Jump to content

Talk:David Cameron

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleDavid Cameron was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
In the newsOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 30, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 3, 2007Good article nomineeListed
October 14, 2015Good article reassessmentDelisted
May 19, 2016Good article nomineeNot listed
December 22, 2016Featured article candidateNot promoted
In the news News items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on May 11, 2010, September 17, 2012, September 18, 2012, September 19, 2012, and June 24, 2016.
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 11, 2014, May 11, 2018, and May 11, 2020.
Current status: Delisted good article

Edit Request: Date typo

[edit]

In the Foreign Secretary section, there is a typo which has Cameron raised to the peerage in 2013, not 2023. Please address. 64.30.93.144 (talk) 01:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 02:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead picture

[edit]

Now the Tories are out of government and he is no longer Foreign Secretary we might as well return the lead picture to being his Prime Minister portrait from 2010 as that's the highest ranking job he's had, what he's best known for and him as Foreign Secretary isn't current anymore 92.239.82.188 (talk) 11:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a perfectly high-quality portrait. There's no reason to change it back to one from 14 years ago. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 06:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think the Cameron 2010 Portrait is such bad quality (very weird lighting, odd facial expression), that it'd be better to keep the Foreign Secretary Portrait, which is better in all the aforementioned regards FredMcKinley (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with both of the above. --ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with the three above, it is standard practice for very notable individuals to use a picture taken during the time they were in such a noteworthy position, including if they had served in an office following their tenure. Take former Vice President Walter Mondale for example, he was Vice President in the 70s but later served as ambassador in the 90s with an updated portrait, however that portrait isn't in the lead and instead is in the section about him serving as ambassador. The same should be done for Cameron, as his foreign secretary portrait is him over a decade older than his official portrait. TheFellaVB (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's standard to use the latest high-quality portrait available of living persons. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the difference between Mondale and Cameron is that Cameron's portrait is (in my opinion) atrocious, while Mondale's isn't. As for precedents, Ted Heath's picture is from 1987, even though he was last Prime Minister around 20 years prior in 1974 and there are lower quality pictures available to use FredMcKinley (talk) 23:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]