Talk:List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom/Archive 4

Premiers' portraits
I'd like to change the portraits of three UK Prime Ministers (Churchill, Macmillan and Thatcher) so I'm starting this discussion. Neveselbert, I know you did a great great job in creating this article (which really inspired me in improving its counterpart about Italian PMs), but how can you say that photos A, B, C have got a superior quality and a higher resolution than D, E, F?

Current portraits:

Shouldn't we use (where it's possible) the same portraits used in their infobox? Thanks :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words . I think that it’s important we use portraits that were taken either before or during their tenure, rather than afterwards as with the case of Thatcher, although I would be open to replacing her portrait with File:Margaret Thatcher (1983).jpg, even though I would still prefer we use a colour portrait. The Macmillan portrait you propose is of unacceptably poor quality for an FA article, in my estimation, although I would give way on Macmillan if you were to upload a higher resolution version. The Churchill image is inoffensive enough, although I must say I prefer the other one since he has a more neutral expression, he isn’t scowling for instance; I would note that both photos appear to have been taken by the same photographer on the same day. Thanks for taking this matter here, and I’m sorry for this belated reply for I’ve been rather busy since the New Year. Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh I didn’t notice that Thatcher’s portrait was taken after her retirment, in this case you’re right, we can use the current one or the one you’ve proposed, which was taken in 1983. Regarding Churchill, I personally prefer the one used in his infobox, however this is only my personal opinion, it will be useful if other users will join the discussion. Both Mcmillan’s photos have low resolution, as almost every potraits of him, so we can keep current one, until someone will upload a better photo. -- Nick.mon (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Revert
The changes I did provided clarity. Users who scroll down the table can be helped by the "lived XX years" comment. It allows for certainty that the years listed are referring to the date of birth and death of that respective PM, rather than the length of time they were an MP. Also the majority of people don't want to have to do mental maths to work out the ages. Mixed in with lots of other dates it can get confusing. In addition to this, the dates about constituency changes further complicated things - the footnotes eliminate this. I see no problem with my edits. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The “lived XX years” comment is gratuitous and doesn’t really add anything of value to the list. That the years lists are referring to the dates of birth and death are specified in the second header from left. I understand the line height may complicate matters, so I am trying to resolve that issue in my sandbox and the draft I have prepared should be ready within the next few days. The dates about constituency changes be shortened slightly according to WP:DATERANGE: (2) infoboxes and tables where space is limited (using a single format consistently in any given table column). Using footnotes is tedious and excessive; all the necessary information can be conveyed using years within parentheses. To make things clearer for readers though, we can possibly amend the aforementioned header to note the constituencies and parenthesised dates where applicable. Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Seconded on the point about being gratuitous, the list is already crammed with a lot of information and 'lived XX years' is just too much. Also, List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom by age exists, so the information is already available for those interested. ToastButterToast (talk) 23:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2019
For Boris Johnson, include the fact that he is Minister for the Civil Service in addition to First Lord of the Treasury, like previous prime ministers. 198.125.179.152 (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ SSSB (talk) 16:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Mandates
In some cases, mandates carry over from one PM to the next, such as from Blair to Brown or from May to Johnson. Currently, there is an MDASH in that space, but it's not clear to the casual reader, what that means. I therefore propose that we replace it with a rowspan for the mandates as shown below. —GoldRingChip 12:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * firstly please note that pings only work when you sign the addition. Now to get to the issue on hand, my understanding is that mandates are only carried forward in the legal sense. Johnson was appointed by his constituents on the mandate which brough May to Downing Street in 2017, Johnson was then appointed as leader of the conservatives and by extension the Prime Minister through a mandate which was voted on by Conservative party members. Therefore Johnson's doesn't have a mandate to rule the country, he even aknowledged this when Brown became PM in '07 with Jo Swinson stating the same now . There will always be a discussion as to whether mandates are carried forward with a change of leader with the leaders party claiming (s)he does have a mandate and the opposition claiming (surprise, surprise) the opposite. I am therefore inclined to change it to specify mandates which took them directly to PM as this is less discretional than simply mandate (as proved now). When I saw this list for the first time I could immediatly identify what the MDASH means, I think its fairly self explanatory, it means they don't have a mandate to rule the country (if this is true is debateable as I explained above.) SSSB (talk) 13:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think it is fine as it is for the time being. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The wikimarkup for the table is complicated enough as it is by the various colspan and rowsapn. There is even a bug that makes it so that the final duration is forced to a completely separate line. I'm not sure if this is browser-specific or not, but it can be seen in at the bottom of the table just above the  § label. Similarly, the bug can be seen in . To fix this, I added a 11 row at the bottom of the table in this edit to the article and this one to the chart above. It is fixed  and . Whether the bug is in the WP software or in my browser, I think it would be best to not further complicate this table. Mind you, if the information was essential, it would be worth messing with. YBG (talk) 03:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Bulletpoints of pm policys in off need re adding
The chart had list of policies which each pm did in office this was very helpful and needs re adding Londonguy77777 (talk) 09:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree! Was very useful for an at-a-glance snapshot of the main achievements and notable events for each PM. Other similar pages (e.g. Canadian PMs) have kept it. Not too sure why it was deleted .. :(  Sdrawkcab (talk) 18:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Theresa May Official.jpg

Date Conventions/Terms of Office
It is precedent is it not that the Prime Minister remains in office until the new Prime Minister goes to see the monarch? So why do we have often humongous gaps between two Prime Ministers, surely the old Prime Minister remains in office until the new Prime Minister takes over? It seems that you've done this correctly for the Coalition transition between the Gordon Brown Ministry and the David Cameron ministry, but for some reason as we stay into the past their appears to be occasions where these terms of office indicate the country had no Prime Minister which is never the case, as the old one remains until the new Prime Minister takes the office, even if they practically do nothing Prime Ministerial or have lost the confidence of the house. Should we alter the dates to reflect that? Snookerfootyfan (talk) 19:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)SnookerfootyfanSnookerfootyfan (talk) 19:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * No. We shouldn't rewrite history to fit modern conventions. Today we're used to the old PM's removal van almost crashing into the new one's car at the entrance to Downing Street and the idea of gaps in leadership may seem extremely negligent but the world was a different place in past centuries and it was not unusual for an office to lie vacant between a resignation or death and an appointment. Other ministers would carry on in their existing posts (and many would retain them under the next PM), there were no nuclear missiles that would need an immediate response, the markets were far less sensitive to who was in office and so forth. A few posts did have a clear order of succession to cover a vacancy - the Lord Chief Justice covering a vacancy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the best known - but the Prime Minister was not a formally codified position. Timrollpickering (Talk) 10:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Links to peerages
The way this list is formatted is confusing, when it deals with prime ministers who were peers. It gives the person's name in normal type, with a link to their article, followed by their title in bold type, with a link to that peerage. Since the eye is naturally drawn to the bold type, the reader clicks on that text, expecting to be taken to the article about that prime minister, and instead it goes to an article about everyone who has held that title instead. I suggest removing the links to the peerages, since no one reading this list is likely to be interested in them. Richard75 (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Agree with this. The table doesn't look as tidy or easy to read as other lists, such as US or French Presidents. Is it necessary to list the monarch or the ministerial offices they held as Prime Minister? The party column also seems unnecessary seeing as the Prime Ministers are colour coded. If this was tidied up it would free up room to split up some of the information in the box which has the PM's name, title and life span. I don't think listing the constituency for which they were MP for is necessary either. Bivaldian (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The offices are useful because they show the evolution of what was originally an informal position and the role of each individual PM. It is significant if the PM of the day held one (or more) of the significant portfolios such as the Exchequer or Defence. Timrollpickering (Talk) 18:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The list is a mess in other ways too. The prime ministers are given numbers like American presidents, despite the strong convention for British prime ministers not to be numbered. Additionally, honorifics shouldn't be used (as per MOS:HON) but the list is absolutely crammed with them; of course these are poorly referenced and become increasingly anachronistic the further back they're applied because they're based on modern convention. I'm going to be bold and make changes with those issues (if I'm able, the Wiki-markup is complex). However I'm considered whether the article should be nominated for removal as a featured list given the current problems problems. Editing with Eric (talk) 09:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I'd like to pointed to where the convention is stated that British Prime Ministers are not to be numbered. 8:58, 25 May 2020


 * I'm no expert when it comes to coding, but it seems there are some flaws in the table. Seems that removing certain aspects leads to disrupting the table when this shouldn't really be the case. I'm looking into it but if anyone knows if I'm missing something obvious when trying to remove the Monarch section any advice would be appreciated. Bivaldian (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * As Bivaldian and Timrollpickering have both tried removing the Monarch column I'm going to take that as a consensus for change. I also think removing this column benefits the article, sometimes less is more and this list had a whole lot of additional information crammed in that could be removed. I've gone ahead and removed it (a big dirty bodge was causing the previous rendering problem). Editing with Eric (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The "disputed" prime ministers, and Henry Pelham and the 1st Duke of Newcastle
The lead section (last paragraph) explains why we have two PMs who are not on the main list, because there isn't a consensus that they were PMs, for just two days in 1746 and four days in June 1756. That is fine, and the way the article deals with those two people is okay by me. But it can't be disputed that Henry Pelham (PM from 1743 to 1754) and the 1st Duke of Newcastle (PM from 1754 to November 1756) cannot have been PM during the six days that the disputed PMs were trying to form their own governments. If the disputed PMs were not really prime ministers, then that position was vacant on those occasions, but the dates of the terms of office for Pelham and Newcastle do not take these gaps into account. Richard75 (talk) 20:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think they need to be mentioned in the article, and definitely not in the lead section. I can't find a reliable source which lists them as Prime Ministers. The Government website doesn't list them, nor does any other list I can find, and so I'm not sure they merit being in the article at all. Bivaldian (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Two sources are given in the article. Richard75 (talk) 12:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Date incumbent's duration of term of office was last updated
In the spirit of trying to prevent an edit war, if interested in this issue please click on Ministry of Defence (Belgium). You should see, right at the bottom, the date that that article's table was last updated is 9 Nov, even though today is 20 Nov. Wikipedia's age functions do not update every day. Mmitchell10 (talk) 19:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Why are all the UK PMs pictured as examples conservatives?
seems a little bias — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.55.43 (talk) 16:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Robert Walpole was our first de facto Prime Minister (and a Whig) and Boris Johnson is pictured because he is the incumbent (his image would be replaced with Keir Starmer's if he were to become Prime Minister, for instance), so it would seem obvious that we should keep those two. As for Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher, I can't think of any other Prime Minister that would be better suited to the picture grid than them. They are among our most famous (non-recent) premiers (according to YouGov) and Churchill is our most popular premier (again, according to YouGov). Churchill was also Prime Minister during a very notable time in modern British history (and a Liberal MP for over 15 years, albeit before he became Prime Minister) and Thatcher, while notable for other reasons, was our first female Prime Minister (Labour hasn't even directly elected a female leader yet). The only figure from a different party that I could even think to add would be Clement Attlee, but then who would we remove? Is he more notable than either Churchill or Thatcher? I didn't add these images, but I think that this is simply be a case of the most notable figures coming from the political party which dominated the 20th century (the Conservative party), rather than bias. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 16:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not biased, these are just the most significant (the first, the current and the two most well-known). If you think someone should be added or removed, feel free to make a suggestion. SSSB (talk) 11:28, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: I certainly don't think there's a bias towards Conservatives in the thumbnail. Given that the United Kingdom has been a de facto two-party system for centuries, the prominence of one or another is going to be inevitable. My issue with the thumbnail is one of an historical overview, as the thumbnail shows one prime minister from the 18th century, two from the 20th century and one from the 21st century, which has left the 19th century completely untouched. As such, I'd suggest removing either Churchill or Thatcher from the thumbnail and adding a prime minister from the 19th century. Going just by prime ministers that served longer than both Thatcher and Churchill, it could be worth adding:
 * Robert Jenkinson (1812-1827), oversaw the end of the Napoleonic Wars, implemented the Corn Laws and was held responsible for the Peterloo Massacre.
 * Robert Gascoyne-Cecil (1885-1892; 1895-1902), spearheaded the Conservative & Unionist alliance, prosecuted the Second Boer War and Britain's role in the Scramble for Africa.
 * William Ewart Gladstone (1868-1874; 1880-1886; 1892-1894), led the formation of the Liberal Party, passed the Third Reform Act, proposed Irish home rule
 * I would also note Charles Grey, Benjamin Disraeli and Henry John Temple as other notable alternatives, but they served relatively short terms. I don't personally have a stake in including/excluding any in particular, but I hope these suggestions can open up room for further discussion on the matter. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but using when they were PM for deciding who should be pictured is a bad idea. We have the first, current and the two most famous. I see no justification for changing an image just to cover the 19th centuary. SSSB (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Certainly, Gladstone and Disraeli are notable prime ministers, but so are David Lloyd George and Clement Attlee. If we were to add another row, they'd be prime contenders, but I agree with SSSB for now that the current four are the most famous and we shouldn't use temporal diversity to determine candidates. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 16:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Numbing of PMs
Just wondering where the numbers come from and why they where added. Italic 2A02:C7E:1B90:A700:1441:7981:314A:CA37 (talk) 10:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No idea but I agree with keeping them for various reasons:
 * Reputable sources like Reuters, TIME, foreign leaders, and I believe gov.uk sites also number the PM or indicate how many past PM's there have been (77).
 * As the list grows, it becomes increasingly convenient with numbers to know how many PM's there have been, and who was what number.
 * The numbering takes up very little space and does not scatter the list; I would argue that the benefit of having a numbered list outweighs the "cost", whatever it is.
 * Many other countries - like Germany - do not number their Chancellor's, for instance, but their lists are also numbered just for convenience sake when viewing the whole list.
 * Numbering of office holders are common outside of the US, and for countries with a Prime Minister - for example New Zealand, Australia, and Canada CityPride (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The gov.uk website is actually a perfect illustration of the problem: it claims that there have been 53 PMs, not 77. (I suspect the reason for the difference is that, unlike this page, they do not assign multiple numbers to PMs with non-consecutive terms, but I haven't checked whether that is the only difference.) So if Reuters and TIME are saying there have been 77, they are probably just copying that from our article. And although the gov.uk site gives a total number, its list doesn't actually number them individually.
 * I would also question your assertion that "it becomes increasingly convenient with numbers to know ... who was what number". I don't see why anyone would ever need to know that Lord So-and-so was the 27th PM (accordingly to whatever system one chooses to adopt for selecting that number), or what not. Unlike (say) with US Presidents, it's simply not a metric that is commonly used in the UK. Proteus (Talk) 14:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I came here to ask the same thing. This issue has arisen multiple times (even on this talk page: Talk:List_of_prime_ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_2), and it is clear that there is no consensus for numbering. Reasons include:
 * Numbering holders of offices is a US practice which is not commonly done in the UK.
 * There is no consensus as to how any numbering system should operate (e.g. should a PM with non-consecutive terms get multiple numbers?).
 * Even if there were consensus as to a system, there is doubt as to whether certain individuals should be counted.
 * The office spans different countries, and so it is a nonsense to say that the incumbent is the "77th Prime Minister of the United Kingdom" because those at the start of this list were Prime Ministers of Great Britain, not Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. Indeed, the incumbent is in full the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and those from the 19th and early 20th century were instead Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. So should the numbering reset when the country changes or not?
 * Ultimately, we shouldn't be inventing a contentious numbering system (WP:OR) just because other lists happen to be numbered. Proteus (Talk) 13:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Honestly, what is the harm if in numbering them - it doesn't take up a lot of space - if it helps organize the list? We already recognize Robert Walpole as the Inaugural Holder in the info box, any many sources consider BoJo to be the de facto 77th PM of the UK. If we have a list of 77 names that we call PM's of the UK, then clearly it's OK to just number them or the list shouldn't exist at all? The points about being the PM of Great Britain and not the UK are moot since they are all grouped under this page, known as the PM of the UK. CityPride (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

There was no consensus for including them. They were added, with no edit summary recently, by an IP editor with a history of being blocked and reverted, including for adding numbers in this way. As the article's lead makes clear, there's no agreement on who the first was, so there can be no agreement on the counting. Including numbers here isn't harmless; it gives the (false) impression that such counting is a normal thing for UK Prime Ministers and that there is certainty over the numbers. I'll remove them (manually... all 77 of them, or is it 75, or 53, or something else...) EddieHugh (talk) 16:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I just want to record that I support the removal of the numbers. DuncanHill (talk) 13:47, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Boris's picture caption
The caption reads he is the current PM which is not true. He resigned a few months back. 122.177.100.23 (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2022 (UTC)


 * He is still Prime Minister until his replacement takes office. — Czello 15:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

He ain't any more (as from Tuesday 6 Sep). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.191.51.166 (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)


 * He isn’t as of tomorrow = he still is. 92.8.82.217 (talk) 15:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Charles' photo
The photos of all the previous monarchs feature them in formal or military regalia. Shouldn't the current king's also be one of him in regalia. 107.220.148.79 (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Lord North not a Tory?
It may be inappropriate to use party labels for many of the 18th century prime ministers. According to Talk:List_of_prime_ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_2 Lord North and others are not Tories as there wasn't a Tory party at this time, rather fitting under the Whig label. If there is no clear source for a party system existing during this period, I'd propose the party affiliations be removed for all PMs before William Pitt. The box could be left greyed out or state "no party system". Historylikeyou (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Liz Truss will not be "the shortest-serving prime minister"
In the upper right of the article are four pictures of notable prime ministers; in the lower right is Liz Truss, of whom it is said that she "is the current and will be the shortest-serving prime minister." This is not accurate, as the list in this article itself makes clear.

I suppose we can set aside William Pulteney, 1st Earl of Bath, who in 1746 asked by his majesty King George II to form a government, but gave up the attempt after short more than 48 hours. And we can leave James Waldegrave, 2nd Earl Waldegrave, who arguably served in the capacity between 8–12 June in 1757, consigned to the "disputed" category.

But Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, served as prime minister for a mere 23 days in 1834 — Liz Truss's tenure, while remarkably short, is already twice his. Olcharkuk (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Note that Wellington had already served as PM from 1828-1830. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Images
So is there any particular reason why most of the images on this list were changed to uncropped versions? It was much better before when we could actually see the faces of the prime ministers and monarchs instead of having to click on them. I don't see how these changes are in any way constructive. 87.115.251.173 (talk) 21:47, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Rishi Sunak
"Bottom right: Rishi Sunak the Prime Minister-designate and first non-white Prime Minister."

"non-white" What does that even mean? 71.173.16.85 (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Someone who isn't white. — Czello 20:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've removed the picture in any case. He's not yet a prime minister, and therefore not eligible to be in a list of prime ministers. After he's had tea with the King, he can go back in. Bazza (talk) 21:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2022
For the photo of Liz Truss, it should read as former and not current PM JosephJoe13 (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Symbol declined.svg Declined - Truss is still the current PM, this will not be changed until she is officially replaced by Sunak. MadGuy7023 (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Should "duration=on" be removed?
The term length of Truss should be 49 days not 50 days. 203.218.141.176 (talk) 12:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Liz Truss official portrait (cropped)2.jpg

The List or The last
If you check the list of prime ministers of japan in the last box there is not the current minister but Shinzo Abe. Similarly it is possible to put David Cameron instead of the current one. Best Regards --Peter39c (talk) 20:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Add comprehensive list in chronological order
A chronological list of all prime ministers should be near the top 2600:8801:C406:C00:7036:D61C:6F82:4378 (talk) 15:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We have that in the table. We don't want to have the same information twice. EddieHugh (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak official portrait with UK flag background and Prime Minister emblem (cropped) (cropped).png

Nowrap
What exactly is wrong with wrapping? Surtsicna (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * This is about whether (for example) Elizabeth I should be enclosed in nowrap to force browsers to keep monarchs' names with their regnal numbers. Certain browser widths can result in them being separated, which is awkward to scan. This usage of nowrap is mandated at MOS:NBSP. Bazza (talk) 20:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Should we keep the living former Prime Ministers on this article?
There is no reason why we should not include them here, per List of prime ministers of Canada. Before removing them, we should try and reach a consensus first as to whether or not we should include the living former PMs here. 92.15.144.174 (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a reason. The reason is that they are already all listed in the table, with no death date, thus establishing that they are live. What there is no need for is repeating information. Surtsicna (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I see you have removed the list from the Canada article also. Thank you for this! I agree it's best not to repeat information. The article List of presidents of the United States also used to have a "living former" section, but it was removed for similar reasons. --92.15.144.174 (talk) 21:49, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have removed the "list of living former prime ministers" sections from all the other "List of prime ministers of (insert country here)" articles. Took a while, but it was worth it. I agree that it was the right thing to do, as there's no point repeating information. --92.15.144.174 (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks great. Thanks! Surtsicna (talk) 22:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem! Glad to have been of assistance. --92.15.144.174 (talk) 23:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I support not having a separate list or table for living ones. EddieHugh (talk) 12:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear that! --92.15.144.174 (talk) 13:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Table key
I'm just commenting as I don't think the contents of the table are as clear as they should be? For example, please see the below:


 * a parenthesised dash : indicates the formation of a minority or coalition government during a hung parliament.}}}}

The picture of the parenthesised dash seems to be underneath the year (example given 1722) but the explanation is on the next column and therefore, there is confusion. Can this be rectified? RyanPLB (talk) 10:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)


 * @RyanPLB I agree that this is not as clear as it could be. I have split the Mandate column (and its explanatory legend note) away from the start and end dates columns. Hope that helps. There's likely to be further opportunity to rationalise the table layout which I will look at later. Bazza (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have simplified the table to aid maintenance, improve legibility and improve WP:ACCESSIBILITY. Bazza (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

George V/Edward VIII
I noticed that in the Monarch column, Edward VIII's reign begins exactly at the same line as Stanley Baldwin's 1935-1937 administration. Shouldn't George V's box dip down into Baldwin's rows to show that Baldwin was already Prime Minister when George V died and Edward VIII ascended? The way it's set up now it seems like Edward VIII became King on exactly June 7, 1935, the same day Baldwin became PM, when in actuality it wasn't until January 20, 1936. It should be set up the same way Liz Truss is set up, for example. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 01:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)


 * There is also a problem that I noticed today, if I understand it right, more specifically that Edward VIII's column has a small void bar towards its top, so to put it, which should not be there. Instead, it should most likely represent King George V's kingship while former prime minister Stanley Baldwin was still under him during his reign, am I right? Thank you very much in advance for anyone who can solve this formatting issue (I tried myself but to no avail, hence I am politely asking for help here). Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 13:21, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Coulraphobic123, @Rosenborg BK Fan. I inserted the void cell so that the cell containing Edward VIII's reign starts after Baldwin's term of office. I marked my change as "work in progress" as I, too, am being frustrated in my attempts to merge the main cell for George V's reign with this new empty cell. I will continue my search for what should be a simple solution but which has so far proved elusive; if others are doing the same then so much the better. Bazza (talk) 15:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your response! I am very grateful for your clarification! Best of luck and plenty of success for finding a solution to this issue as soon as possible! All the best! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Coulraphobic123 @Rosenborg BK Fan I have managed to track down the cause of the monarch alignment problems (when monarchs changed part-way through a prime minister's government) and implemented a solution. All should now display correctly. Bazza (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bazza 7 wow marvelous! Thanks to everyone for their attentiveness to this matter! Much appreciated! Coulraphobic123 (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! Much gratitude and respect! All the best! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 09:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Rishi Sunak, Prime Minister Official Portrait 2022.jpg

"Vandalism" of this list
I am brand-new to Wikipedia and don't yet feel comfortable editing pages. I noticed that someone has corrupted the list of prime ministers by changing their names. For example, James Cameron's name is instead listed as "Sweaty Fish." Lmullings (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I've fixed it and reported the user to WP:AIV. They'll likely be blocked shortly. — Czello 18:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * PM Thatcher in 1982 (cropped).jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Official portrait of prime minister John Major.jpg

PMs who were peers
Why does this article put the titles of PMs who were peers in small and non-bold font, and their personal names in normal-sized bold font, when it should clearly be the other way around? Peers are referred to by their titles, not their personal names. These people are universally referred to as "Lord Liverpool", "Lord Salisbury", "the Duke of Newcastle", etc - no one would have the faintest idea who you were talking about if you referred to "the 19th century Prime Minister Robert Jenkinson". Proteus (Talk) 17:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Totally agree - best thing is to find a British source - UK conventions on names can be trickey to those not used to them. Echo613 (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Can "Lord John Russell" be changed to "John Russell" for conformity?
John Russell was prime minister twice, first from 1846-1852 and then from 1865-1866. For his first term, he's listed on this page as "Lord John Russell", but for his second he's listed on the page as "John Russell". Can the entry for the first term be changed to "John Russell" so that they are standardized? (No other prime minister is listed with a title in this same way; see Frederick North as an example: he is not listed as "Lord Frederick North".) Jylothr (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


 * North was Lord North, as the heir to an Earldom, not "Lord Frederick North". Russell pre 1861 is always "Lord John Russell" as that was his name - without the "Lord" it's almost as if it means another person. Names do not conform easily. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC)