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.
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.
Shouldn't this be pared down to just the Cabinet and Cabinet attenders? That is what we have for previous, similar articles. Moreover, this is quite unwieldy. The exact portfolios for junior ministers change from time to time, even if the gist of the role is the same. Frankly, there are just too many line-items for this to be of much use in keeping track of the reshuffles. -Rrius (talk) 14:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
It's called Cameron Ministry, so it should be the whole Ministry - or else change the name to Cameron Cabinet, maybe (or create a seperate article for that)? If previous articles are missing junior ministers, that's down to data not being known/added. If the issue is the exact portfolio, that could simply be left out (it’s just a conceit rather than an official title, anyway - the “Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Forks and Spoons” is really just “Parliamentary Under-Secretary”, the “for Forks and Spoons” could be validly excluded if changing those appellations to reflect government press releases becomes problematic). —126.96.36.199 (talk) 11:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
This whole issue was resolved earlier this year. Prior, there was a mess with all the different members of a ministry spread across many articles, with inconsistent information. The only ministry article at present that lacks junior ministers is the Blair ministry, and no one has undertaken the job to find them…every other article has both junior and cabinet ministers. This is article is now correct, with both a cabinet shortlist and full list of ministers, per the conventions for these articles listed at this page. The comment above yours dealt with a mess that doesn’t exist anymore. Anyway, I welcome anyone to compile Blair ministry junior ministers…RGloucester (talk) 23:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
No consensus to move at this time, after extended discussion. There is also a clear lack of consensus for a move target. bd2412T 15:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Why is this called the "Cameron ministry"? No-one calls it that, and I challenge anyone to find any newspaper articles calling it that. It sounds most peculiarly ecclestical. Since it's a coalition of two parties, it's inaccurate to name it purely after Cameron. It's more often called the ConDem Coalition, or more formally the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government. As it stands the article is misleading since I can't imagine anyone searching for this title. A redirect already exists for this title, I can't understand why it wasn't used.Gymnophoria (talk) 13:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose – Something similar was proposed to once before. First, "ministry" is the term used in all academic research of successive British ministries. All of our articles follow this pattern, based on Butler and Butler's Twentieth Century British Political Facts 1900–2000 and Dod’s Parliamentary Companion. Reliable sources on the subject of the successive ministries of Britain make it clear that this is the proper title. Ministries are always titled by Prime Minister, unless there is some clear reason to not do so. In this case, there is no such clear reason. Nothing about it is "weasel-worded". It isn't anyone's fault other than your own that you don't know what a ministry is, and think it is "ecclesiastical ". This is a British tradition that goes back to the first day of the Union and before. To be clear, this article is not supposed to be a history of the coalition. It is supposed to only be a list of ministers in the Cameron ministry, which is another reason why this title must be maintained. We don't want to broaden the scope of this article. The history of the coalition is documented at Premiership of David Cameron, which you may want to draw your attention to. RGloucester — ☎ 15:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
No, it has two schemes of listing. It only lists by party when it includes more than one consecutive term (i.e. ministry), as in the example you provided. In cases where only one term (i.e. ministry) is dealt with, it goes by leader. I think you and I discussed this once before. Anyway, Dodds continues to go entirely by ministry. RGloucester — ☎ 00:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I have my (2000) copy open in front of me now. The lists of ministries are on pages 1–50. Nowhere are the ministries named after the Prime Minister. Opera hat (talk) 11:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
You need to look at British Historical Facts. RGloucester — ☎ 14:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
That's not quite what you said before, but OK: Cook and Stevenson's British Historical Facts 1688–1760 (1988, pages 33–46) and British Historical Facts 1760–1830 (1980, pages 11–20) have their lists of "ministries and administrations" named by leader(s), with the exception of the Ministry of All the Talents. These lists of ministers for the most part only include Cabinet offices, so are not really comparable to this article. Cook and Keith's British Historical Facts 1830–1900 (1975, pages 1–47), which does include full lists of all ministers, has the ministries named by party, with the exceptions of the Aberdeen Coalition 1852–1855 (page 16) and the Palmerston Government 1855–1858 (page 18). I don't have access to any volumes of Dod's; are they available online at all? Opera hat (talk) 14:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
No, library only. Most libraries should have a few of them, though. They are comparable. To be clear, I'm sure you are aware that prior to the late 19th century, there were many fewer posts in the ministry than there are now, meaning that often all members would be in the cabinet. RGloucester — ☎ 15:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not aware of anything of the sort, but we're getting a bit off-topic here, so I'll reply on your talk page. Opera hat (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
"Cameron - Clegg ministry" only got 62 hits on web, 1 hit in news and another single hit in books. Otherwise that would have been my suggestion. Contrary to image the entirety of the establishment seems to be against the underdog in the UK. GregKaye✍♪ 15:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
It is reliable sources that matter, such as the books presented above. It is also consistency with our conventions that matter, as mentioned above. We are not a newspaper. We write an encylopaedia. Please go to the library, don't just use rubbish Google searches. That's lazy. Spend two ounces of time in the British politics section, and you'll see that this should be called "ministry". RGloucester — ☎ 15:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I may support Cameron-Clegg ministry, as this seems to be supported by reliable sources. Having looked at it, coalitions of this sort are usually defined by the PM and First Secretary of State. RGloucester — ☎ 15:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
"Reliable sources" like what? Can you cite a newspaper article that refers to the the "Cameron ministry", or the "Cameron-Clegg Ministry"? You seem to forget that we have a party-based democracy in the UK, not a presidential system.
Support. The other articles in Category:British ministries show no consistent naming policy. WP:COMMONNAME should apply. Even if the current government might be known as the "Cameron ministry" to history, that's not how it's known now, as the nominator says. Opera hat (talk) 14:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
There are consistent conventions. You were even present for their formalisation. The proposed title simply isn't good. Unless you are going to rename all articles in Category:British ministries and make new conventions, this will simply make a mess. In fact, I'd argue that this party disambiguation is highly inappropriate. If we're going purely on the basis of WP:UCN, rather than WP:CONSISTENCY or own conventions, then "Cameron Government" is the most common name by far in books, whereas the proposed name is often not used to refer to this specific ministry, but to the coalition agreement. RGloucester — ☎ 15:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
These "consistent conventions" were drawn up by you, and the only other editor to comment upon them (me) disagreed with part of them. I don't think you can claim much consensus there. There's nothing at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (government and legislation) to cover this sort of article, and their format and scope varies widely, especially when including different countries - e.g. for Ireland they are sorted by each Dáil (Parliament), while for the USA they are a section within the "Presidency of ..." articles. If you're concerned about uniformity, then it's already a mess; there is no consistency, so each article title should be considered on its own merits.
They were drawn-up by me, because we had a mess of duplicate articles before, as I'm sure you remember. However, they were merely an updating of the existing conventions, described here, which had been in place for years. I oppose those titles because they are not the most common, nor are they WP:CONCISE or WP:CONSISTENT with our other articles. The most common disambiguation for modern British ministries is by Prime Minister. There is no doubt about this, as demonstrated above in my book search. If you search for "Blair Government" or "Blair Ministry", you'll find many more results than for "Labour Government XXXX-XXXX". I can provide more, if you like. I don't really care whether they are called "governments" or "ministries", though I think "ministry" is more correct, traditional, and favored by higher quality sources on the matter. However, I simply cannot support party-based disambiguation. It simply isn't as common. I certainly cannot support such a long title as what you proposed, which absolutely fails WP:CONCISE. RGloucester — ☎ 19:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
[shrug] You clearly feel more strongly about it than I do. You were right to merge all of those articles on Cabinet members with the full lists of ministers a while back. I would have preferred to keep those articles under the party name, because that's what the source for the articles used. You prefer to use the Prime Minister's name. Because they can all be redirected anyway it doesn't really matter, unless the article title is actually wrong (like Coalition Ministry was). Opera hat (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
If you want "Government" I'll take "Government". If you want "Ministry" I'll take "Ministry". Yes, I prefer "Ministry", but I don't care enough to oppose such a move. Either way, I think we should be uniform. If we're going to move this to "Government", then the rest should be at "Government". That might be anachronistic, though, for earlier ministries. However, I cannot support using parties for 21st century ministries, as I said. If we're going into the realm of common usage, as you mentioned in your support for this proposal, then disambiguation by party is simply not supported. A search for "Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition" gets 60,900 hits. Most of these having nothing to do with the government, but instead have to do with the coalition agreement. The first hits are newspaper articles about the original signing of that deal. If you start adding "government" onto the end of that, the result is that the title fails WP:CONCISE. If one searches for "Cameron Government", one gets 274,000 results, all having to do with what this article is about. It is also WP:CONCISE. As I said above, I'd prefer no change in line with WP:TITLECHANGES. However, if a change is to occur, the only logical moves are to either "Cameron Government" or "Cameron-Clegg ministry", to address the proposer's concerns. RGloucester — ☎ 22:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an academic paper - it's an encyclopedia which will be used in future by ordinary people to look up facts relating to the current Coalition Government. No-one in the media calls it the "Cameron Ministry". No-one calls the last government the "Blair ministry", or the "Thatcher ministry" or the "Churchill ministry" for that matter. Giving an article a title which is not what everyone calls it, purely because that's what academics call it, is not in the spirit of Wikipedia, imho.Gymnophoria (talk) 08:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Note, there is an article on the Premiership of David Cameron which is fine, because it talks specifically about Cameron and his role as Prime Minister. This article is more generally about the Coalition Government. It's also ambiguous: what if Cameron (gods spare us) wins the next election outright? What happens with this article? The coalition government will be over so this article would strictly come to an end, since a purely Tory government would be of a very different political makeup of the current coalition. "Cameron ministry" really doesn't seem to work as a term; for the benefit of Wikipedia readers, we need to be clear and specific. "Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition" does what it says on the tin: it's clear, precise, and unambiguous. It's what people call it now, and what they will most likely call it in future.Gymnophoria (talk) 09:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
No, it is not any of those things. Party-based titles are not supported by common usage, and it is ambiguous, as it can refer to the coalition agreement. Did you see all the sources I provided above? Whether you like it or not, your proposal is not the common name of this body. If Cameron forms a new ministry, this article becomes the "First Cameron Ministry". I don't know who "no-one" is, exactly. Who is "no-one"? Regardless, if you'd take the time to read the sources above, you'd see that the only viable alternative to the present title, if "ministry" must go, is "Cameron Government". This would also require moving all other articles in the category. RGloucester — ☎ 14:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Support proposed or Cameron-Clegg coalition government (or something of the like). "Cameron Clegg coalition" -wikipedia produced 168 Google Book hits, "Cameron ministry" -wikipedia 158 hits. In terms of news hits, "Cameron ministry" -wikipedia get 40 hits and "Cameron Clegg coalition" -wikipedia 63 hits. "Conservative-liberal democrat coalition" -wikipedia get 1090 Google news hits and "Conservative-liberal democrat coalition" -wikipedia gets over 1500 Google Book hits.. It's clearly the case that the current name is by no means the common name and more than likely not how people are searching for the term. That being said, consistency certainly plays into this situation as almost every government follows the XX ministry format.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose, per RGloucester. This would also break a consistency which is applied to governments on Wikipedia worldwide.—Brigade Piron (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Per RGloucester & Brigade Piron. To add, the proposed move is ambiguous, as there is no reference to this being a government. A coalition is just a temporary alliance of parties, not necessarily of parties in government. Parties can form a coalition for elections and never make it to government. Walrasiad (talk) 08:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
I've noticed that some of the ministers who currently serve or have formerly served as commissioned officers in the British Army have their military rank stated. This includes Desmond Swayne (Major), Hugh Robertson (Major), Andrew Robathan (Major), Andrew Selous (Major), Julian Brazier (Captain), Tobias Ellwood (Captain) and Crispin Blunt (Captain). I wonder why this is necessary? None of them appear to be in active servicein the regular army (some might be in the Army Reserve, some definitely have left the army in the past). I suppose, if their rank is stated, it gives the impression they are currently active in the Army, which is not really the case. Seaweed (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
It is part of their proper title. RGloucester — ☎ 18:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)