Talk:Historical rankings of prime ministers of the United Kingdom

message: Similar to how it is done on the American equivalent:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States
I tried to do it but I'm not proficient enough. Does anyone else think it is a good idea?
:No, it is not a good idea. The colours are very distracting. Your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: this is confusing and doesn't help a reader who isn't incredibly educated in them understand what they actually mean. try using plain english. Were they rated good or not? The colors don't seem to correspond to anything other than red is presumably bad, since I know eden is poorly reviewed. the table as is actively hinders understanding by its academic-speak  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:CC01:3C0:D9F7:8BE6:955D:5117 (talk) 18:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Colouring the table quintiles?

message: Somewhat nit-picky, but the last sentence of the lead paragraph seems somewhat problematic, as it references the "31 other men to hold the office." This would seem to imply that the individuals that actually ranked by these surveys were all men as well - which, considering the presence of Margaret Thatcher, is not the case. I would recommend rewording "other men" to "others" "other individuals" "other prime ministers" or some such. If no one can think of a better solution, and no one objects, I'll try to think of something more neutral that still flows well myself.Ashelia (talk) 05:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "31 other men"

message: In "Homer at the Bat", Barney Gumble and Wade Boggs get into a fight over whether Pitt the Elder or Lord Palmerston was England's greatest Prime Minister... AnonMoos 03:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Simpsons

message: I recognize that the BBC History Magazine list is taken straight from their website, but I just want to note what an absolutely insane mixture of common-usage names and full legal names this is, an inconsistency of approach regrettably common on Wikipedia-generated lists also. Kalimac (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Names of Prime Ministers

message: Possibly a useful addition to the article, as it is up to date covering the Brown years.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/393e32c8-9da0-11df-a37c-00144feab49a.html 82.133.118.50 (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  2010 Leeds University  / Woodnewton Associates Poll 

message: That's a very bad choice of colour for the headings on the Times table, because at a glance they look like redlinks. Actually I can't see a need for specific colours to be used at all there. 86.132.137.82 (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Colours were changed today. Everything is now black. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crimson?! 

message: Again, about the Times list: doing a sort on any of the rightmost 3 columns produces an order where 29 comes before 3, which comes before 30! 86.132.137.82 (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody must have fixed this. Looks OK now. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table sorting not working properly 

message: Who the hell would put Thatcher ahead of Churchill? That woman ruined the North of England's industry!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.124.249 (talk)  CapnZapp (talk) 12:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused 

message: Is there any reason, in the full Times poll, why John Russell, 1st Earl Russell is listed twice, as PMs number 25 and 29, whereas other politicians who held the post on two non-consecutive occasions (e.g., Churchill, Disraeli, Gladstone) are only listed once, with their various terms listed in the second and third columns? Grutness...wha? 10:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russell twice 

message: This article I'd excessively focused upon the 20th Century and especially on post-war Prime Ministers. That leaves about 200 years missing, represented by only one table. I understand sources may be biased by recentism, but Wikipedia should not be. Efforts should be made to find and include rankings of all British PMs. --Poppy Appletree (talk) 13:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: An alternative approach would be to rename the article to make it clear it only concerns itself with the 20th century onwards. CapnZapp (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not very historical  

message: The first paragraph does not summarize the article. It concerns itself only with a single poll. This article is what "best/worst Prime Minister" is linked to (from a multitude of other articles). A reader might come here to get an answer to a question such as "Theresa May is increasingly often referred to as second-worst PM. So who's the very worst PM then?" Currently, the only approach offered by this article is to read through all of the sections and then making up your own mind. This is entirely inadequate.
The lead section should summarize the article. For instance, to mention which PMs are often at the top and bottom of the respective polls detailed and referenced later, so that a reader isn't forced to read the entire article to get the gist of the contents. 
Do note - I am aware certain articles do not summarize its contents because doing so might be considered NPOV or SYNTH. However, keep in mind that while the article is named "Historical rankings of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom" it is frequently used as a link target for "best Prime Minister" and especially "worst Prime Minister". The lead should definitely give a succinct answer to the implicit question! CapnZapp (talk) 12:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  {Inadequate lead} 

message: Is it worth mentioning the July 2019 ranking in The Independenthttps://www.independent.co.uk/voices/theresa-may-resigns-how-long-prime-minister-ranking-legacy-history-brexit-a8929116.html and/or the June 2019 ranking in The Weekhttps://www.theweek.co.uk/101887/the-uk-s-five-greatest-prime-ministers? Mcljlm (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for linking to these. I was going to add them, but then I questioned whether they're actually suitable for this article. I also wondered whether they are reliable enough. The Independent list calls itself "...one possible league table" and is in an article written by one journalist (Sean O'Grady), who doesn't actually explicitly say whether this is his view or not. And The Week list doesn't even purport itself to be a ranking, but an article about "...five former British leaders whose reigns are widely - if sometimes controversially - viewed as having changed the country for the better", so not even necessarily the five former Prime Ministers whose reigns are widely - if sometimes controversially - viewed as having changed the country for the better, let alone in any sort of order. It's also not clear what credentials The Week's authorship (or Sean O'Grady) has, say in comparison to the academics currently included in the first section of article (though I realise that similar objections could be raised about other authors like Iain Dale, who already have their lists included in this article). I hope that this makes sense! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other rankings 

message: Imo the way the Beckett rankings have been added to the table of academic rankings is misleading especially when compared with the others. If he regards Attlee and Thatcher as joint best then by rights according to his order the next highest rated PM(s) should be ranked 3rd not 2nd. Firestar47 (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beckett Rankings 

message: Why is 'historic' in the title? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title