Talk:List of Prime Ministers of Australia by time in office
|WikiProject Australia / Politics||(Rated List-class, Low-importance)|
Isn't this the same list as List of Australian prime ministers by time in office and shouldn't they be merged? /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 22:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Earle Page was a knight before he became PM. Barton and Menzies were knighted during their terms. All the others who got a title got it after leaving the office of PM. We don't give Bruce a title, yet he had the highest ranking one of all, Viscount.
My preference would be to use titles in this list only where they actually applied during a PM's term, and that means limiting it to Page, Barton and Menzies. That also means getting rid of all the post-PM postnominals, but that really means showing no postnominals at all. They're all shown in their articles, only a click away. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, I think all titles ought to be applied in this listing, given that the honorable titles are applied nonetheless. I realise we don't go around changing things in their original form, but given that Wikipedia is a dynamic encyclopedia, it should reflect the final title (or most representative) irrespective of the time it represents. I think Viscount should be indicated, although many people don't readily recognise the term (even though it's a high honour). --rm 'w avu 05:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- Except that none of the other articles in Category:Lists of Australian Prime Ministers have any postnominals, and most dispense with titles as well. Of the ones that do use titles, none go beyond Barton, Menzies and Page. These lists are for ordering the PMs in certain ways, they're not for telling readers what orders of knighthood or whatever they happened to have. All such details, and many others, can be found in the individual PMs' articles. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Reason for incumbency or succession
I'm not sure the best way of implementing this, but shouldn't a list like this indicate the reason a person ceased to lead the government, such as death, resignation, impeachment, unseated, or change of elected party? Thoughts? --rm 'w avu 05:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Parties by time in office
This is bit of a misnomer. It reads as if the Country Party has only ever been in government for 84 days. Of course it's been in office for far longer than that, but only for 84 days with a Country Party person as Prime Minister. How do we reword the header to make this clear? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Over seven years ago, JackofOz (talk · contribs) queried the wording of the totals of parties by time in office, however there was no response and it was never changed. An IP user has recently made a fairly large change to the list in the following areas:
- Counting the "parties by time in office" as being in office in a coalition rather than the Prime Minister's party membership (as per the query above)—I think this should reflect the PM's party only and just needs a tweak of the wording as Jack suggested.
- Adding other divisions the PM was MP for throughout their career—I am sure the list is intended to just show the divisions during the term as PM, but this isn't clear from the summary, column headings or notes.
- Where a PM has had multiple terms (Menzies, Deakin, Fisher, Rudd), the sum of their total time as PM has been changed to adding the years to adding the days. So Menzies was 2 years, 125 days + 16 years, 38 days = 18 years, 160 days, it has been changed to 18 years, 163 days. Not sure why they are what they are, but my thoughts are that it's taking leap years into account or something?
- By coincidence, I just noticed that Turnbull's tenure has just become longer than Cook's. Does that require a manual change to row order? JennyOz (talk) 02:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)