The 1994 change of government was more fundamental than a mere change of Taoiseach, and merits separate articles for the before and after. It was a bigger shift even than from Government of the 17th Dáil to Government of the 18th Dáil, where a mere general election was the dividing line. There is no necessity to have the articles about governments in one-to-one correspondence with the articles about Dáileanna; this exceptional situation merits exceptional treatment. jnestorius(talk) 14:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I suppose if the article is never going to amount to more than a list of ministers, then there is not much advantage in splitting it. But by the same token, we could merge all the Government articles into one handy table listing all reshuffles and changes; or have one article per alteration of the party in power. I would hope rather that each government article will grow into the hub article for the political history of the relevant period. In that context, a split makes sense, since the composition of the government is a major influence on the policies it pursues.
As to names, I'm open to suggestions. My impression is that "Government of the nth Dáil" is an adhoc description rather than a widely used real-world name. If it's adhoc, parentheses are inappropriate since they tend to make the root name look official. Even if it is in fact real-world, I think the Taoiseach-surname disambiguator is a bit too cryptic; it's usual for the relation between the parenthetical and the root name to be transparently obvious. I would suggest using dates: Government of the 27th Dáil (1992–1994) and Government of the 27th Dáil (1994–1997). jnestorius(talk) 19:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, some the government article are just lists but some have some explanatory text like the Inter-Party ones, indeed they may all grow into a hub article in time, so I've no objection to a split. As for names, the dates proposal is fine. I notice for UK articles they are using ministry, as in Brown Ministry, it seems a bit made up, not sure anyone talked of a Reynolds Ministry. Snappy (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I think the split is not a good idea at all. It breaks the format of what went in all the previous articles regarding governments. It
is blindingly obvious that the two governments are led by different people and parties as it stands presently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)