Talk:List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom/Archive 3

New layout
Hello all. I have just revised the layout of the table to accommodate the new look without the notes. Changes include a new #Notes section so that details such as when a prime minister stopped being an MP or holding a ministerial portfolio are nicely tucked away below. Moreover, I have replaced the number of references in the list to a single source so that there is one for each Prime Minister up to 1997. I have also incorporated the Regency era, thus indicating George III was no longer the nominal ruler of the country. I have made numerous other changes that are rather trivial and exhaustive to go through, but I will be more than happy to explain any of them or any other questions you may wish to ask.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 13:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice work, visually and in terms of formatting I think this is a significant improvement on what was there already. My only minor gripe is the shading on the Premiership and Electoral Mandate boxes which I would remove. I would also suggest incorporating Template:Post-nominals/GBR into the list rather than post nominal letters direct to the holder. ToastButterToast (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I decided on shading the Premiership and Electoral Mandate boxes rather late when I was drafting this, but I figured that if the col-spanned cells were shaded differently, it may have a positive effect on the reader in terms of colour psychology or something similar. Shading the Electoral Mandate boxes with a darker shade of grey de-emphasises the cell, so that readers don't feel drawn to it as they might otherwise. There is separate list for British general elections, after all. The same sort of goes for the Premiership boxes,  although I chose to use party colours as I felt using grey twice in a single column would be rather depressing. I also liked the aesthetical appeal. And with respect to the post-noms, I really doubt they need linking to. Consider mobile users, those who don't use a mouse, who may accidentally tap a post-nominal expecting to land on the prime minister's article. Thanks for the feedback though, much appreciated.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 23:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In relation to the size of portraits and the shorthands for political parties; as it it renders on my monitor whether the Coat of arms is set to 50px or 75px has no effect on the width of the column as at both sizes as it is not the widest element in the column. However, at 50px the coat of arms are virtually unrecognisable, being shrunk to the point where individual features are indistinguishable, this is not helpful and does not contribute to the article in any meaningful way. The abbreviations and shorthands for political parties should also follow common convention (e.g. Lab, Con, Lib, ect.), this is what a reader would expect to find in any other encyclopedia or news coverage of the topic. The article is more accessible and complete for using commonly known and understood shorthands rather than inventing new ones, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Although these are relatively small differences, they are appreciable and do improve the readability of the article. Unless a clear argument can be made to the contrary, they need to stay. ToastButterToast (talk) 22:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You may not experience such with your browser, but on mine the Sovereign column does marginally widen with the 75px COA and, in my humble opinion, having the COA at that size gives the impression of that column looking rather bloated. You can very well make a case for the COA looking "virtually unrecognisable" at 50px, but that is really besides the point. British prime ministers are the subject of this article, not British monarchs. It might not be "helpful" to have them 25 pixels smaller but neither is it actively unhelpful, for it is merely decoration and a matter of personal taste. The very reason why I replaced the portraits of monarchs with their COA in the first place was to make the images in that column less conspicuous, not more. If we were discussing the size of each Prime Minister's COA I would probably agree with what you're saying, but that is not the case. Regarding the abbreviations, I shortened them mainly for a technical reason: with the 2nd National government the cell became quite wide and nowrap failed to work. So for consistency I thought that abbreviating party names to the first letter (and second if need be) would be the most objective course of action to take. Personally I found the abbreviations open to interpretation and potentially contentious (cons. for Conservatives).--Nev&eacute;–selbert 02:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that for older parties such as National Labour or Liberal Unionist the shorthands could be debatable, however in the examples I used (Lab, Con, Lib) the issue isn't contentious at all. Con. over Co. or Lab. over La. such as used here and here. If the issue is a formatting one of the column width being too wide a break tag could be inserted as was used in previous revisions. As for the Coat of arms, of course it is not the main topic interest of the article and largely a matter of personal taste. If for you at 75px it appears "bloated" and at 50px to me it's distractedly small, them maybe it would be best to split the difference and have it sized somewhere inbetween. ToastButterToast (talk) 06:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I think we have a compromise over the abbreviations, but the 85px COA is still a problem for me.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 19:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to be pedantic, Liberal Democrats needs be LD as opposed to Lib.D (which is not a used shorthand); this should not effect column width. 85px Coat of arms was never on the table, so I assume this is typo. Before the major article revision you spearheaded the monarch portraits were at 80px, which was downsized to 50px COA. The 65px I amended it to earlier today was the compromise between these two sizes. ToastButterToast (talk) 19:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree concerning the Lib Dems. The abbreviation should be Lib.D. for consistency with the Liberal Unionist and the Liberal Party abbreviations. In regards to COA, I had meant to type 65px rather than 85px. Frankly, most readers wouldn't give a hoot about the COA size as it is nothing but petty detail.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 20:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think LU works as an abbreviation, LD is used because their complete name is Liberal Democrats; similar to how Sinn Fein is shortened to to SF and Plaid Cymru is shortened to PC. All of these are two words and aren't followed by Party in the name. Liberal Unionist Party would best be left as Lib.U, similar to Lab.N and Lib.N. I'm assuming good faith, but it's clear in this instance that as an author who has contributed heavily to the article you have a bias towards maintaining your own revisions. I would strongly advocate a compromise here between the 80px images that existed before and the 50px images you personally prefer, going straight down the middle with 65px. ToastButterToast (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I am completely dead set against increasing the size of the COA. This is really getting ridiculous now. Why on earth should readers even care about the COA of British monarchs on an article that is meant to be listing British prime ministers? Regarding the abbreviations, I understand what you are saying and I have reverted my changes to the Liberal Unionist abbreviation.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 21:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm glad a consensus could be reached on the abbreviations for political parties, I think that was something that had a generally correct solution which has now been reached. As for the size of the size of COA, it's clear that we aren't going to agree. I think images in the right column should be 75px, and no less than 65px. As you have stated yourself you are deadset against increasing size above 50px at all. It may seem like a trivial or 'ridiculous' issue, but it is an issue nonetheless. It may be better to get input from other contributers with an interest in the page, as we aren't going to resolve this ourselves. ToastButterToast (talk) 23:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Until a permanent solution can be found I have set the COA to 65px. As every edit I have made has been reverted or changed somehow, I believe this to be key example of breaking the Ownership of content policy. As previously mentioned, the images in right column that were 80px were downsized to 50px without achieving a consensus. As you have already made three reverts in the past 24 hours, and one more just outside this window it's skirting the line of the three-revert rule. ToastButterToast (talk) 10:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:STATUSQUO, I have every right to restore the previous revision before you came along. You are being WP:DISRUPTIVE.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 16:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have filed this discussion under WP:THIRDOPINION. Please leave the article alone for the time being.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 16:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I apologise if I am rubbing you the wrong way, but I find it extraordinary that you feel as if I am acting like I own the article. You have made four controversial edits to the article (here, here, here and here) with utterly misleading edit summaries ("", indicating that there was an agreement there when there was anything but).--Nev&eacute;–selbert 17:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I propose we both leave this article until a third opinion arrives. That way we can both cool off and reflect.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 17:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have commented the images out for now. That way neither of us have an advantage. We can sort this out like gentlemen if only we try.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 17:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The subject of this section is 'New layout'. So it's hardly appropriate to argue WP:STATUSQUO for something you have so recently implemented. The purpose of this on the talk page was to discuss the changes you implemented, however the feedback has been strongly resisted. Not every change you made was ideal, so I have attempted to put some minor details back to how it was before the new layout. If there was a status quo / consensus, I would argue it was that. However, every minor point has been laboriously forced to the talk page to effectively wait your review. Whilst AGF, I think this is extremely characteristic of violating the Ownership of content policy, and the five reverts you have done in the last three days is somewhat unconstructive and adversarial in nature ToastButterToast (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not adverse to compromise. I yielded over the abbreviations, didn't I? I just find your insistence that the COA be enlarged as slightly maniacal. For the umpteenth time, this article lists British prime ministers not British sovereigns. If we were discussing List of British monarchs or Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom, I doubt there would even be a dispute at all. But the subject of this article is not the British monarchy, and to argue otherwise would be to undermine the whole argument of parliamentary democracy.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 18:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As previously discussed, the abbreviations was a matter of following common naming conventions instead of inventing new ones. There was nothing to compromise over and it should have been a straight forward edit without me needing to provide numerous sources in the talk page. Calling the concern for COA size maniacal is somewhat insincere, given how you have reverted size changes here, here and here. Bringing parliamentary democracy into this is completely farcical. ToastButterToast (talk) 19:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * (Third opinion - I have no connection with this page, so I'll offer a thought or two...) It is my understanding that one version of the page prefers smaller arms, and the other version prefers slightly larger arms.  I think the larger arms are more attractive to look at individually because the smaller versions lack clarity.  However, I think it is inescapable that this is a page about PMs and the monarch is important, but incidental.  Since a full-screen image of each coat of arms is available simply by clicking on it, it seems to me that the smaller version is more satisfactory, because those readers arriving for information on PMs (as should be expected) will observe that the focus is placed more squarely on the politicians and their portraits, but that a reader possessed with a special urge to broaden their intellectual horizon may freely take a closer look at the crests with a click if they should choose.  Both versions have virtues, but personally I prefer the smaller arms.  Cpaaoi (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I will concede on the issue of COA. However, I maintain that should make a conscientious effort with regards to WP:OWNBEHAVIOR and WP:3RR in the future. ToastButterToast (talk) 20:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Scottish Unionist Party
Working on a rewrite for another article I came across a minor point that may have some relevance here. According to the Wikipedia article for the party, from 1912 to 1965 the Scottish Unionist Party and the Conservative Party of England and Wales were independent political parties, with an affiliated relationship. I did try a Google search to try get a better understand of the relationship but it was somewhat of a niche topic turning up few results. Two UK Prime Ministers came from this party, Bonar Law and Alec Douglas-Home, who represented Glasgow Central and Kinross and Western Perthshire, respectively. Being careful to reference Wikipedia too much, but in the constituency articles both are identified as Unionists rather than Conservatives and on some other lists for political office holders the same distinction is made between parties.

Might it be necessary to add some kind note, or small text in the Party column such as is done with Tory and Whig factions (e.g. Chathamite, Pittite) to include this information? Or is this just some irrelevant rubbish and I've largely misunderstood the nature of this party. ToastButterToast (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think you have misunderstood the nature of the party, the relationship between both is probably similar to the Labour and Co-operative situation. small text in the Party column for Law and Douglas-Home. Kudos for discovering this, I had no idea of this.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 01:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Labour Co-Op is probably a good approximation of the relationship. I watched some BBC coverage of the 1955 election to see how it was handled when the party existed. In the information overlay for individual Scottish constituencies the Unionists are counted as 'CON' and are called Conservatives, but Richard Dimbleby and some other commentators will identify Scottish candidates as Unionists. I don't know if there are any Wikipedia policies explicitly forbidding linking to YouTube, but you can see it in the video here at the 1:10:30 and 1:43:00 marks at the declaration for some Glasgow results. (Also, just to be pedantic I would have the small text as 'Unionist' rather than 'Scot.U.', the Unionist Party and Scottish Unionist Party seem to be two distinct things). ToastButterToast (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice research. But with respect to the Unionist Party, I restored Scot.U. for a couple a reasons. One is that, as all prime ministers belonging to the Conservative and Unionist Party since 1912 are by default Unionist, singling out Douglas-Home and Law just looks odd (an WP:EASTEREGG of sorts). Second is that the Scottish Unionist Party you have linked to was not around during the premierships of either Law or Douglas-Home, so there shouldn't be any confusion (fun fact: the Whig Party was revived in 2014).--Nev&eacute;–selbert 09:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm still of the opinion that Unionist should be used over Scot.U., as it wasn't the Scottish Unionist Party but rather the Scottish Unionist Party. Having said that, the difference is obviously very small so whatever, basically. ToastButterToast (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Regency
In regards to removing the Regency from the Sovereign column and changing the dates of George III:

This is not a "controversial" edit, George III's rule/reign was 1760–1820. Open literally any book on the topic and you will find 1760–1820, this is an unambiguously true fact of history. A regency is a mechanism by which the powers of the Sovereign (in this instance George III, the ruling/reigning monarch) are exercised by another individual or group when the Sovereign is incapable of acting themselves. The Regency or Regent is not the sovereign, so they can not 'rule' as such. George III does not stop being the Sovereign or stop ruling in 1811 when the Regency Act is passed, he continues to both 'rule' or 'reign' until 1820 when he dies. In the context of monarchs, rule/reign have virtually identically meanings; so to state that George III ruled until 1811 is to effectively state that George III stopped being king in 1811. I will put the page back to this version, because the current version is factually incorrect. I would advise against reverting again unless there is a particularly strong reason to do so, with reasons detailed on this talk page. ToastButterToast (talk) 14:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It is absolutely a controversial edit. George III did reign from 1760 but did not rule for the last nine years of his life. Just have a look at these Google Book results if you don't believe me. Furthermore, Lord Liverpool was not appointed by George III but by the Prince of Wales, so to have George III extended into Liverpool's column is completely absurd as the two had virtually nothing much to do with each other. According to this source the Prince Regent assumed the full powers of a sovereign in 1812 (not 1811 intriguingly, so you might be onto something here). To suggest that George III continued to rule while being incapacitated is pretty nonsensical. Prince George was King in all but name during the course of the Regency, and to ignore this based on what is de jure instead of what is de facto does an utter disservice to the article, IMO. The previous revision is most certainly not incorrect and per WP:STATUSQUO I shall be restoring it back until we can come to an arrangement. I must reiterate that the Regency is an extremely important period in British constitutional history and was a huge influence in British politics at the time. That ought to be fully recognised here.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 15:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * To break it down;
 * This is not an occasion to claim status quo, this is something you recently implemented two months ago in this revision that has simply gone unnoticed until now. If there is a status quo it's the three years that omitted the regency from here to here.
 * Exercising the powers of the Sovereign does not equate to actually being Sovereign.
 * That a small number of books use a specific expression does not mean anything without context. That said, I did a search just out of interest, only 6 books use the expression "George III" and "ruled from 1760 to 1811" compared with 82 for "George III" and "ruled from 1760 to 1820". It's not the most important point but on the balance of things, I would give more weight to what the majority of authors consider George III's rule to be.
 * The regency is not the principle matter of article, but it's inclusion is misleading. In the context of the article, the reader is led to the conclusion that George III was only King until 1811, not 1820. To quote Inaccuracy, "on Wikipedia a lack of information is better than misleading or false information". For the aforementioned reasoning the inclusion of the Regency is misleading, and must therefore be left out.
 * This isn't a matter of coming to 'an arrangement', this is more of your unilaterally imposed nonsense that you argue tooth and nail to keep. I'm going to put the article back a version, and suggest you familiarise yourelf with WP:3RR. ToastButterToast (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * For crying out loud, allow me to reiterate:
 * This is a certainly an occasion to claim the status quo, as when this list was kept as featured list on 8 September the Regency was included.
 * Exercising the powers of the Sovereign means being the de facto Sovereign, and that ought to be acknowledged. Furthermore, every Prime Minister before Campbell-Bannerman was a de facto prime minister, yet that doesn't stop them from being included in the list of prime ministers, does it?
 * George III may have officially ruled from 1760 to 1820, but the reality is that he only ruled from 1760 to 1811. What is the de facto situation is the critical factor, otherwise we might as well remove every single Prime Minister before Campbell-Bannerman. Reliable sources indicate that the Regency was Sovereign during the King's incapacity and that ought not be ignored.
 * If the reader is led the conclusion that George III only reigned until 1811, a note can be added to explain the situation. There is still no good reason to exclude the Regency from this list. The inclusion of the Regency is not in any way misleading, that argument is barking mad. The Regency appointed Lord Liverpool and not George III. For us to have George III extended into Liverpool's column does a disservice to our readers and that is what is truly misleading.
 * This not "unilaterally-imposed nonsense", this is fact that is supported by reliable sources. I will try and seek a third opinion on this.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 18:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * To reply:
 * You nominated the list for FL removal, and then withdrew your nomination. What's that got to do with anything?
 * George III was Sovereign both by law and fact, your point is completely misinformed. All a regency does is allow certain functions of the Sovereign to be exercised by another individual, with the Sovereign remaining the Sovereign. In the example you use the Earl of Liverpool was appointed by the Prince Regent 'in the name and on the behalf if His Majesty'.. This is because George III was both 'legally' and 'in fact' the Sovereign.
 * In modern times the convention is that the Sovereign does not 'rule' as such, with virtually all of their powers being exercised by the Prime Minister on their behalf. By the same logic the Prime Minister could occupy the Sovereign column because they are 'de facto' doing what the Sovereign does. This would clearly be preposterous.
 * The inclusion of Regency is misleading for the previously discussed reasons. Instead of calling it barking mad why not try and actually address the point. If one was to look at a list of Sovereigns, and saw 'Regency' from 1811 to 1820 one would assume there was no current Sovereign and some kind of placeholder regency council such as has been the case in other countries. This is factually incorrect at worst and incredibly misleading at best. Just because you know what you meant when you included it, thatF does not mean that everyone else who reads the article will.
 * On the point of pre-Campbell-Bannerman Prime Ministers, this is somewhat of a red herring. But to address it, the vast majority of political historians consider Walpole to Balfour to be Prime Ministers, so on Wikipedia it is accepted that Walpole to Balfour were Prime Ministers. Wikipedia is not here to rewrite history or invent a new understand of the development of the office of Prime Minister. The article acknowledges the academic debate surrounding possible earlier Prime Ministers, but does not include them in the list because it is generally accepted that they were not Prime Ministers in a modern sense. In a similar vain, books will typically not list the Regent or Regency as a Sovereign or King, because it was no such thing. Just to confirm, I checked my book 'Compendium of British Office Holders' by Timothy Venning. If you are able to find this book, it has a chapter dedicated entirely to Sovereigns of England and Great Britain. In it, it does not include the regency, which is actually just like every other book I have read on the topic. The Regency is a footnote in George III's reign/rule, not a rule in itself.
 * You can seek a third opinion if you wish, but this is a matter of actual facts versus your personal interpretation of the facts. ToastButterToast (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * In response:
 * Yes I nominated the list for removal, but after the overhaul of last month it was unanimously agreed that the list should remain featured, in view of my edits. Which included the Regency.
 * George III was sovereign by law and only nominally by fact. His powers were executed by the Prince Regent on his behalf. My point was not misinformed in light of what was actually going on at the time. George III was incapacitated and no longer executed the powers of the Sovereign. Yes Lord Liverpool was appointed in the name of George III, but in actual reality George III had little to do with the appointment. This is important and you just cannot brush this under the table. The fundamental fact remains that George III was incapacitated and thus the Regency assumed the full powers of the Sovereign. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck? Yup.
 * You are right that in modern times the Sovereign doesn't rule, but that is completely besides the point. British sovereignty is officially the responsibility of the Sovereign, and from a constitutional perspective the Prime Minister merely executes political authority at the invitation of the Sovereign or who acts in his/her behalf. For most of the Regency, Liverpool led the Government at the invitation of the Prince Regent. George III's powers were non-existent for all intents and purposes during this period. It is you who is trying to promote the deliberate falsehood that George III was politically relevant during the Regency, i.e. by extending him into Liverpool's column. This is an article of British prime ministers, not monarchs. What matters is what is Sovereign and who appoints the Prime Minister. George III did not appoint Liverpool and that is the crucial factor. The Regency was Sovereign and did it for him.
 * I am trying to address the point, the point that the Regency was politically relevant and infinitely more relevant than George III was during the last nine years of his reign. If one bizarrely assumes that there was no Sovereign from 1811 to 1820, a note can be added to clarify the situation. Problem solved. Why on earth would someone assume there would be a Regency Council? That is most certainly a red herring, for I doubt many people have heard of such a thing, at least not in Britain.
 * It's not really a red herring. The vast majority of historians consider Walpole to have been Prime Minister yes, but not in the de jure sense but in the de facto sense. Find me a historian who honestly believes that Walpole was the first de jure Prime Minister. You won't find one. The first Prime Minister to have been officially referred to as such was Campbell-Bannerman. For all practical purposes every First Lord of the Treasury (save a few) were Prime Minister prior to 1905, but that was never officially the case. They were leading the Government by virtue of their position as First Lord of the Treasury not as Prime Minister. The situation with the Regency is similar. For all intents and purposes the Regency was Sovereign and appointed Liverpool as Prime Minister. Again, a sufficient number of reliable sources consider George III to have ruled in practical terms from 1760 to 1811. Heck, it's even possible that George III never knew of the appointment and Perceval's assassination, given how literally barking mad he was. Your assertion that books will typically not list a Regency as Sovereign is besides the point, as they are probably not listing said sovereigns in relation to the appointment of the First Lord of the Treasury (because why would they?). Moreover, the term "Sovereign" is both a noun and an adjective, and the sources you refer to probably use the term as the former. In this list we are also using it in the latter sense, i.e. what is Sovereign (be it a person or whatever) so that readers know whose/what prerogatives said Prime Minister is using to execute political power.
 * Your remark that this "a matter of actual facts" versus my own interpretation is predictably snide and I honestly don't expect anything better from you. If we are to include pre-1905 prime ministers in this list as if they were part of the continuity, then there is absolutely no good reason at all for us to ignore the Regency. The Regency was important and defined British political discourse, and even society and culture. To act as if George III was relevant post-1811 on a list supposed to be about British prime ministers makes absolutely no sense to me. The Regency ought to be included. Your edits were and are disruptive and I cannot emphasise my dismay. This is a whitewash of history.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 21:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You are plain and simply ignoring facts, so I can't even come up with any meaningful reply to you. I do however take issue with the personal attack towards me, but to go to that level; this is exactly the kind of behaviour I would expect from you as well. You are an incredibly hostile editor who refuses to concede when undoubtedly proven wrong, even when what you are suggesting is ludicrous to any outside observer. You have a history of blocks for disruptive behaviour and have been called up for it before. You would do well to stop your disruptive actions and step away. ToastButterToast (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not "ignoring" facts. Rather I am acknowledging what was actually the situation. I never intended to personally attack you, and if I did I am happy to retract anything that offended you. Likewise, I can certainly describe you as an "hostile editor who refuses to concede when undoubtedly proven wrong, even when what you are suggesting is ludicrous to any outside observer". Please stop bringing up my edit history. I am not the guy trying to be disruptive here.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 00:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Given that this list is scheduled to appear on the Main Page as Today's Featured List in 10 days, I'd like to kindly request that you restore the version that passed an FLRC recently, and table this discussion until after the Main Page appearance, for the sake of our readers who won't like such instability in what we claim to be our best lists. If you don't do this, I'll be forced to schedule another list, which will make me very grouchy indeed because I don't like to have my valuable free time wasted (especially when I'm on vacation and could be doing any number of other things on here instead). As for the dispute itself, I'd tend to go with Neve's in-article sources over your statements here that are sourced to Google Books searches, which may or may not be hitting the most reliable books possible, but in fairness I don't know enough about the subject to say for sure either way. Either way, bold, revert, discuss indicates that you should have taken your concerns here after your edits were reverted, not that you were correct in reverting back to your version and then initiating a discussion. I find that to be disruptive, if I'm honest. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 22:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * On second thought, forget I said anything. I just don't want any part of any drama. Things have been busy enough for me lately, and I just didn't want to be forced into more work. I'll schedule something else for TFL tomorrow, assuming I can find the energy. While I still think re-reverting was a bad move, I just don't care enough to comment any further. Sorry I butted into your business. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 23:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

To roughly cite some sources in the interest of developing the argument:
 * 'Compendium of British Office Holders' by Vimothy Venning (2005) p.78. George III is listed as ruling for 59 years and 3 months, ascending 25 Oct 1760 and ruling until his death 29 Jan 1820. Immediately succeeding him is George IV, uninterrupted by a regent. No regency listed.
 * Encyclopedia Britannica, "The table provides a chronological list of the sovereigns of Britain... George III 1760-1820... George IV 1820-1830"
 * World Monarchies and Dynasties by John Middleton (2005) p.336. On George III, "Longest-ruling monarch of Great Britain and Ireland (r. 1760-1820)", not (r. 1760-1811)
 * A primary source for good measure. To quote an entry in a Edinburgh Gazette shortly after his death, from the Lord Chamberlains Office, "Orders for the Court's going into mourning, on Thursday next, the 3d instant, for our late most gracious Sovereign King George the Third, of blessed memory, viz...". George III was Sovereign at his death.

Including Regency in the Sovereign column is plainly stating that the Regency itself was Sovereign, which is in contrast to the sources. Both secondary and primary sources address George III as sovereign until 1820 which the article had stated he wasn't.

I don't deny that many authors have considered George III 'unfit to rule', or stated that the Regent 'ruled on his behalf'. However, as previously stated George III remained Sovereign for this period. This is part of the reason for the change of the subheading from 'Rule' to 'Reign'. It is a universally accepted fact that George III reigned until 1820. It might generally be correct to state that George III 'actively ruled' until 1811, and the regent ruled after. What is not correct is to state that George III was Sovereign 1760-1811 which the column inadvertently states to be the case, or that the Regency was Sovereign itself. Again, this is in contrast to the sources.

If the header was 'Persons exercising the power of the Sovereign' it may be correct to include Regency, but this is not the case and such a header would be somewhat of an inconvenient mouthful that simply raised more questions. Such as the issue of other people who exercised Sovereign powers.

I absolutely reject the argument of. Regency should not appear in the Sovereign column by itself, but instead be acknowledged in the notes section. I understand the frustration, but wholeheartedly believe it is better not to have the article in the Main Page than have it on the Main Page with errors.

ToastButterToast (talk) 23:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not going to repeat myself, obviously we disagree and will always disagree. George III was sovereign (noun) and so was the Regency (adjective). The Regency acted on behalf of the Sovereign and was effectively the sovereign authority. I am not sure what you are trying to prove with these sources. Yes he reigned until his death, that is not what is being disputed here. He did not execute sovereign power until his death, that is beyond dispute. We can change the column from "Sovereign" to "Appointed by", if that's a suitable compromise (which I doubt you'll agree to, sadly). Relegating the significance of the Regency to the Notes section is certainly not a suitable compromise. Let's just wait for the third opinion.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 00:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a completely fallacious point. What the argument does is rely on your invented distinction between 'The Sovereign' (noun) and being sovereign (adjective) in regards to monarchs. Even if you were to consider the Regent as adjective sovereign (which as I've pointed out, it wasn't), it would be completely illogical to list it in the column for noun Sovereigns. By the logic you have presented, it would also be acceptable to have Parliament in this column because it is considered adjective sovereign.
 * What the sources were "trying to prove" is that the regency is not considered sovereign, and is not present in a list of sovereigns (this is effectively what the column in the article is). Numerous reliable secondary sources and a primary source demonstrating this fact. If you are unable accept this then that's your problem.
 * Appointed by would not be an accurate solution, as for most of it's history Prime Minister was not a position that a politician could 'appointed to'. The 'Prime Minister' may have been appointed as a commissioner for the office of the Treasurer or granted the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, but was not appointed to be Prime Minister as such. When referring to early Prime Ministers the term is typically used to describe a minister who is generally regarded as the most powerful among other ministers. The practice of a Prime Minister being appointed by the Monarch is a modern invention, such as is demonstrated here. ToastButterToast (talk) 01:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not being fallacious at all, the fact remains that George III did not fully execute the duties of a Sovereign for the last nine years of his life. The Regency was de facto Sovereign just as every First Lord of the Treasury between 1721 and 1905 was de facto Prime Minister. There is indeed a distinction between the noun and adjective definition of the term "sovereign". For all practical purposes George III was not sovereign after 1811. That was the de facto situation. And again, this is a list of Prime Ministers, not monarchs. George III is completely irrelevant with respect to Liverpool in particular, there is no good reason at all for us to extend him into Liverpool's column. Parliament is not Head of State, that is just another red herring you have conjured up. "Numerous reliable secondary sources" have taken the view that the Regency was de facto sovereign.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 17:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

3O Response: A fairly minor point it seems, but one made difficult by the oddity if the situation and the inherently unclear nature of what it means for a British monarch to reign or rule, whether sovereign always equates to monarch and whether a regent reigns herself. These are the sorts of distinctions that courts can take years to thrash out, not issues that Wikipedia editors have any hope of resolving, nor should we. All we should be doing is noting what reliable sources say.

It seems clear from the sources that GRIII was king from 1760-1820, and I don't see anyone disputing this, and the majority of reliable sources accept that he reigned/was sovereign for that period. I am not seeing a lot presented that I consider RS that actually contradicts that. I have to say I find most of the Google Books results unsatisfactory. Most of the books are on unrelated topics, such as medicine or Chinese history, and only mention the issue in passing, so are hardly authoritative. Several of them actually say that GRIII was only king until 1811, which I think we all agree is incorrect, rendering those sources non-RS. Other returns are book reviews by anomymous people, not actual published statements. The only two sources that appear at all authoritative are "The Revolutionary War Era" and "The real George Washington". Both are primarily concerned with the US revolutionary war, rather than GRIII himself, so are not the best sources. The first does say that GRIII reigned from 1760-1811. The second makes the same claim, but only in a picture caption, so is a long way down the reliability chain. On the other hand, we have several publications specifically discussing English monarchs that state that the reign ended in 1820.

So my opinion is that the concept that the reign of GRIII ended in 1811 is WP:FRINGE. It might warrant discussion in the biographies of GRIII and GRIV or the Regent article, keeping in mind WP:DUE. This article is not the appropriate place to try to make fine dustinctions based on fringe interpretations. This is a list, and the reigning monarch is a sidebar of the list, with a hotlink to the biography of the named monarch. We should be presenting the majority view in the reigns of these monarchs, and readers who are interested can read the biographies for other information. The majority view seems claerly that GRIII reigned/was sovereign until 1820, that is what I believe should be on this list.

If other editors agree, I could understand having an asterisk with an endnote stating that there was a regent from 1811, similar to what we have for some of the Prime Ministers, eg Spencer Percival's assassination. I don't think that is strictly necessary, but if there are no objections it seems like a reasonable compromise that won't affect the quality of this list.Mark Marathon (talk) 02:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC) Mark Marathon (talk) 02:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As the person who requested the third opinion what do you make of this? I would be happy to go with this third opinion, and take steps to implement the explanatory footnote solution. ToastButterToast (talk) 02:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I would just like to add that I read the reference "Royals of England". While it does indeed say that GRIV reigned as Prince Regent 1811-1820, it also says that GRIII reigned as King of Great Britain, 1760-1820. So it supports both positions simultaneously and is no help to me in resolving this.Mark Marathon (talk) 02:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I am willing to concede on the point of George III's service as Sovereign. However, I still see no good reason to relegate the Regency to a footnote.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 17:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Obviously I do not have access to said source, but the use of reign when referring to the Prince Regent is quite intriguing. I have done some further research of my own, and the only source I can find which refers to the regency or regent as sovereign is an old 1868 book 'The public life of queen Victoria' which in passing calls the position the "Sovereign Regent or Regnant", but I wouldn't take this as a reliable source as it appears to be the only instance of it, and the regency isn't particularly related to the topic of the book; therefore the author probably isn't an expert in the area. All other sources I can find refer to George III as sovereign up until 1820. Without question, it is a hell of a quagmire trying to delineate the relationship between things such as 'the body of the sovereign,' sovereign powers and sovereignty, and where concepts such as the Crown, Monarchy, Executive authority, and Statehood fit into this. However, virtually all sources I have seen do not identify the Regent as sovereign, but merely exercising sovereign powers, which is not unusual in a constitutional monarchy. ToastButterToast (talk) 05:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I did find a few sources indicating the reign of the prince regent. For example, a parliamentary debate from 1816 discussing whether more troops were needed for riot control than in 1792: "...he defied any man to lay his hand upon his heart, and say that any alteration had taken place in the habits if the people which could render the reign of the Prince Regent different from that of George 3rd." The BBC has a page for a show hosted by Lucy Worsley referring to "the start of his reign as regent". Worsley is a credible historian and the Beeb a RS in its own right. But these are, as noted, a distinct minority among the hundreds of sources stating that the reign of GRIII ended in 1820. You are right, these issues are incredibly subtle and complex. It's the sort of thing that only gets definitively answered by a court following some sort of constitutional crisis. Certainly not something that Wikipedia editors can hope to resolve. We need to just report what the reliable sources say, giving due weight to the various opinions and usages. There are sources that say that the Prince Regent was reigning during his term, but they are a distinct minority compared to the sources saying that GRIII reigned until 1820. This subject is tangential to this article and I really think we should just present the consensus view here and leave those interested in the minutiae of the Succession to read about other views in linked articles. Mark Marathon (talk) 07:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen them, but I don't even think the sources are a minority viewpoint, but rather demonstrate that the period of a regency may correctly be called a reign. Which is fine, it's not impossible to concurrently have a reigning Sovereign and Regent, they are after all separate entities— the Office of Regent as created by the 1811 Act, and the Sovereign who just sort of exists 'by the Grace of God' (possibly maybe???). Anyway, as you say this is all tangential to the article. Virtually all sources list George III as Sovereign/Monarch/King for the period for 1760-1820, so it's not our place on Wikipedia to try and overturn academic consensus. ToastButterToast (talk) 08:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I dont get what the problem is if it says regency and if it really is a problem why are any of the other lists of british cabinet members where it does have the regency not changed so either change them all or change none so they all match.AmYisroelChai (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not disputing the fact that George III was Sovereign, he undoubtedly was. I just cannot see any reason for George III to be extended into Liverpool's column. That is literally the red line for me. George III was officially incapacitated during Liverpool's first nine years in power and is therefore irrelevant in regards to his column. I am happy to compromise on the following though: Any thoughts? Thank-you.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 17:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I will concede on the point of the reign/rule/whatever of George III, i.e. (1760–1820) over (1760–1811)
 * A note can be added in the George III column if need be.
 * Although I still strongly believe we should keep the Regency cell, we can italicise it and add a note explaining that George III was still officially Sovereign.
 * sounds good to be as long as it matches the other cabinet listsAmYisroelChai (talk) 17:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This is an absolutely mad commitment to your fringe ideas. Numerous good reliable sources are provided to show why the Regency should be excluded and you come back and with no sources and claiming that it should be included just because you strongly believe so. It doesn't matter what your red lines are, because you are not an authoritative reliable source on the subject, it's not up to make this up.
 * You know no boundaries when it comes to incivility, do you? This is not a goddamn fringe idea. Numerous reliable sources attest that the Regency was de facto sovereign for the last nine years of his life, just as numerous reliable sources claim that every First Lord of the Treasury (minus a few) before Campbell-Bannerman was de facto Prime Minister. It is you that is unwilling to compromise here with your blinkered and uncompromising attitude. What matters here is fact. This is not a list of British monarchs. George III was irrelevant after 1811 with respect to the continuity of British prime ministers. Relegating the Regency to a footnote is what is truly and absolutely mad and completely unacceptable.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 17:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The only reason Regency is on lists of other Cabinet members is because Neve–selbert put it there, it doesn't make it anymore factually correct. ToastButterToast (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * So are we just going to pretend the Regency was irrelevant when it concerned the appointment of Liverpool? Are we going to seriously pretend that George III warrants being extended into Liverpool's column simply because of the rule of thumb that is the divine right of kings? Good lord.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 17:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * According to volume 30 of Cobbett's Political Register, "the Prince Regent governed the country". In no way is this WP:OR or WP:FRINGE.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 17:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Where are your sources that state, using those exact Latin phrases, that the Regent was 'de facto' Sovereign and George III was 'de jure' Sovereign? I would much like to read them and prove to myself this isn't something you have completely fabricated. As for the source you have just posted, to govern does not mean to be sovereign, that is a false equivalence. ToastButterToast (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "In 1811, when the Prince Regent had indeed become the de facto monarch"
 * "became de facto monarch as Prince Regent in 1811"
 * "and the Prince of Wales was de facto Regent."
 * "The Prince had become de facto sovereign on February 5, 1811,"
 * "George III was actually king from 1760-1820, However, his son was made regent and de facto sovereign in 1811."
 * "George III's death that year finally put Prince Regent George, long Britain's de facto sovereign, in a position to become king."
 * "on the accession of George IV, a rule was brought in abolishing the fees, on the ground that George IV had been de facto sovereign as Prince Regent for so long."
 * All three seven sources qualify WP:RS. The third source is specifically about the Regency.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 18:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no problem if its removed but only as long as its removed from all the other cabinet list because keeping it on some and not the others is confusing.AmYisroelChai (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * But there is absolutely no good reason to remove it. Innumerable reliable sources attest that Regency was de facto sovereign. This article is not a list of British monarchs but of Prime Ministers (and their relation to the Crown). George III was politically irrelevant during the Regency. This isn't rocket science.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 18:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing sources. It does not change the fact that Regency should be omitted from the Sovereign column in it's own right. A huge number of sources do not consider the Regent Sovereign, and even when authors consider the Regent to be 'de facto' sovereign it is not equivalent to actually being Sovereign. I could contest the point about the relevancy of George III's image and power, but I don't think you will ever be convinced of anything I say., you requested a third opinion earlier, was gracious enough to contribute, going what I consider to be above and beyond the call of duty in his research and balanced analysis. You now are effectively choosing not to accept the suggestions presented. Editors are perfectly within their rights to do this as third opinions are non-binding. However, it may now be necessary to seek another form of dispute resolution. ToastButterToast (talk) 19:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I continue to see absolutely no reason for the Regency to be omitted from the Sovereign column. Such logic that being de facto Sovereign is "not equivalent to actually being Sovereign" can easily be applied to the British prime ministers before 1905, hence the inconsistency in your reasoning. To contend that George III was politically relevant during the Regency is certainly WP:OR. Moreover, Mark did not explicitly endorse removing the cell although he did accept the argument that George III's reign did not end in 1811. I am not "effectively choosing to not accept such suggestions". That is complete poppycock. All I am asking is for the Regency cell to return. We can certainly make tweaks and adjustments to it, but removing it altogether is no road to resolution.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 19:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have any new information to add at this point, the fact that this discussion is still ongoing is evidence that the third opinion method of dispute resolution has not been effective. Moving on to another form for dispute resolution would be beneficial in bringing an end to this. ToastButterToast (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It really depends on which form of dispute resolution you have in mind. I am not excited about another to and fro to be honest, we have both made our views clear on the matter. I remain open to conceding on virtually anything apart from the exclusion of the Regency cell.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 20:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The exclusion of Regency from appearing in the Sovereign column by it's own right was the whole point of the last 6000+ words, if you don't concede on that then you aren't conceding. The column in discussion shouldn't be used to push a narrow interpretation of sovereign power, but rather represent the current Sovereign/ King/ Monarch/ Crown/ Head of State in a given period. I'm using all five of these terms because for the purposes of this list, which is not based on the topic of Sovereign or Monarchical power, they are synonymous. Any one of them could be used to head the column, and before 2 September 2017 when you implemented a new design the column header was Monarch and Reign. This discussion, and the changes in the aforementioned revision are putting forward a minority interpretation, which does not have the backing of the majority of sources, and may possibly be violating the WP:CCPOL principles. I have referred to numerous reliable sources, such as Encyclopedia Britannia and the Compendium of British Office Holders by Timothy Venning which specifically list Sovereigns (as opposed to using any other synonyms) that omit the Regency from their lists. Obviously, when one expands to include synonymous terms such as King or Monarch, lists almost universally omit the Regency: example.
 * Quite frankly, this is now absurd. I have provided numerous reasoned arguments, backed up by reliable sources. Yet, everything put forward is simply met by contrarian nonsense. Either you, need to concede the argument or another form of dispute resolution needs to happen. ToastButterToast (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * A narrow interpretation of sovereign power? Are you being serious? The Regency was de facto sovereign. That is fact. Many reliable sources back this interpretation up, sources that you have voluntarily chosen to ignore. WP:CCPOL is not being violated here. I understand you may be a royalist, but the fact of the matter remains that this is a list of British prime ministers and the monarchy is not of primary importance here. George III was politically irrelevant for the last nine years of his life. It is truly preposterous to extend him into Liverpool's column, that is what is completely absurd. Again, these sources you name having listed British sovereigns are not listing them in relation to British prime ministers. The Prince Regent was responsible for the appointment of Liverpool, not George III. I have indeed provided reasoned arguments that have been backed up by reliable sources. I am certainly not being contrarian. And I am definitely not going to concede to your asinine argument that George III should be extended into Liverpool's column.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 22:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Where do you want go with this? How do you want to resolve this dispute? ToastButterToast (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * We could start by adding a footnote to the header. You raised an interesting point above: Your caveat that it would be "somewhat of an inconvenient mouthful" can be resolved by the use of a footnote. How it would raise more questions is doubtful, as in 1812 the limits on the Prince Regent's royal prerogative powers were officially lifted and recognised by law, unlike "other people" who exercised such powers (without statute).--Nev&eacute;–selbert 23:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * In principle, would you be for or against the idea of having a moderated discussion on Dispute resolution noticeboard? It may be better to restate our points, in a concise manner, as to why said content should or should not be included, with the presence of a moderator to guide the process. ToastButterToast (talk) 23:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I would not favour going to DRN. I have been there before and it's a huge headache that leads to nowhere if neither party compromises. It's basically court in Wikipedia terms, and it will mean having to regurgitate everything we have said up until now. I would rather we avoid having to go there.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 23:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Footnote in header is not an adequate solution. I said that as a point in passing, rather than a suggestion as to what can be done to resolve this. This whole argument about 'de facto' vs 'de jure' Sovereigns is conflated and unhelpful. One must simply list Sovereigns as they are in the sources, it's not up to us to interpret what authors mean when they distinguish between 'de facto Sovereign' or describe transfers of Sovereign powers. Truth of the matter is that numerous reliable sources state, when listing British Sovereigns, that George III reigned and was the Sovereign from 1760 to 1820, followed by George IV who reigned and was Sovereign from 1820 to 1830. It's very simple, we do what the sources say, not do our own WP:OR. ToastButterToast (talk) 23:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There are no sources that assert George III's political relevance during the Regency. The truth of the matter is that Liverpool did not have a working relationship with George III but with the Prince Regent. To extend him into Liverpool's column is simply irresponsible. The transfer of sovereign powers were made official and recognised in law by February 1812. He acted as Sovereign for all practical and political purposes throughout Liverpool's tenure. If someone wants a list of British monarchs, this is obviously not the article for them. The Regency chose Liverpool in the aftermath of the Perceval assassination, which George III likely had no idea about. Hence the Regency was politically relevant and infinitely more so than George III. I have repeatedly provided sources, and there is hardly much more to say.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 00:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

How about just putting a 'footnote' next to George III, explaining that the future George IV was regent from February 1811 to the end of G3's reign. After all, the monarch appoints the prime minister & if the monarch isn't able to do so, the regent (i.e. acting monarch) does the appointing. GoodDay (talk) 00:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * So the 3O didn't work. Fair enough it's not meant to be binding. I would like to note that further dispute resolution isn't actually mandatory. There is a status quo version that existed for several years. Only one editor supports making this change. So it could simply reamain as it is until there is consensus for a change. So Kudis to ToastButterToast for making the effort to resolve this. My personal opinion hasn't changed. I am not seeing any reason whatsoever to include the Regency in this article. I will note once again that it is tangential to the topic of this article. The monarchs as a whole are fairly tangential. The regent being de facto sovereign or excercising the powers of the monarch or acts in the place of the sovereign seems irrelevant.


 * We all seem to now agree the regent was never the sovereign/monarch. It would seem to open a can of worms if we include the regent because he was de facto sovereign or excercised the powers of the monarch or ruled in place of the sovereign. Large numbers of people have been de facto sovereign or excercised the powers of the monarch or ruled in place of the sovereign at various times and places. Just try putting those terms into Google along with "governors general" or "viceroy" to see what I mean. For an even messier can of worms, try looking at the concept of "sovereign for the time being", which British law seems to say grants the status of de facto ruler to the head of virtually any colonial government. I just want to stress yet again, we are playing around with subtle legal and constitutional issues that we have no hope of resolving and shouldn't be trying to resolve. The reliable sources say that hundreds of people under British law have exercised the powers of the monarch, ruled/governed in place of the monarch and been de facto ruler. Are we proposing to include them all in this and every other article? That is not a rhetorical question, it's one that I think needs to be answered. The Prince Regent is not the only person who is stated to have been de facto ruler of British territories or excercised the powers of the British crown. If we are not going to include them all, then why include one? The column in question refers to the sovereign, not to all those who exercised power on their behalf or who were de facto rulers.


 * If we are going to resolve this, I think we need to reach some sort of consensus on why this column is in this list. To me, the column is important because it provides a relatable historical context. Most readers, like myself, won't have a clue who Frederick North is, for example. Similarly, the years themselves aren't all that relatable for people who aren't history buffs. But when I see hew was PM during the reign of GRIII that gives me immediate context for the times he operated in: the social mores, the trechnology, the international mileu. There's a reason we refer to eras by the monarchs rather than years, and its beacause everyone understands intuitively ( if not accurately) what a Georgian gentleman is, for example. But if you said "1769 gentleman" we'd need to stop and try to think of someone famous from that time period. So to me that's the reason why the monarch column is important. It's not because of the personal relationship between the monarch and the PM. Knowing the name of the monarch doesn't tell me that. It's the instantaneous, relatable historical context it provides. And I don't see how the fact that one George acted on behalf of another for a decade makes the column better for that purpose. It seems to just make it less readable. Neve-selbert and ToastButterToast could you perhaps tell us what you think the main purpose of this column is, and why you think adding the regency information makes it more/less useful for that purpose. Mark Marathon (talk) 00:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've implemented a footnote next to George III's entry, concerning the regency. It doesn't disrupt the flow of the article, so it should end the dispute here. GoodDay (talk) 01:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with the footnote solution. Awaiting 's response. ToastButterToast (talk) 01:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Can we hotlink "regent" in the footnote?Mark Marathon (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to correct something I said earlier as you brought it up in your discussion; the status quo for leaving out regency is not three years long as I previously stated. It's actually closer to nine years. Monarchs got added in this October 2008 revision, a few weeks before the November 2008 discussion on it's featured list status. Thanks, ToastButterToast (talk) 07:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see the footnote solution as adequate, sorry. George III just shouldn't be extended into Liverpool's column, that remains my position.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 14:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have made my points, the third opinion has made his points, and  has come forward to put forward their opinion and solution; the general consensus here is that the Regency does not belong in the column. The clear consensus of the past nine years is that Regency does not belong in this column. I really don't know what else to say at this point. ToastButterToast (talk) 14:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Could we compromise with this diff? Please, I am trying to negotiate here.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 14:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This way George III does extend into Liverpool's column but so does the Regency. This is the best compromise.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 14:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * George III's reign ended on 29 January 1820, while Liverpool was prime minister. That's why G3 is extended into Liverpool's column. GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * A footnote is literally the worst option. Why not settle for a compromise? Is this diff really that bad? I am trying here.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 14:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, a footnote is the best compromise. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * A footnote is not a compromise.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 14:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What if we linked 1820 in (1760–1820) to Regency era? I might just be able to concede as much.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 14:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Linking a nine-year period into one year, would appear strange. I'll let the other participants weigh in. GoodDay (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Is this diff OK? I have rephrased and moved the footnote, adding a source in the process. I am not too happy about this but I can live with this.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 15:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * With the Regency, it shouldn't appear strange at all linked into 1820. The Regency culminated with George III's death that year, so this would be the perfect compromise. Acknowledging the Regency but hiding it. I am willing to back down on this if we can at least link the Regency in the column.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 15:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sceptical readers will follow a small ambiguous hotlink like that, but whatever, it doesn't interrupt the flow of the article and isn't controversial for the reasons previously discussed. To address a point made earlier, the footnote is a compromise. It's the compromise between completely excluding the regency as was the case before, and the total inclusion that you desired. In my opinion, and this is completely just opinion, the footnote in column solution is actually more inclusive of the regency and more helpful to the reader. But, if the 1820 hotlink will end this then I'm all in favour of that. ToastButterToast (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * OK then, . Thanks for accepting the hotlink, in which case I think we can safely put this dispute to bed.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 15:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * IMHO, my version was best. But, I'll let the others decide. In the meantime, I tweaked the wording of your version, as regents don't reign. GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Thanks for intervening, it's been a while since we interacted properly with each other, long time no see indeed {.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 15:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No prob & yep, it's been quite a while :) GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

terms in office
just wondering how when two list two consecutive terms for example Margret thatcher is listed as 4 may 1979 - 10 jun 1983 ,10 jun 1983 - 12 jun 1987, 12 jun 1987 - 28 November 1990 while tony blair is listed as 2 may 1997 - 27 jun 2007 95.145.155.227 (talk) 09:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No real justification for the split, the sources the article cite do not make this split (i.e. Gov.uk and BBC). It needs to be removed in my opinion. ToastButterToast (talk) 09:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thatcher has three articles for each ministry she formed, hence the split in her case, whereas Blair only has one article for his three ministries, hence the lack of a split in his case. Regarding the sources cited in the article, of course they don't split her term. She remained Prime Minister continuously throughout the 1980s. She did not lead the same ministry however, hence the split. Note that the fact that Blair led three consecutive ministries is indicated by the use of (I–III) in the Ministry column.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 21:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand your point, Thatcher and Blair both had continuous terms of office. The split is basically an arbitrary one based one whether an article exists for the ministry or not. Anyway, just for comparison I tried checking out some other List of Prime Ministers for other countries, of those that are featured list quality;
 * List of Prime Ministers of Canada did not split terms apart from once in 1917, which I may actually ask about on the talk page.
 * List of Prime Ministers of Luxembourg definitively does split terms.
 * List of Prime Ministers of Sri Lanka doesn't, but their Prime Ministers aren't winning multiple consecutive elections so it doesn't have the chance to.
 * List of Prime Ministers of Pakistan doesn't, but again the Prime Ministers aren't winning multiple consecutive elections.
 * So the search wasn't especially helpful. As for List of Prime Ministers that aren't FL some do split term of office and some don't, there's 100+ of these articles. This isn't a particularly urgent issue so it seems to me like we can leave this as a bit of an open discussion and see if any other editors would be interested in coming along and giving their perspective. ToastButterToast (talk) 00:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * just adding to that I’ve looked in the history and it only seems to have happened under the revised format as the only split terms are when the prime minister resigned and was immediately reappointed like in Ramsey McDonald in 1931 and Churchill in 1945 or the political parties in government change like David Cameron in 2015 while thatcher has one term95.145.155.227 (talk) 10:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Melbourne tendered his resignation in 1839, yet we do not split his term. I find it unlikely that there is a set rule here.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 19:35, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Update: I have split Devonshire's term, the epoch being the dismissal of Pitt the Elder.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 20:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * merged all consecutive terms except Henry Pelham as there is a 2 day gap between them and Ramsay MacDonald who resigned and reappointed as national labor 95.145.155.227 (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, terms should remain split by ministry. That being said, I will consider an alternative solution.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 05:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have viewed your edits, and although I appreciate the time they must have taken, the layout looked pretty appalling. Bear in mind that this article is a featured list, and that splitting terms does help readers understand when a new ministry was formed and dissolved by each Prime Minister. If need be, we can split the Blair terms as well. But removing the split terms just degrades the quality of the list, in my view.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 05:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I take the position that the terms of office should remain whole (e.g. Cameron 2010–2016, May 2016–Incumbent ), although the ministries are interesting there is a risk that they can lead the direction of the article too much and take over. After all, this is 'List of Prime Ministers' and not 'List of Prime Ministers by ministry' or 'List of ministries by Prime Minister'. I'm not trying to suggest that readers won't be capable of understanding the split, but it may be confusing to those who aren't entirely familiar with British politics. To me it suggests that Prime Ministers terms are somewhat 'Presidential' in nature, which is not the case at all (PM's terms are a lot more fluid, many don't even last the length of a full Parliament). At the same time though, Prime Ministers are unique among government ministers, so maybe extra consideration is needed. It could be beneficial trying to find sources that list PMs and also split by ministries.
 * On the point of the earlier edits (and this is just my two cents), editing the list is a bit of ball-ache because of all the rowspan elements. I would definitely propose trying to get at least a rough consensus here before more edits, otherwise one could spend good time carefully removing split terms only for it to be reverted, or rush it and have the changes reverted because it simply looked bad. ToastButterToast (talk) 08:40, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * just want to point out that blair is not the only one who will need splitting for a split by ministry rule as H.H Asquith's 1st and 2nd ministry his 3rd is already split, David Lloyd George, clement Attlee, Harold macmillan, Harold Wilson both times in office, and Tony Blair all have consecutive ministry's with out a split there is also a list of British governments that seems a beter place to list when ministr

s where in office https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_governments 95.145.155.227 (talk) 11:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, but the list of British governments does not provide the exact dates for the formation and dissolution of each ministry, whereas this list does and should. I understand what you are saying though, and for the sake of consistency and clarity I have split the terms of Lloyd George, et al.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 19:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * i have asked about exact dates in the list of British governments in the take page personally i feel that this list is for prime ministers only and shroud list continues terms with out a split 95.145.155.227 (talk) 18:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * also this on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Records_of_Prime_Ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom seams to suggest terms shroud not be split "A Prime Minister's "term" is traditionally regarded as the period between their appointment and resignation, dismissal (or death, in the case of those who die in office), with the number of general elections taking place in the intervening period making no difference." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.155.227 (talk) 18:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. Prime ministers form ministries at the behest of the monarch, and since the end of World War II it has become customary for a Prime Minister to form a new ministry upon their re-election. Since Macmillan, a new term has meant a new ministry. Splitting the dates is useful in my view as, not only does it help a great deal aesthetically in formatting the list, it won't mislead readers into believing that some Prime Ministers (e.g. Thatcher) had a continuous term in office (for eleven years). Do bear in mind that the header is named "Term of office", and according to most sources Thatcher had three terms.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 20:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it would be beneficial to do an RfC on this one, this conversion seems to be going in loops with no consensus in sight. ToastButterToast (talk) 06:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

RfC about the splitting the Term of office for Prime Ministers
Should the 'Term of office' for Prime Ministers be presented as one continuous term, or split on the basis of a new ministry/general election?

Options:
 * Support splitting Term of office.— (e.g. Term for Thatcher is presented as 1979–1983, 1983–1987, 1987–1990)
 * Oppose splitting Term of office.— (e.g. Term for Thatcher is presented as 1979–1990)

–ToastButterToast (talk) 07:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments

 * Oppose. It's virtually unanimous among sources to list British Prime Ministers as serving one continuous term and don't split based on ministries. There is no real justification for the split here based on ministries when it is not actually the main topic of the article. Furthermore, splitting the Term of office for a Prime Minister can mislead readers about the nature of Britain's 'informal' Parliamentary system, suggesting that Prime Ministers terms are equivocal to the rigid nature of Presidential terms when that is not the case. ToastButterToast (talk) 07:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If there is no split made when the Prime Minister actually resigned and then was reappointed (e.g. Melbourne in May 1839 and Gladstone in March 1873) then no split should be made when the Prime Minister did not resign. Even the word "term" is not really appropriate as it implies a fixed duration of office which simply does not exist. Opera hat (talk) 11:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There’s no real reason to split up the dates except when they resigned and reappointed immediately like Ramsay Macdonald in 193195.145.155.227 (talk) 16:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * All right, I can see where this is going. Just a quick proposition though, can we keep the split terms in regards to ministries that involved the departure of namesake ministers, e.g. the Walpole–Townshend ministry? Townshend's departure from the Government in 1730 left Walpole as the undisputed leader of the ministry, an epoch during his premiership that ought to be discerned. Similarly, the split for Asquith should remain, as his term is divided by many RS pre-coalition and post-coalition, and for Lloyd George whose term is similarly divided. The Labour Party was not a member of the Lloyd George ministry after the war, and for that reason I believe that his term should remain split. MacDonald should also remain split per the noticable difference in the constitution of his ministry. The other splits can be removed, if that is what's desired.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 19:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that exceptions should be made. The sources don't split terms like this (Gov.uk and BBC). ToastButterToast (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I realise that in most cases exceptions shouldn't be made, but in a few cases I think we should have some leeway, e.g. with Walpole.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 00:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)→
 * if there’s a source that lists a split then yes but the sources listed don’t split they just have when pm’s where appointment to there resignations with no split 95.145.155.227 (talk) 07:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose why should this page be any differant than for example US Presidents which isn't split by terms.AmYisroelChai (talk) 15:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Churchill as Leader of the House of Commons
In the current version of the article Winston Churchill is listed as holding the position of Leader of the House of Commons from 1940 to 1942. I think this might be an error, as British Political Facts 1900-1994 by Butler & Butler on page 65, and Compendium of British Office Holders by Venning on page 323 list the holder for that period as Clement Attlee. Unless there are sources stating the contrary, I will remove this information shortly, as well as in the corresponding entry on the article Leader of the House of Commons. ToastButterToast (talk) 06:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you're probably right - this Hansard source seems pretty conclusive. Winston Churchill and Churchill war ministry should also be rectified.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 09:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I'd be cautious before rushing. From recollection (as I don't have the books to hand), a lot of the sources confirm Churchill formally took the post (after soundings made it clear that having Chamberlain do it would be unacceptable) but let Attlee deputise on the day to day tasks. Up until 1942 it was standard for the PM of the day to be Leader of whichever House they sat in, the exceptions being Lloyd George (never a man to adhere to convention) and a couple of ill Georgian figureheads, but sometimes a designated deputy did the actual work. Timrollpickering 12:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Please reinstate the notes!
The new table is awful, unproductive and uninformative. We might as well have this article: List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom by tenure in its place. 49.200.244.169 (talk) 11:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Is this in reply to the RfC? If so, could you clearly state in the RfC section whether you Support or Oppose the question as put forward? Thanks –ToastButterToast (talk) 12:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Edit: on second thought this is clearly in regards to the notes that were removed earlier this year after a discussion when the list was nominates as a featured list removal candidate ToastButterToast (talk) 13:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Right, thanks for the feedback .--Nev&eacute;–selbert 19:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Coming here after months, can't believe u people are making such a major change based on the opinion of 2 people. Horrible. 42.111.100.193 (talk) 13:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:Featured list removal candidates/List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom/archive2.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 21:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed - this was the best part of the article, and should be reinstated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.98.243.94 (talk) 11:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 01:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Prime Minister Edward Heath (cropped).jpg

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 02:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sir-Henry-Campbell-Bannerman.jpg
 * Thomas-Pelham-Holles-1st-Duke-of-Newcastle-under-Lyne.jpg
 * Robert-Walpole-1st-Earl-of-Orford.jpg

Campbell-Bannerman as "first official" PM
The lede paragraph currently identifies Benjamin Disraeli as "the first to have officially used the title Prime Minister", but also Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman as "the first ... to have been officially referred to as such". There appears to be a subtle distinction here between self-designation and external designation, but it needs to be explained more clearly. The article Prime Minister of the United Kingdom notes that "In 1905 the position was given some official recognition when the "Prime Minister" was named in the order of precedence"; while that on Henry Campbell-Bannerman states that "He was the first First Lord of the Treasury to be officially called "Prime Minister", the term only coming into official usage five days after he took office." Can somebody please try to clarify all this? GrindtXX (talk) 11:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Disraeli was the first prime minister to have used the title in an official document, which is explained in the citation, while he was still not referred to as such in the order of precedence. Campbell-Bannerman was the first whose position in the hierarchy was because of his status as prime minister, rather than as merely First Lord of the Treasury. It may be somewhat confusing although I think the sources provided should help the reader gain an understanding. If you'd like to reword the text, then feel absolutely free to. I have since clarified that Campbell-Bannerman was recognised as prime minister in the order of precedence, and was therefore the first to have officially referred to as such.--Neve~selbert: 13:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Female mirrored initials
I suppose there's no place for it in this article. But it's interesting to point out, the only female British prime ministers, happen to have mirrored initials. Margaret Thatcher (MT) & Theresa May (TM). GoodDay (talk) 11:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)