John Major is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
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 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 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 Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics 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 London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
This article is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of cricket. Please participate by visiting the project and talk pages for more details.CricketWikipedia:WikiProject CricketTemplate:WikiProject Cricketcricket articles
There is a toolserver based WikiProject Cricket cleanup list that automatically updates weekly to show all articles covered by this project which are marked with cleanup tags. (also available in one big list and in CSV format)
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
The infobox has featured two files in the past couple of days (see below). I suggest that the current (1995) image be replaced with the 1996 image, for said image is both more recent and of a much better quality that the 1995 one. --Lord Stephenson (talk) 16:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1995 image
1996 image
My preference is to keep using the 1995 image Ciaran.london (talk) 15:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lord Stephenson is right here, the 1996 image and clearer quality than 1995. We should change the infobox portrait Politicsnerd123 (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why is his affair with Edwin a Curry not mentioned? Rustygecko (talk) 02:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not referring to the lead, the affair is mentioned in the body of the article. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 19:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a marginal one admittedly, and I'm mindful of the fact that we should be wary of the risk of giving undue weight to negative information in a BLP article, but as against that, I do think that it received significant enough media coverage to warrant a short mention in the lead. (This is particularly because commentators were quick to draw a link with "Back to Basics", as the article already mentions.) Any other opinions for or against inclusion in the lead? --Dani di Neudo (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's sort of teetering on the edge of inclusion or exclusion in the lead, as it is a large part of his post-parliamentary career. I'd lean to probably not including it in the lead, given it has its own paragraph and is mentioned in a few others. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting here the fact that my recent edit means that Michael Heseltine is now wiki-linked twice in the article text. The two places are well separated, so it seems to me helpful to have both, but unlink the later one if you disagree. Dani di Neudo (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed the back and forth about the infobox pic. Considering Major is still alive, shouldn't we use a more recent picture such as this one? – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. It should be the one currently used, outside 10 Downing Street in 1995, as Prime Minister. It is high resolution and looks towards the text, ideal for an infobox. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 05:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the one currently used is better. As he is notable primarily for having been Prime Minister, it makes sense to use a photo which relates to this in terms of its date and setting. (User:Tim O'Doherty also makes reasonable points above, regarding the stylistic considerations.) --Dani di Neudo (talk) 16:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The current photo is appallingly grainy. Ingrid997 (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fine. I definitely think we need something from during his premiership. Another possibility is File:John Major 1996.jpg. I'm pretty much neutral as to whether it would be an improvement or not. There are pros and cons: it avoids the problem of being grainy, but it loses the Downing Street setting. Dani di Neudo (talk) 11:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]