Template talk:Prime ministers of the United Kingdom

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.

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)[reply]

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

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

• • 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)[reply]

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

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

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

I've deleted this image for lacking a source. Even if it had a source, per

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

current reverts by Ste1977. the distinction is a great one, they are two separate countries.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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,

selbert 00:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply

]

All the same, there is neither any concrete nor credible reason as to why full names should not be included. "Seperate [

selbert 22:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

I'm sorry if I sound confrontational,

selbert 22:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

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.--

selbert 22:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]