Talk:David Cameron

Edit Request: Date typo

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)

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

Lead picture

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)

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)

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)

Agree with both of the above. --ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Agreed. In the cases of both Heath and Cameron, the pictures used for the infoboxes are high quality and far preferable to alternative options, such as the poor quality Cameron premiership photo. Worth noting also that Margaret Thatcher's portrait, while closer to the time of her premiership than the Heath and Cameron photos, also isn't one taken while she was PM. --ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Similar case with Blair too. Lead image is from after his premiership. A rather low quality official portrait from 1997 is also available, but it isn't used. ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Disagree. That practice is usually for deceased individuals (i.e. Elizabeth II and Robert Mugabe had modern pictures for their lead images but after their deaths had them changed to historical ones). Even if we ignore that, politicians otherwise tend to have their most recent official portrait used for the lead image, so it would be unwise to make an exception here. While Cameron was likely more notable as PM than Foreign Secretary, the 2010 PM portrait is 14 years out of date and, while he admittedly looks pretty much the same as he did back then, that portrait is also of a rather low quality and looks quite amateur, unlike the 2023 one which actually does look official. For these reasons, I'd much prefer if we kept to the status quo and continued to use the official portrait from 2023 as at present. ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Sub articles

@ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter, @Cambial Yellowing, after seeing these four edits to this article:

• by TCOGW moving 22,515 bytes out of this article and apparently into David Cameron as Leader of the Opposition
• by CY restoring it back into this article but not removing it from the other article
• by TCOGW moving another 13,246 bytes out of this article
• by CY restoring it back into this article again

(which have resulted in large overlap of content between this article and David Cameron as Leader of the Opposition) I had a look at the histories of a few other politician articles, and see there has been large movements, removal, and duplication of content by TCOGW with Keir Starmer to various sub articles, and with Rishi Sunak the same, and with Jeremy Hunt, Nigel Farage, John Swinney, Tony Blair, and several others the same. What is going on? Shouldn't these major restructuring and splitting and diffusing of content exercises be scrutinised, discussed and agreed on somewhere first? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I fully agree with your reasoning. I can't speak for the other editor, but these types of edits are not ones I will be pursuing in future. So, I've made David Cameron as Leader of the Opposition a redirect link to avoid content duplication. --ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Lead image

Time we change his lead (infobox) image back to his main portrait as Prime Minister. The 2023 portrait in use worked from November 2023 to July 2024 due to his return to government, but with Labour's victory in this year's general election, they have taken over government. So it's time to bring Cameron's image back to the portrait taken during his time in office as Prime Minister as this was his highest rank and what he is inarguably best known for. 92.236.118.94 (talk) 02:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

No, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the more recent image, which is official and of much better quality. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 02:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)