This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Anglia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Anglia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.East AngliaWikipedia:WikiProject East AngliaTemplate:WikiProject East AngliaEast Anglia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford articles
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2022, when it received 11,778,117 views.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report5 times. The weeks in which this happened:
Upcoming or recent sources that can be used to improve the article
Riley-Smith, Ben (2023). The Right to Rule: Thirteen Years, Five Prime Ministers and the Implosion of the Tories. Hodder & Stoughton. ISBN978-1-39-981029-6.
I see that under someone has written do not change "as at" to "as of". Is "as of" not correct, considering that the present is a time that has already passed, and so "of" reflects this. Ellwat (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree from a grammar POV. However, I believe this point was discussed during the Featured Article nomination process and "at" agreed on – possibly by non-British/Irish contributors Billsmith60 (talk) 12:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IP, ”As at” is good, formal British English. “As of” is an American interloper, although more favoured in common and lowly use nowadays.If you could identify the quote it would help, but you should note that if it was originally in AmEng, that is the version we should display. - SchroCat (talk) 04:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'As of' to mean 'at the present time' is AmE. In BrE it means, more or less, 'from': 'As of next week, this supermarket will be open until 10 p.m. on Thursdays.' 'As at' means it's true now (at the time of writing) but isn't guaranteed to remain true: 'As at 5 July 2024, Rishi Sunak is the leader of the Conservative Party.' Both expressions are probably best avoided in an international encyclopedia. Snugglepuss (talk) 12:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone add the sentence:
"Truss is the third female UK prime minister, after Margaret Thatcher and Theresa May."?
Preferably somewhere in the lede/introductory paragraph. I believe it is a relevant fact and justifiable addition to the article. Thank you.66.91.36.8 (talk) 02:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An article from the Independent is mentioned. However when you click on "The Independent", it takes you to the incorrect wikipedia page for the newspaper/website. Jmacri36 (talk) 21:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Tim O'Doherty, can you explain the reasoning behind this edit please. Although their printed paper newspaper was called The Independent, their web work is simply called Independent. The cites in this article are all of their web work, none are of their print work (which is no longer even published), so why do we use the name of the print work, even though it is not cited? -- DeFacto (talk). 23:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is nonstandard. It's also internally inconsistent: we have The Daily Telegraph (universally used forqualityPMarticles) rather than The Telegraph, which is its online brand. This has been through FAC, which examines source formatting. I've done GANs where I've been asked to format the names of works differently: this is a tier above that. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we need consistency, but in my view we should be consistently correct, and not sometimes consistent in name, regardless of correctness. As far as I can see, all of the news media publications being cited in this article are web works, so surely we should use the names used by the publishers of those web works, and not the name of one of their sister publications, or the name of one of their historical predecessors - that would be consistency. Using anything other than the publication's actual published name is just plain misrepresenting the name of the work. That would apply to all the news media web works, including the defunct The Independent's descendent web work, the "Independent", and the The Daily Telegraph's "The Telegraph", yes.
You say using just "Independent" in cites for the name of works that are called just "Independent" is "nonstandard" - where is the standard that you are applying documented? Does it have a look-up table giving the names that are acceptable for each of the news web media works that are likely to be used?
Talking of consistency, I notice that the web work known as "The Telegraph" is referred to as both "the Telegraph", "The Daily Telegraph" in the prose, and "The Daily Telegraph" or "The Sunday Telegraph" in citations. We also have cites of web works called "The Sunday Times" cited as both "The Times" and as "The Sunday Times".
And looking at one of the other PM article you linked in above, in the ADH one, we see in cites the work name correctly given as "The Manchester Guardian" in a cite of the printed newspaper when that was its name, and correctly given as "The Guardian" in cites of the same newspaper after its name change. Is that inconsistent and nonstandard too?
But anyway, what I am trying to understand, is why we should use incorrect, even if historically related, names for web works in this article? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re paragraph 3: the prose isn't relevant. I've looked through those references and can't find a single example. Can you point one out? Re paragraph 4: if we're treating the Douglas-Home article's Manchester Guardian as the standard to follow on this article, then the Independent sources here before going web-only in 2016 should, by that logic, be the full The Independent. We have two such sources from 2014: should we change those? It certainly brandeditself as "The Independent" online then. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim O'Doherty, Re para 3, the references citing the web work called "The Telegraph":
1 using the name "The Sunday Telegraph" - {{cite news |last=Diver |first=Tony |date=3 October 2021 |title=Transgender people should not have right to self-identify without medical checks, Liz Truss says |work=[[The Sunday Telegraph]] |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/10/03/transgender-people-should-not-have-right-self-identify-without/ |url-status=live |url-access=subscription |access-date=24 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220730152838/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/10/03/transgender-people-should-not-have-right-self-identify-without/ |archive-date=30 July 2022}}
1 of 14 using the name "The Daily Telegraph" - {{Cite news |last=Yorke |first=Harry |date=29 August 2020 |title=Liz Truss to set out ambition for a 'gold standard' trade deal with Australia |work=[[The Daily Telegraph]] |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/08/29/liz-truss-set-ambition-gold-standard-trade-deal-australia/ |url-status=live |url-access=subscription |access-date=24 August 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200829204911/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/08/29/liz-truss-set-ambition-gold-standard-trade-deal-australia/ |archive-date=29 August 2020}}
Re para 4, you make a good point. I was looking at the current online versions of them - and they are bothbranded just "Independent". I think we should stick with what they were called when they were first published. And suppress the current versions, leaving just the contemporaneous archive version in the cite perhaps - as who knows what else might have changed?
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
