Talk:Defence Review

Politics of the United Kingdom Mid‑importance

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Mason Review[edit]

Any reason why the 1974-75 Mason Review is not covered here? [1] Thom2002 (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be moved[edit]

This article should be at United Kingdom defence reviews or similar title. The UK is not the only country that does defence reviews. Defence Review should be an article about the concept itself, not only one individual country's implementation of it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See South African Defence Review 2012 - other countries do it too! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 22:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Defence Review → United Kingdom defence reviews – The UK is not the only country that does "Defence Reviews". The current title should contain an article that discusses the concept of Defence/Defense Reviews as such in the broad sense - not only one particular country's implementation of the concept. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

support per nom. A disambiguation page or set index should be at this location. The USDOD has the QDR for example. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 04:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support either disambig page in this place, or a page that discusses defence reviews in general. Stickee (talk) 07:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:DIFFCAPS, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and probably more. There's no need to pre-emptively disambiguate this. An article on reviewing defenses in general would be located at, say, Defense review or Defence review. Red Slash 01:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If this is an issue then a page Defense review (disambiguation) or Defence review (disambiguation) should first be developed. Then, on this basis, editors might have some clue as to what they were dealing with here. If then a move seemed warranted I'd suggest a name starting "Defence review..." and continuing with location name. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Should we have articles for the NSCR and the MDP?[edit]

National Security Capability Review - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-security-capability-review-nscr

Modernising Defence Programme - https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-01-25/debates/002ED98B-7B42-424B-8213-7EC5650664BC/ModernisingDefenceProgramme

Sammartinlai (talk) 02:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]