the Royal arms of the United Kingdom and also feature on the new Bank of England 5, 10 and 20 pound notes, along with arms representing the other constituent countries of the UK. The historic arms of England are widely used in a sporting context, either as a heraldic banner or as the variants used to represent the English national football and Cricket teams. If you still feel that the historic arms are not suitable for use in this info box, then I am sure we can both agree that the most commonly known symbol to represent England is the in fact the Flag of England, which is far more familiar with the public than the obscure plant badge you are proposing. The flag of England was the image used on this template for a long time until it was switched to the coat of arms a few months ago in order to be consistent with the images used to represent Scotland and Wales in their templates. Please get a consensus to change the image in the first place and then a further consensus as to what the replacement image should be before resorting to unilateral action which is against the spirit of Wikipedia. If a consensus cannot be reached, then this template should remain as it is. Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Cordyceps-Zombie: Quite bizarre that you're alleging this is an "obscure plant badge"! Who uses these arms to represent England? The historic arms of England are emphatically not used to represent the English national football team! Look closer, and you'll see the football team actually uses the arms of the Football Association, which look like this, lack both the red field and the gold lions that distinguish the Plantagenet arms, and include no fewer than ten Tudor roses. Apart from their representation on the English national football team (!), Tudor roses are also the basis of the England national rugby union team gear and that of the England women's national rugby union team. As for your point about bank notes, it's also true that the Tudor rose appeared on all 20 pence coins between 1982 and 2008 and continues to appear on all £1 coins since 2017, as well as having appeared on the 2013 £1 coin, the predecimal 2/- coin, as well as on numerous other Sterling coins since the 1500s. Apart from that, the device is also recognizable as a symbol of England on the coat of arms of Canada, the flag of Montreal, the flag of Queens, the flag of Annapolis, Maryland. I note that you did not revert the changes made last time, even though no discussion has been had on the subject for the better part of a decade, so why revert mine? Do you really think the Tudor rose is obscure, or do you just prefer the High Middle Ages? GPinkerton (talk) 03:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]