Sean Clark

British PMs List

I made some changes on 18/01/2016 to List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom page. These were to ensure that there is consistency in the way the name of the PM is displayed. This was reverted to pre-change version by you. May I know why? -- R Shanmuga Sundaram (talk) 06:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. Your edits weren’t an issue in any way, but the edit (by 31.77.87.119) before them was. Basically, you edited the wrong version of the page. In order to restore the page to its original quality, I had to revert to the version previous 31.77.87.119’s edit (which meant your alterations had to be undone as well). Hopefully you didn’t spent a lot of time on them, and again, your edits were not the issue – I’m sorry they turned out to be in vain.
—Sean Clark (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Interesting set of edits there. Pleased to see the monarch reintroduced. However, the full honours and peerages are highly problematic. The established convention, of listing according to style while PM, is preferable as this is how they are usually known (e.g. "Lord North" or "Asquith", not "Guilford" or "Oxford"). This would remove the need for your innovative but eccentric method of noting the usual style in bold in the notes. Linked to this is the old style of listing constituencies and titles under the name, which seems much clearer and more intuitive than combining it with the Party. (Sorry to complain - you clearly put a stack of work into this list.) LookLook36 (talk) 00:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed this edit of yours the poster above referred to. The problems are two. The most simple one is this dash instead of a constituency you used for Prime Ministers from the House of Lords. You could have put either ″House of Lords″ or the title in the brackets. The dash is a bit anti-aesthetic. The second and most important problem is that they should be referred to by the title they held when they were Prime Ministers, not with the one at death. In most cases it does not make a difference but a few look a bit anachronistic. The most striking one is Lord North, who was Prime Minister from the House of Commons while holding this courtesy title from 1770 to 1782, and is referred to in the list as the Earl of Guilford, a title from the House of Lords he did not inherit until 1790.

Thanks in advance!

--The Theosophist (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I’ve put your comments into practice, i.e. the honorifics are as they were at the end of the PMs’ tenure and ‘(—)’ is now replaced by ‘(none)’, hopefully more aesthetically pleasing.
Sean Clark (talk) 22:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much! The ‘none’ is perfect and I really like how you handled Disraeli II. The only issue now is that you have forgotten some ‘Sirs’. I can do it if you like.--The Theosophist (talk) 13:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Fixed! Thanks for pointing that out, I hadn’t noticed.
Sean Clark (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

You′re welcome!--The Theosophist (talk) 13:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Nicely done. However, I still think that the constituencies are better off in the name column than in the party column. This is quite simple to fix, as you already have ‘MP’ among the post-nominals for relevant PMs. I'll create a sandbox of it, to see how it looks.
By the way, I think there are more Privy Councillors than have been identified. Cameron is certainly PC. I thought they were all PC, as the Cabinet is itself a committee of the Privy Council. LookLook36 (talk) 10:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I honestly think that we can even omit the MP and PC post-nominals.--The Theosophist (talk) 13:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, concerning the PC, The Right Honourable prefix indicates he/she is a member of the Privy Council. PC is added as a post-nominal if he/she is a peer and a Councillor; e.g. Cameron, who is a member of the Privy Council but not a peer (and therefore has no post-nominal PC). So I’ll look into the unnecessary PC post-nominals and remove them if that’s all right with you.
Sean Clark (talk) 13:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing up the PC issue. I have implemented a version returning the Constituencies to the name column, where it logically belongs, at my sandbox, but I'm willing to be overruled (even I'm not sure that it's much of an improvement).
As an aside, using styles at end of term of office rather than at death has enabled the removal of most of the "generally known as" comments, except the Pitts (Elder and Younger). On my sandbox, I think I have found a format to include the popular designation in the name while clearly showing that they are not official style. LookLook36 (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I dare say it is very good, apart from some unintentional post-nominal errata, that can be fixed at any moment.--The Theosophist (talk) 16:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, it looks better than I expected. Nicely done!
Sean Clark (talk) 22:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

In that case, let's do this! I'll do my best to implement the changes already made by you both, but it would be handy if you could check it out. One last thing: Walpole and Disraeli II: include the peerage in the name, or not? Both were known by their commoner names, but were peers when they left office. LookLook36 (talk) 22:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, since Walpole was only peer for a few days I think we can leave him be. As for Disraeli II: he became an earl in 1876, so he should be listed with his peerage. That's how I see it.
Sean Clark (talk) 22:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. That's how I've left it for now, although it means that Disraeli is listed as "Earl of Beaconsfield" twice, rather clumsily. LookLook36 (talk) 23:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

By the way, where did you get your info on which PMs were FRS? This Royal Society blog post lists rather more fellows than you have identified, but I don't think it's a citable source. LookLook36 (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I used the the FRS’s official list. But you were right, there are some PMs from the 18th, 19th and 20th century I missed. I’m sorting them out now. Done.
Sean Clark (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there a reason why Attlee is listed with a military rank, but others who saw active service (Churchill, Eden, Macmillan, Heath, probably others) are not? (Sorry to keep returning here and raising random small issues about the PM list.) LookLook36 (talk) 12:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it had something to do with his reputation. GOV.UK’s list of past PMs: “His reputation as an effective, efficient leader gained him promotion to the rank of Major, a title that would stay with him beyond his military life.” I suppose it could be omitted to correspond with the others who served. By the way, don’t worry about raising an issue; it can’t do any harm.
Sean Clark (talk) 13:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

@Sean Clark: For the sake of consistency, military ranks should either be included for all Prime Ministers or not included at all.--Nevé–selbert 23:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Numbering British ministries

Hi, Sean Clark. I see you've edited First Wilson ministry and added the cabinet infobox in which it says its ministry is the 81st cabinet. Then, I'd like to ask you where this data come from. Now I'm writing the list of British ministries in Japanese Wikipedia and it requires verifiability on the cabinet number. If you have some sources on it, could you tell me the references for it? --Doraemonplus (talk) 08:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Sean Clark. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Sean Clark. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Sean Clark. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)