Template talk:Prime ministers of the United Kingdom

Names

Prime Ministers should probably be listed here either under their name during their time in office; or under the one by which they are most commonly known. Certainly calling Salisbury "Gascoyne-Cecil" makes no sense. Doops | talk 21:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• I agree and have changed the names accordingly, with the exception of Pitt the Elder.

Philip Stevens 22:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Why the exception of Pitt the Elder ? I've edited the list to show "Chatham (Pitt the Elder)", for clarity's sake. — OwenBlacker 15:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

ysgdhdgcccbcgcbycgzycgcbhygcMedia:Exgxxhxxxbvgxvbxvxgfachctfample.ogg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.51.226 (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Pluralise title

Should the title on this box be "Prime Ministers of..." or "Prime Minister of..."? SeventyThree^(Talk) 23:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• I think you're right, it should be pluralise. Philip Stevens 06:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:London 10 downing street 625056.jpg

I've deleted this image for lacking a source. Even if it had a source, per WP:FUC fair use images cannot be used in templates. For the time being, I've replaced it with Image:Blair Cheney at Number 10.jpg but a better one might be found or created. howcheng {chat} 20:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• I've changed the image to one of the Union Flag as I thought this would be more appropriate. Philip Stevens 20:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Prime Ministers "of the United Kingdom"

The first fourteen names on this list were never Prime Ministers (or Leaders of the Government, or whatever) of the United Kingdom, as it didn't exist until 1801. I suggest replacing this template with "Prime Ministers of Great Britain" and "Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom". Opera hat 17:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

New format

I reverted the new format, as there was no discussion before hand. Putting "18th century Prime Minister" is erroneous as that term didn't exist until the 20th century. Also, I don't see any need to put PMs into different sections, it doesn't happen for US Presidents. --Philip Stevens 17:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Categories

Are categories needed? Surely they should only be used for significant political changes like the box on French presidents Rutld001 21:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Distinction between United Kingdom and Great Britain.

current reverts by Ste1977. the distinction is a great one, they are two separate countries. List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom#19th_century_Prime_Ministers. please discuss before reverting again. ninety:one 10:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Heads of Government for Great Britain and the UK should be separate, and Ste1977's amendments don't list second terms either. I think all edits by Ste1977 should be reverted too Opera hat (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Full names

Ebonelm, what problem do you have with including their full names? This is standard across {{US Presidents}}, {{Heads of state of France}} and {{Chancellors of Germany}}, et al. I cannot see why you think full names render unnecessary. This template shouldn't suppress their forenames/titles, that much is vital IMO.--Nevé–selbert 23:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

My main issue is that there are so many of them, probably almost as many as all three of the examples you have given put together. The full names are hardly "vital", I can't imagine anybody is looking at this template at their definitive source of information, there are other pages where the full names can be viewed. Ebonelm (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I deleted the duplicates here (except Churchill, forgot to remove the second link). This is absolutely no reason whatsoever why this template should be an aberration from all of the other templates. There is no incessant need to perpetuate such inconsistency. Please revert, Ebonelm. There is no harm done at all in including their forenames/titles.--Nevé–selbert 00:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

That's an even worse edit than the original one you made! They are not duplicates they are seperate terms. As I stated previously the large list of names makes surnames/titles only a practical choice, there is no reason why full names should be used on the others. While those other templates may follow the same pattern regarding names they still all look very different from one another so you can hardly be attempting to make a consistency argument. Why would I revert when WP:BRD is on my side on this one. You were bold, you were then reverted, now we discuss. Ebonelm (talk) 16:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

All the same, there is neither any concrete nor credible reason as to why full names should not be included. "Seperate [sic] terms"? I have no idea what you are banging on about. Oh and by the way, WP:BRD is an essay not a policy (my dear god!). WP:THIRDOPINION is probably the only forward now.--Nevé–selbert 22:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:BRD may only be an essay but it is a well-established norm amongst editors, and can be seen as a shorthand for the broader consensus approach we use on Wikipedia, it is an oft-quoted essay I don’t think bringing it up would be considered controversial by many admins let alone other non-admin editors. It is very worrying that you appear to not know about the ordering of the terms of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom or see any merit in including this information in the infobox. You and I have had a number of discussions and debates about British politics articles in the past and they have always been constructive and well-tempered and produced good results, frankly I am surprised at the level of aggression which I feel I am on the receiving end of in this discussion, it is very irregular interaction compared to those we have had in the past. Ebonelm (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I sound confrontational, Ebonelm. I'm just on a deadline at the moment, and I get ratty sometimes. I certainly know about the ordering of the terms of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom articles, what makes you think the contrary is beyond me. I just don't see the need to include the same name more than once (or four times in the case of Mr Gladstone). I have just requested WP:THIRDOPINION on this to help us strike a happy medium. Cheerio,--Nevé–selbert 22:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

OK. I guess you're right about one thing (i.e. there are plenty of other templates foregoing full names too). Hence my decision to give this issue a pass for now.--Nevé–selbert 22:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Rfc about including full names, listing multiple-term PMs more than once

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should we include the full names/titles of each Prime Minister in this template (i.e. Winston Churchill, Lord Palmerston, instead of Churchill, Palmerston respectively)? Moreover, should a prime minister that served more than once be repeated in this template (e.g. William Ewart Gladstone who served four times, with Gladstone being repeated that many times), or should they be listed only once without being listed multiple times? See draft here.--Nevé–selbert 01:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Survey

Threaded discussion

• Could the RFC creator state brief arguments/justifications pro and con for full names versus last names?CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The premierships should be excluded from the template content, as it's too crowded. GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've closed this discussion, as I have just had a look at Category:Europe political leader navigational boxes and it seems that this navigational box isn't the only one preferring last names (there are quite a few, including {{Chancellors of the Exchequer}} and even {{Prime Ministers of Sweden}}). I think now it would be unwise to let this Rfc to run its course. Further discussion concerning this issue is still open, but is best referred to at a different/wider venue to prevent inconsistency with those similar templates. Thanks.--Nevé–selbert 22:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

MOS:FLAG

Per the above guideline, flag icons should not be excessive and should not be applied to figures that lived before a flag came into use. Repeating a flag is neither necessary nor desirable and flags that are anachronous should not be used. Consistency is not paramount. DrKay (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)