Talk:List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom/Archive 1

Coalitions
The party designations at present are misleading. I would strongly suggest you look at some way in which you can indicate coalitions. An obvious example is the coalition during the Great War, which was not 'Liberal' once the Tories were admitted, nor would have been described as such by any contemporary. Neither was Lord Salisbury's third government a Conservative one, but Unionist - the distinction may not matter to you, but was significant at the time, the Liberal Unionists having split from the Liberals over Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.14.198 (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the coalition governments were important parts of the British political makeup, easily as much as any single-party administration, and the Prime Ministerial terms should be marked to represent such. Lloyd-George, for example, whilst a lifelong Liberal MP, was never a Liberal Prime Minister... 139.222.126.141 (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Numbering on pages of UK PMs
I don't suppose this is the right place to ask this, but I couldn't see where else to. On the pages of UK (note not GB) prime ministers, Henry Addington onwards, they are given a numbering, for instance in Addington's case '17th Prime Minister of the United Kingdom' which includes all the GB PMs. I'm sorry to nitpick, but is this really exactly correct? Addington was, in my view, the second PM of the UK (Pitt the younger being the first). Passingtramp (talk) 11:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Numbering is not a convention of British politics & history and any numbering scheme is entirely subjective as to when you start counting, what is and isn't counted and how to handle multiple terms. Unfortunately too many users unfamiliar with this seem to insist on adding what is original research to the articles. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, and I wasn't intending to add my chosen numbers. My preference would be to remove this numbering altogether. Passingtramp (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, which I see you have done! Thanks! Passingtramp (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Tony Blair Major Events
I have added the death of Princess Diana into his list of events, as it was not mentioned previously. Princess Diana died in 1997 in a fatal car crash. Tony Blair was prime minister at the time and he had made a very memorable speech. For more information: Princess Diana Fzhi555 (talk) 10:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

First Prime Minister in 1905?
User 82.46.228.175 has just added an unverified statement claiming that the first use of the title of Prime Minister was in 1905. However, after digging through Hansard records, I have found the term was in use since 1885. There were 195 recorded references to "Prime Minister" in the 1880s including 20 March 1885 and 14 April 1885. This figure rose to 1,240 recorded references in the 1890s. Unless there is a specific source that claims the title only appeared in 1905 it seems pretty clear that it was in common use within Parliament long before that. Road Wizard (talk) 13:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This article mentions the same under Campbell-Bannerman's bit. As does his article. The article on Prime Minister of the United Kingdom says "The first mention of "Prime Minister" in an official government document occurred during the premiership of Benjamin Disraeli. The title has been used since then in documents, letters and conversation (and, in conversation at least, may have been used before then). In 1905 the title "Prime Minister" was noted in a royal warrant that placed the Prime Minister, mentioned as such, in the order of precedence in Britain immediately after the Archbishop of York. By this time legal recognition of the title seems to have occurred and it was later mentioned in the Chequers Estate Act 1917, and the Ministers of the Crown Act 1937." - not referenced. Jooler (talk)
 * OK. That makes more sense than what was just entered here. I would be willing to accept the first "legal recognition" or "recognition in the order of precedence" claim if a reliable source can be found to support it. Road Wizard (talk) 13:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the distinction being made is between 'common use of the title' and 'legal title'. "modern historians generally apply the title" of course does not make it true. Are modern historians making a description of past events to make it understandable to their modern readership or are they actually referring to documented usage?
 * Sir Ivor Jennings The Law and the Constitution (5th Edition) (1959) p118: "Some of the institutions which are due to the growth of conventions are in fact recognised by legislation. Thus the office of Prime Minister, though it has been in existence since the early years of the eighteenth century and was one of the key positions in the constitution, was not mentioned in legislation until 1917." which is the The Chequers Estate Act 1917. I have an entirely disreputable quote for the 1905 bit which I will add to article--Utinomen (talk) 23:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Documented usage. Walpole was actually called "Prime Minister" by his rivals, but at the time it was meant as a slur and didn't become a title of respect for some time. However, while you comment that what modern historians say might not be true you have to remember that we publish facts not truth. If the sources say something then we are bound to replicate it here. Road Wizard (talk) 06:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Would it not make sense for the picture of a Prime Minister to be from during their time in office?
This is not currently the case with Tony Blair - rst20xx (talk) 02:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Names in office
I have reverted User:81.110.220.68's inclusion of titles into the names of the Prime Ministers, as the titles were issued after they retired from the office of Prime Minister (except Benjamin Disraeli, as is noted already under his second term). As the titles were not relevant to their times in office, they should not be provided on this page. For example, if a reader was looking for the time that Henry Addington served as Prime Minister, they would not be looking for Viscount Sidmouth. Comments of other editors would be welcome. Road Wizard (talk) 06:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Referencing
Is it really necessary to reference each PM? Some information can surely be considered general knowledge, at the back of many OEDs, for example, so it's hardly a disputed fact. Besides, there is a link to Number 10's website here as well. William Quill (talk) 17:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia favours an article with numerous references over an article with a single or few references. As this article attempts to meet Wikipedia's requirements for Featured list status it should be held to a higher standard for all quality aspects including referencing.
 * Do you have a legitimate reason why you want to remove references? I cannot see what harm having one reference per line is causing or what benefit would be created by removing them. Road Wizard (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * First, sorry for being late coming back to this. The only legitimate reason I want to use the references is that I think they're are unnecessary. I don't think a table should be wider than it needs to be. I'm sure the list existed on Wikipedia before the particular books referenced were used and this list has appeared in trivia books for years and years. We don't have references in the equivalent List of Presidents of the United States. And we do have a reference for the list as a whole, at the bottom of the page covers the whole thing. William Quill (talk) 13:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A bad example there. List of Presidents of the United States recently failed a Featured list review and is judged to be of lower quality than this list.
 * Again I point out that a single source is insufficient for a Wikipedia article per the terms of the Verifiability policy, so relying solely on one link at the bottom of the article is not acceptable.
 * If your only concern is the table width then there are other methods of slimming it down short of knocking it out of Featured status. Road Wizard (talk) 13:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, it just looks odd to me to credit these particular works with a list like this. If the single source at the bottom of the page was from The Times or The Guardian, fair enough, but as it's Number 10 itself, it's fairly much the authoritative source on this matter. I believe I'm right in thinking that when this list was originally written the sources used here were not the sources used, or at least we have no way of knowing that they were. But if these facts need to be in the table, I think if it would look better if they were within the other cells, as in List of English monarchs. William Quill (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, the lack of references wasnt mentioned in the POTUS discussion you linked, so it wouldnt necessarily knock it out of featured status, but if I can't win on that one, I do propose not having a separate col. Tho I would like to add, that I just had a look thru the edit history here, and you have done quite a bit of work, so well done. William Quill (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * While it wasn't a specific issue raised against the US list, it was definitely a problem for this one (see the recent Featured list discussion). The need for more than a single source is clearly supported by policy and the Featured list criteria; I don't think you can go back to a single source without losing the featured status. However, the method of referencing has a little more leeway.
 * Your proposal for removing the reference column seems to be solely based on your desire to reduce the width of the table. Are there any other reasons that you would like to discuss? As I said before, there are alternative ways to reduce the width of the table without losing the reference column.
 * Your alternative proposal to match the layout of List of English monarchs is interesting, but it is also another failed Featured list. We can learn lessons from it, though attempts to match it too closely will cause an equal drop in status. Looking at the entry for Egbert there are two references identified, one of which is repeated four times for the same line. This duplication of references for a single entry occurs repeatedly throughout the list.
 * Can you confirm that you want references repeated several times on the same line on this list instead of the summary reference at the end of the line? If not, I would welcome an alternative proposal. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it does look neater as it is than to have multiple references across the line, if that is the only other option. The fact of references at all put me off, and I still think that for exceptionally well-known trivia, a single reference for the list should suffice. But I can let it go if there if it would just look messy if changed. --William Quill (talk) 10:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Common Descendancy from Sir George Villiers
According to George Malcolm Thomson in his book "The Prime Ministers" fifteen UK prime ministers are descendants of Sir George Villiers of Brokesby who was the father of the first duke of Buckingham. These are


 * 1) The Duke of Grafton
 * 2) The Duke of Portland
 * 3) The Earl of Chatham
 * 4) William Pitt the Younger
 * 5) The Duke of Devonshire
 * 6) Lord Melbourne (assuming his father was Lord Egremont)
 * 7) Lord Grenville
 * 8) Lord Aberdeen
 * 9) Lord Derby
 * 10) Lord John Russel
 * 11) Lord Salisbury
 * 12) A. J. Balfour
 * 13) Sir Winston Churchill
 * 14) Sir Anthony Eden
 * 15) Sir Alec Douglas Home

Thomson also states that HM the Queen is a descendant of Sir George. As David Cameron's ancestor's include King William IV it may be that he could soon be added to the above list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank.corr (talk • contribs) 12:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Numbering of PM of the GB/UK
I was considering numbering the PMs (starting with Walpole) & counting non-consecutive mandate PM's just once. Would this be wise & accurate of me? GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No. It's not the convention to stick a number on each PM and thus there are no rules on the various factors. Past consensus has always removed this. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

1756/7
The page gives '(1757 Caretaker Ministry)' as the link to the Ministry of William Cavendish The Duke of Devonshire 16 November 1756 - 25 June 1757. However, the Caretaker Ministry only began when Pitt left office as Southern Secretary on 6th April 1757. Although there is no page for the 1756-7 'Pitt the Elder Ministry', I feel that its existence should be recorded.

Alekksandr (talk) 13:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I have inserted this (as 'Devonshire-Pitt Ministry') and done likewise for the 1766-8 'Chatham Ministry' and the 1807-9 'Second Portland Ministry'. I have also added a link for the First Pitt the Younger Ministry

Links to 'Ministry' and 'Government'
At present some of these links are to 'Ministry' pages (which just show the Cabinet) and some are to 'Government' pages (which also show those outside the Cabinet). I propose that the page should link to 'Ministry' pages where they exist, and to 'Government' pages where there is no 'Ministry' page. It seems strange that we have a link which appears as 'Ministry' but which actually goes to the 'Government' page even though the 'Ministry' page exists. This would involve the following changes (working backwards from the present) : -

1. Labour Government 1974–1979 to Callaghan Ministry 2. Labour Government 1974–1979 to Second Wilson Ministry 3. Caretaker Government 1945 to Churchill Caretaker Ministry 4. Coalition Government 1940–1945 to Churchill War Ministry 5. War Government 1939–1940 to Chamberlain War Ministry 6. Fourth National Government 1937–1939 to Fourth National Ministry 7. Third National Government 1935–1937 to Third National Ministry 8. Liberal Government 1905–1915 to First Asquith Ministry 9. Liberal Government 1892–1895 to Fourth Gladstone Ministry 10. Liberal Government 1886 to Third Gladstone Ministry 11. Conservative Government 1885–1886 to First Salisbury Ministry 12. Liberal Government 1880–1885 to Second Gladstone Ministry 13. Conservative Government 1874–1880 to Second Disraeli Ministry 14. Liberal Government 1868–1874 to First Gladstone Ministry 15. Conservative Government 1866–1868 to First Disraeli Ministry 16. Conservative Government 1866–1868 to Third Derby Ministry 17. Liberal Government 1859–1866 to Second Russell Ministry 18. Conservative Government 1858–1859 to Second Derby Ministry 19. Coalition Government 1852–1855 to Aberdeen Ministry 20. Conservative Government 1852 to First Derby Ministry 21. Whig Government 1846–1852 to First Russell Ministry 22. Conservative Government 1841–1846 to Second Peel Ministry 23. Whig Government 1835–1841 to Second Melbourne Ministry 24. Conservative Government 1834–1835 to First Peel Ministry 25. Whig Government 1830–1834 to First Melbourne Ministry 26. Whig Government 1830–1834 to Grey Ministry 27. Tory Government 1828–1830 to Wellington Ministry 28. Canningite Government 1827–1828 to Goderich Ministry

Alekksandr (talk) 00:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Now done

Alekksandr (talk) 12:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Consecutive terms of the same PM
There seems to be some inconsistency as to how these are treated. Churchill is shown in two consecutive rows for (1) his 1940-45 War Ministry and (2) his 1945 Caretaker Ministry. MacDonald is shown in two consecutive rows for (1) his 1929-31 Labour Government and (2) the First and Second National Ministries. Chamberlain has a single row for 'Fourth National Ministry' and 'Chamberlain War Ministry'. Asquith has a single row for 'First Asquith Ministry' and 'Coalition 1915–16'. I appreciate that this may flow from inconsistent treatment in the 'Ministry/Government' articles, and that it may not be possible to resolve the issue without altering them. I feel that it is necessary to have separate rows when the two terms had different political compositions - eg the change from (1) a Liberal to a Coalition Government in 1915 and (2)a Coalition to a Conservative government in 1945. OTOH, the change from 'Fourth National Ministry' to 'Chamberlain War Ministry' in 1939 was little more than a reshuffle - no party entered government. I suggest that the 'Ministry' and 'Government' pages for those 2 should be combined to show a single National Ministry/Government in office from 1937-40, and that Chamberlain's row on this page should have a single link to it. Likewise, the change from 'First National Government' to 'Second National Government' in November 1931 was little more than a reshuffle - no party entered or left government. I suggest that the 'Ministry' and 'Government' pages for those 2 should be combined to show a single National Ministry/Government in office from August 1931 to June 1935, and that MacDonald's 'National Government' row on this page should have a single link to it. I also suggest that there should be two rows for Asquith, as follows: -

Alekksandr (talk) 14:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Now done.

Alekksandr (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

However, Asquith's second ministry was completely during the reign of George V, so what I did was stick it there. It also looks better. 98.14.187.227 (talk) 14:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Shelburne's political allegiance
The article calls him a 'Whig (Rockinghamite)'. However, states 'The North administration left power in March 1782 following the American Revolution, and a coalition of the Rockingham Whigs and the former Chathamites, now led by the Earl of Shelburne, took its place.'. I therefore propose to change Shelburne's description to 'Whig (Chathamite)'.

Alekksandr (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I noticed that you have quoted a Wiki page as the source for the change. It would be best to identify an external source before altering things here, in case it is an error on the other article. Road Wizard (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

See http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=VSmFSMCirugC&lpg=PA124&dq=Shelburne%20Chathamite&as_brr=3&pg=PA124#v=onepage&q=Shelburne%20Chathamite&f=false 'Shelburne, the chathamite leader' http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=VSmFSMCirugC&lpg=PA124&dq=Shelburne%20Chathamite&as_brr=3&pg=PA124#v=onepage&q=Shelburne%20Chathamite&f=false 'the Chathamite earl of Shelburne' http://books.google.co.uk/books?pg=PA53&dq=Shelburne%20Chathamite&lr&cd=28&id=UI8LAAAAIAAJ&as_brr=3&output=text 'Lord Shelburne heads the Chathamites'. I propose to make the amendment, citing these authorities

Alekksandr (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Protect
I think we can all agree this needs edit protection. Metallurgist (talk) 20:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, semi protected for one week. Garion96 (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

David Cameron - Conservative Prime Minister?
David Cameron is head of the Conservative party, but is he a Conservative PM? Isn't it meant to be a Conservate/Liberal Democrat alliance? 89.242.124.119 (talk) 07:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * He is a Conservative PM who heads a coaltion. -Rrius (talk) 08:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * How about this as a compromise - Cameron is a Conservative, without any doubt, but some indication of the Coalition could be given by describing the Ministry as the Cameron/Clegg Ministry. There is some precedent for naming ministries like this - the Walpole/Townshend Ministry, the Carteret Ministry (in which Carteret was never First Lord of the Treasury), the Newcastle/Pitt Ministry, the Fox-North Coalition, etc. BartBassist (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Changes to the page.
I would revert the page to be listed under century then monarch, as in any practical sense the monarch is of little pertinence. Furthermore, Winston Churchill (first term) and David Cameron should be coloured as 'coalitions' rather than Conservatives (as I believe was done before). This is a more accurate reflection of the government of the time and it would seem to me better to state the government they served (be it a party or coalition) then what party they belonged to. Cheers, Mtaylor848 (talk) 09:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "as in any practical sense the monarch is of little pertinence" - not quite correct there. The Monarch's role has reduced over time. The early monarchs could and did replace Prime Ministers on a whim. From adding sources to the article I found that even George V had input into who became Prime Minister in the 1920s through having to choose between Lord Curzon and Stanley Baldwin.
 * What information will be added for the reader by sorting by century when the years are already in the section headers? Road Wizard (talk) 10:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Aberdeen
Why is Aberdeen described as the 'only Peelite prime minister'? Surely Peel and Gladstone fit into this category? In any case it is a misleading description, since it appears to assume the allegiance of 'Peelite' is equivalent to 'Conservative' or 'Liberal'. Best to delete this, I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.184.8 (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The Peelites were a political faction formed from a split in the Conservative party that brought down the second Peel Ministry. As the faction didn't exist until Peel lost the Premiership it would be wrong to describe him as a "Peelite Prime Minister". The faction only existed for 13 years, allowing it to be represented only by Aberdeen as Prime Minister. In 1859 the faction merged with the Whigs and independents to form the Liberal party. Gladstone didn't become PM until 9 years after the Peelites ceased to exist, so it would be wrong to say he was a Peelite Prime Minister. Road Wizard (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Although you are technically correct, this still smacks of bad history. Yes, Aberdeen was a Peelite, but the faction certainly did exist before 1846 and elements of it continued to exist after 1859. Just because Peelites did not fit into either the Conservative or liberal grouping between 1846 and 1859 does not mean it was only during this period that they were a distinctive faction. It seems to me as though someone has seen that Aberdeen was a 'Peelite' while Peel was a 'Conservative' and Gladstone a 'liberal' and put in the description 'only Peelite prime minister'. This fails to capture the subtlety of British politics in the mid-Victorian period. The fact is, it was possible for Peel to be both a Peelite and a Conservative and, later, for Gladstone to be both a Peelite and a liberal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.184.8 (talk) 12:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have source material that disagrees with our Peelite article then you are welcome to correct it. I am reluctant to change something that, by your admission, is technically correct without provision of a reliable source that puts forward an alternative view point. Road Wizard (talk) 19:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

What I mean to say is that while it is technically correct that Aberdeen was the only Prime Minister who could only be described as a Peelite, he was not the only Peelite Prime Minister. It just seems clumsy is all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.184.8 (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Would it be correct to say "only Peelite-faction Prime Minister"? -Rrius (talk) 19:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather delete it altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.184.8 (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, any changes must be based on source material. If you have a source that supports your comments then please provide it. Road Wizard (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

How about this:

'Gladstone condoned most of the agenda set out in chapter 10 [the liberal programme of 1868]. But hardly any of it was his. It arose from within the whig-Liberal tradition, updated to cope with political needs after 1867. Gladstone was not from that tradition; he was a Peelite.'

Parry, J., 'The rise and fall of liberal government in Victorian Britain' (1993), p.247 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.184.8 (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Can the 'only Peelite prime minister' description now be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.184.8 (talk) 13:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Would anyone object if I deleted 'only Peelite prime minister' from the Aberdeen entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.184.8 (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent edit
I must object to the recent edit by User:Tryde, which removes the constituencies which the PMs represented and the given names of peers. The constituency is significant because it indicates the MP's right to sit in the House of Commons. For example, it is significant that Peel represented Tamworth because of the Tamworth Manifesto, often regarded as the founding document of the Conservative Party, which was (officially, at least) part of Peel's constituency campaign. Listing the constituencies also helps to sort those PMs who became peers during their term (Walpole, Disraeli) or who ceased to be peers (Douglas-Home).

The given name of peers is also often deeply significant. It is highly significant that Chatham was called William Pitt, because he is widely known as Pitt the Elder and because he was Pitt the Younger's father. It is also significant that Newcastle was called Pelham, because he was Henry Pelham's brother, and that Lord John Russell is the same person as the Earl Russell. Salisbury being named (Gascoyne-)Cecil and Derby being named (Smith-)Stanley are significant because these are families of remarkable political lineage. This issue has been discussed before, and it was felt that my solution of rendering the given name of peers in small text, resolved the matter. BartBassist (talk) 09:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The common style in lists of this type is to use only the peerage title. See for instance Home Secretary, Chancellor of the Exchequer and Foreign Secretary. This makes the lists look clean and tidy, if a reader wants further information on any PM, he or she could easily click on the link to that article. The style John Russell Earl Russell is wrong. If we should include a peer's Christian name and surname then there should be a comma after the surname and an ordinal before the peerage title, i. e. John Russell, 1st Earl Russell.
 * As for the constituencies, I was perhaps a bit hasty in removing these. I don't think they're necessary but I wouldn't mind if they were included. However, we should use the system for peers that is used in other lists. Tryde (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for starting the revert. I'll complete the job in the following style:


 * I know this isn't what you meant, but I think that this should fit reasonably well visually with the entries for Commons PMs, with constituencies given in small text like the given names of the peer PMs. This list is unlike the lists for other government posts because it gives much more information. None of the lists for the other great offices of state give other ministerial offices held, or a resumé of key events during a term. Similarly, the peers don't have their given names listed; this doesn't mean that they shouldn't be listed here. BartBassist (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Concerns
So, this list has been featured for a while, so I'm reviewing it in-line with our current standards. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Lead is short. This is one of the most important political positions in the world, so it could use a really significant lead.
 * 2) Not sure why the list has to be split under monarchs. The monarchs could be listed as part of the table.
 * 3) Colour bar next to image seems a different colour to that in the Political party column, and doesn't have a symbol to help those who can't determine colours too well.
 * 4) Links in headings is discouraged per WP:HEAD.
 * 5) Any reason why surnames are bold?
 * 6) Term of Office/Electoral mandates column is confusing. There seems to be a number of rows where there are multiple terms of office.
 * 7) Notes seem also to be crowbarred into the article. I'd consider having a separate column for this.
 * 8) A lot of dependency on ref 8, for example, so where is "Increased tax on spirits; in poor health for much of his time as Prime Minister, the government was led de facto by John Carteret. Died in office." referenced?
 * 9) Redlinked See also... (why?!)
 * 10) The "sometimes listed as..." should be covered in the lead.
 * 11) "2 days" -> "two days" etc.


 * Addressing only the points raised above concerning the layout of the table (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7), how does the following seem? Note that I have altered the alignment so that the notes section no longer relies on the reference.
 * To address the point about multiple rows for multiple terms (6), I have used this format where a PM led two ministries in succession. For instance, Chamberlain led the Fourth National Ministry and the Chamberlain War Ministry; Churchill led the Churchill War Ministry and the Churchill Caretaker Ministry. This format seemed more concise than two full consecutive entries. BartBassist (talk) 20:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * For the notes (7), I have experimented with a notes column and with a double-row format, and the double-row format invariably works much better: it allows much greater width for the notes cell, which therefore takes up much less height.
 * By the way, you are perfectly free to make alterations such as removing red links and changing "2 days" to "two days", both of which are simply errors which need to be corrected. BartBassist (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 9, 10, 11 resolved. The lead is now longer than it was (1), but the lead doesn't need to be too long because it links to the article on the office (Prime Minister of the United Kingdom). BartBassist (talk) 04:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

{| class="wikitable" width=100% ! rowspan="2" colspan="2" width=40|Portrait ! rowspan="2" width=27%|Name (Birth–Death) Constituency/Title ! colspan="2" width=20%|Term of office ! rowspan="2" width=27%|Other ministerial offices held while Prime Minister ! rowspan="2" width=10%|Party of P.M. ! rowspan="2" colspan="2" width=10%|Government ! rowspan="2"|Refs ! colspan="2"|Electoral mandates
 * colspan=10 align="center"|
 * colspan=10 align="center"|

Prime Ministers under Elizabeth II (1952– )

 * rowspan="3" style="background-color: " |
 * rowspan="3"| GordonBrown1234 cropped .jpg
 * rowspan="3" align="center"| Gordon Brown (1951– ) MP for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath
 * 27 June 2007
 * 11 May 2010
 * rowspan="2"| First Lord of the Treasury & Minister for the Civil Service
 * rowspan="2"| Labour
 * rowspan="2" style="background-color: " |
 * rowspan="2"| Brown
 * rowspan="2"|
 * colspan="2" align="center"| —
 * colspan="7"| London car bombs; Glasgow Airport attack; foot-and-mouth outbreak (2007); national floods of 2007; child benefit data misplaced; Donorgate; Northern Rock nationalisation; Treaty of Lisbon; 42 Days detention; 10p Tax rate; Financial crisis of 2007–2010; Parliamentary expenses scandal; arrest of Damian Green; 2009 flu pandemic; national floods of 2009; Chilcot Inquiry.
 * rowspan="3" style="background-color: " |
 * rowspan="3"| [[Image:David Cameron - World Economic Forum Annual Meeting Davos 2010.jpg|60px]]
 * rowspan="3" align="center"| David Cameron (1966– ) MP for Witney
 * 11 May 2010
 * Incumbent
 * rowspan="2"| First Lord of the Treasury & Minister for the Civil Service
 * rowspan="2"| Conservative
 * style="background-color: " |
 * rowspan="2"| Cameron Coalition (Cons.–L.D.)
 * rowspan="2"|
 * colspan="2" align="center"| 2010†
 * style="background-color: " |
 * colspan="7"| †Hung parliament; leading a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats. U.S. Deepwater Horizon BP oil spill; Bloody Sunday apology; June 2010 "emergency" Budget; leak of Afghanistan War Logs; Browne Review proposes rise in student top-up fees for higher education; Spending and Strategic Defence Reviews cut £81 billion in public expenditure, with main intention of reducing the country's budget deficit.
 * }
 * I don't understand the "Ref" column. All it appears to note is when a new PM took office. That isn't a matter that really needs to be referenced for the vast majority of PMs. Where there is some issue for a given PM either kissing hands or leaving office, the date in question can bear a ref. -Rrius (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * colspan="2" align="center"| 2010†
 * style="background-color: " |
 * colspan="7"| †Hung parliament; leading a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats. U.S. Deepwater Horizon BP oil spill; Bloody Sunday apology; June 2010 "emergency" Budget; leak of Afghanistan War Logs; Browne Review proposes rise in student top-up fees for higher education; Spending and Strategic Defence Reviews cut £81 billion in public expenditure, with main intention of reducing the country's budget deficit.
 * }
 * I don't understand the "Ref" column. All it appears to note is when a new PM took office. That isn't a matter that really needs to be referenced for the vast majority of PMs. Where there is some issue for a given PM either kissing hands or leaving office, the date in question can bear a ref. -Rrius (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the "Ref" column. All it appears to note is when a new PM took office. That isn't a matter that really needs to be referenced for the vast majority of PMs. Where there is some issue for a given PM either kissing hands or leaving office, the date in question can bear a ref. -Rrius (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
A quick thank you for making several good changes to the list. There are still a few issues with WP:ACCESS (colours without symbols/text/key) and headings with links (discouraged). Existing colour scheme (e.g. Labour with a red background) is much more accessible than the proposed one (e.g. Brown with a thick red stripe next to him). I'm also not sure why the table heading can't be row- and col-spanned just like the table itself, so instead of Term of office separated by an en-dash from Electoral mandates, why not make the cells in the heading equivalent to the table?

As an aside, I'm aware of sofixit but I review just about every list at WP:FLC, and have started reviewing every single WP:FL so so-fix-it would take me a month of Sundays, and I'd hate to make a mistake. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The reason why I would recommend the stripe rather than the background colour is that the stripe enables use of meta-colours (the officially wiki-designated party colours), which are generally too vivid to use as background colours. The key at the top of the page currently refers to the stripe colours, not the background colours. I have amended the sample above in response to your recommendation for the headings, though I'm not convinced by the result. BartBassist (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Ref column
Will someone please explain the point of the ref column? What exactly are these refs supporting? -Rrius (talk) 04:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Most of the references are to books, listed by surname of author and year of publication; further details of the books are given below the references. The books give general information on the PM's term. A few of the more recent references are to websites; these seem only to reference dates of appointment. BartBassist (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Most of the references were added by me as part of the featured list review linked to in the banner at the top of the page. As part of the review the notes column was removed. After the review finished the notes column was restored by an editor who didn't participate in the discussion.
 * None of the references I added were meant to support the deleted notes column. By coincidence some of the referebces may support the notes still in the article, but I for one haven't put that to the test. Road Wizard (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Why is Thatcher listed as the "First" female prime minister?
Surely if Perceval is the "The only Prime Minister to have been assassinated", Disraeli is the "Only ethnically Jewish Prime Minister" and Lloyd George is the "only Prime Minister whose mother tongue was not English", she should be listed as the "only female prime minister"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.104.29 (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In the same way that Walpole isn't the first male, and the next woman won't be "the other". Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I really don't understand what you are saying. Surely Walpole is the first male PM, but as he is the first of either gender it doesn't require stating. And obviously if and when there is a second female Prime Minister Thatcher would be the "first one" as opposed to the "only one". But unless you are going to call Perceval the first PM to be assassinated and Disraeli the first Jewish PM surely it is consistent to call her the only female PM? Otherwise it makes it sound like there has been a second one, which as of yet there hasn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.104.29 (talk) 22:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)