Talk:First May ministry/Archive 1

Based on?
How do we know she's going to keep the same offices as Cameron? Lord President and Leader of the Commons? Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster? How do you know she doesn't combine Scotland with Energy or drop Climate Change for that matter? She could drop any of the sinecures from attending Cabinet. Seems premature until she announces it 98.10.179.163 (talk) 13:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It is just a template to allow for easy entry. Once she announces her ministry, we can fill it out as appropriate. RGloucester  — ☎ 14:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

MoS: xxxx, the prime minister, xxxx / Prime Minister xxxx
I'm sorry, but I don't see this anywhere in the MoS, and if it is in there, it is wrong. "Prime Minister David Cameron" is absolutely fine in BrE, and as I linked before, the BBC uses said formation on a daily basis. Indeed, your proposed formation merely adds commas that we don't need per MOS:COMMA. Would you please link to the exact section where you found this in? It isn't in MOS:JOBTITLES, where it would be. And it isn't at MOS: either. In other words, are you making this up, or do you have sources to back up your position? Furthermore, even if we were to use the appositive form, one would have to use lowercase 'prime minister' per WP:JOBTITLES. RGloucester — ☎ 20:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Please assume WP:GF, RGloucester  — ☎: I never make things up. Your usage is fine in journalism – as in the BBC piece you linked to. But Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and not primarily a news medium – see
 * "In BrE speech, some descriptions of offices do not become titles (Margaret Thatcher, the Prime Minister and Mr Jones, the team's coach), while they do in AmE (Prime Minister Thatcher and Coach Jones). However the AmE pattern is sometimes found in BrE, usually in journalism."
 * – from Comparison of American and British English, to which I was referred by a link at WP:MOS. Headhitter (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * So, you made it up. It is not part of the MoS, first of all, and it is also completely unsourced, and hence useless. Please revert your unsourced change, which is contrary to the MoS, as soon as you are able. No such prohibition exists in British English, the MoS does not support such a prohibition, and you've got no RS supporting it. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * By what criterion did I "make it up"? I don't believe I've ever contributed to Comparison of American and British English. And please take a look at WP:CIV. Headhitter (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * However, I have now made my first ever edit to Comparison of American and British English – I've added an RS to support my assertion. Headhitter (talk) 22:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've reverted your addition, as the source does not support the statement. It says nothing about "British English" or "Americanisms", and furthermore, it does not oppose "Prime Minister David Cameron". It only opposes the short combing form using the last name, i.e. "Prime Minister Blair", which is a different matter altogether. In any case, your addition to a Wikipedia article has no effect on our guidelines at the MOS:, which do not endorse your conclusions, nor do reliable sources. Please revert your change, in line with the guidelines. RGloucester  — ☎ 00:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Secretary of State for International Trade
Might this just be a renaming of International Development?

I know this position has been called several things before.Robin S. Taylor (talk) 19:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It is clear that this will be a new department, as that's what the BBC have said. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Simon Kirby
Stop trying to make Simon Kirby happen.

Seconded. --Hosgeorges! 19:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Thirded. Teknowlogist (talk)

"Secretary of State for Leaving the European Union"
I know this sounds more official, but even the BBC is calling it "Secretary of State for Brexit" (citing Downing Street). 101090ABC (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the same sort of argument was played out here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_Kingdom_withdrawal_from_the_European_Union#Requested_move_24_June_2016 and last I saw Brexit was not considered an appropriate term to use Thomas Triton (talk) 19:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, nevermind, I was just interested in finding out what name the government themselves use. Apparently the current one is correct: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-ministerial-appointment-july-2016-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-european-union 101090ABC (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Ruled out
We won't be seeing George Osborne in any ministerial positions; Theresa May said on Twitter that he had been formally sacked and that he wasn't offered and positions. -86.188.42.178 (talk) 21:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting something for the article here?&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 21:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Remember that this is not a WP:FORUM. Only information pertaining to the article should be posted here. The above is not. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Business Industry and Skills -> Business, Energy and Industry
The Energy department is being merged into Business Industry and Skills to become Business Energy and Industry...with Skills going to Education per the BBC. Teknowlogist (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2016
Boris has not been accorded his correct prenominal title of Right Honourable.

109.156.192.219 (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

He is not yet a privy council member and therefore is not entitled to the prenominals at this time. 86.160.91.220 (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: See above response. st170e talk 14:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

He is now a member of the Privy Council. See Court Circular of 15 July.

Jwasanders (talk) 09:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Who is updating this page?
And why are they so bad at it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.85.183 (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to create an account and update it yourself. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2016
Damien Green has been indicated as the new Work and Pensions Secretary but it has not been bolded and does not include the MP title at the end nor the The Right Honourable title at the front.

Ryanjhague (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done st170e talk 14:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2016
Remove The Rt Hon. from Andrea Leadsom.

Dave-357-246 (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done st170e talk 14:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Now a member of the Privy Council. See Court Circular of 15 July.

Jwasanders (talk) 09:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Business and Energy
Departments are being merged, so why are they separate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PantherBF3 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * It's not yet clear how they're going to look. Waiting on further info before any edits. --st170e talk 14:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2016
Andrea Leadsom is not currently a member of the Privy council, so the prefix "The Rt. Hon" is incorrect. Could this please be removed? Thanks

82.2.26.113 (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done st170e talk 14:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2016
DCOL16 (talk) 08:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌ No clear request, and certainly this page doesn't need a chart of the educational history of all of the ministers. They all have biography pages. RGloucester  — ☎ 14:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2016
Ben Gummer, Paymaster General and Cabinet Office should be added to table, Attending cabinet

82.25.42.173 (talk) 08:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ RGloucester  — ☎ 21:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Chief Whip
I may be wrong, but isn't the Chief Whip also ex officio the Third Lord of the Treasury (and the assistant Whips the Fourth & Fifth Lords)? The office of Lord Treasurer is held in commission among five people, not two. P M C 11:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The post is not called 'Third Lord of the Treasury', and so on, in the case of junior lords, but 'Lord Commissioner of the Treasury'. RGloucester  — ☎ 12:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected on the title. Is it worth listing the office, even if it is a sinecure position, with a link to Lord High Treasurer, or whatever the best article might be? It may be of interest to some. P M C  12:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, before doing such, I think it should confirmed in RS. Stranger things have happened in the British government than to have the post of lord commissioner either ignored or otherwise shuffled around. RGloucester  — ☎ 12:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2016
Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

176.26.172.218 (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

President of the Board of Trade
Should Greg Clark not also be listed as the President of the Board of Trade? The pages for "Greg Clark" and "President of the Board of Trade" list him as such. Jeremicus rex (talk) 19:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Is there any official source that states Greg Clark is President of the Board of Trade? The Number 10 site makes no mention of that title and it seems that Liam Fox is the minister responsible for trade, not Greg Clark. Dergraaf (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2016
As per https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers, it can now be confirmed that Greg Clark is not the President of the Board of Trade. This title has gone to the minister actually responsible for trade - Liam Fox.

78.133.11.31 (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thank you for the correction! RGloucester  — ☎ 21:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2016

 * Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Chairman of the Conservative Party
 * The Rt Hon. Patrick McLoughlin MP

2A02:C7F:5E29:1200:D448:3338:EFAF:DB0C (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌ Not clear what is being requested. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2016
Baroness Evans is listed as 'Rt Hon', however she has not yet been elevated to the Privy Council as far as I know. The Downing Street website does not list include 'Rt Hon' before her name unlike most other members of the cabinet/former cabinet. Suggest this is removed until further notice. 78.133.11.31 (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * She's a Rt Hon because she is a peer. If she were also a member of the Privy Council she would be listed as The Baroness Evans of Bowes Park PC. Headhitter (talk) 16:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Now a member of the Privy Council. See Court Circular of 15 May.

Jwasanders (talk) 09:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

"Ministers that attend cabinet are listed in bold"
Why, in the List of Ministers section, are ministers like Jane Ellison highlighted in bold? On what authority do we believe that they will be attending Cabinet? Many of the positions listed are junior ministerial posts which do not have Cabinet status. 60.225.174.82 (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've fixed them. Seems someone did the bolding in error. Thanks for the correction. RGloucester  — ☎ 00:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Why add junior ministers?
There's already a long article British Government frontbench which can be updated.Cantab1985 (talk) 02:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of that article. It really shouldn't exist, which I discussed with its creator before, but the intention behind it is different. This article catalogues the ministry permanently, whereas that article only documents the ministry as it is at this moment. It does not record changes during the course of the ministry, and it will be wiped out at the formation of this next ministry. I would suggest that your hard work there will go to waste. Better to focus on getting this filled in, as it will stay forever, catalogued. RGloucester  — ☎ 02:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Who decides that is a waste? That list is easier to read than by going to individual PM ministries. I don't see junior ministers added in the articles for previous British PMs. I think your work here is a waste.Cantab1985 (talk) 03:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see Second Cameron ministry, First Cameron ministry, &c. Ministry articles for the sole purpose of cataloguing all members of a PM's ministry, and that includes junior ministers. I've already sorted this here. Regardless, what I meant by a 'waste' is that your work will disappear there. I don't see the value in having an article that has no permanent information, when we've got one that documents changes. If you want to reorganise this list, feel free. RGloucester  — ☎ 04:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2016
Andrea Leadsom, Boris Johnson, and Karen Bradley are not privy counsellors, so should not have The Rt Hon.

130.43.161.15 (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done st170e talk 18:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The editor that put in the 'Rt Hon' this time appears to have said that their appointment to the PC has been announced in the court circular. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I can find no such Court Circular and the government's own webpage list them without "Right Honorable". 101090ABC (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

"May" ministry
This is a horrid name for an article. It sounds like a ministry that lasted just the month of May or the ministrations of such as William May (theologian) -- 65.94.41.159 (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you are not familiar with British politics, or with our series of articles here, but the conventional name in such discourse is 'May ministry', just as one has second Cameron ministry, first Cameron ministry, Who? Who? Ministry, &c, as seen at List of British governments. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This isn't the UK Wikipedia though, it's the English language Wikipedia. There are ministers named "May" and there are administrations that have lasted only for about the month of May. "Theresa May ministry" would obviously solve some of the problem (Indeed considering the repetitiousness of some names in politics, all of them should have their common names attached instead of just surnames) -- 65.94.41.159 (talk) 04:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence that any other topic is called 'May ministry'. If you have evidence of such a topic, please provide RS. We do not consider all potential plausible combinations, only those that exist in RS. The first sentence of the lead makes clear what the topic is, and the title need only be as WP:PRECISE as is necessary, and indeed, should be WP:CONCISE. We also consider WP:CONSISTENCY within the relevant conventions. RGloucester  — ☎ 04:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree it's a dreadful title, as are all others of this series. They clearly don't follow WP:COMMONNAME. Something like Prime ministership of Theresa May would be much better. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This article is not about the premiership of May, but about her ministry. We have not yet created her premiership article (Premiership of Theresa May), as she hasn't had a premiership yet, but please note the difference between Premiership of David Cameron and First Cameron ministry or Second Cameron ministry. The 'premiership' series deals with the history of a prime minister's time in office, whilst the 'ministry' series deals with the composition of the ministry. There is no such thing as 'prime ministership', so I don't know why that'd be a better name. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * So then Ministry of Theresa May (and First ministry of David Cameron). It does seem like it would be more immediately apparent what the article was about.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the disambiguation and article titles policies specify that unless something else exists that is called 'May ministry', further disambiguation should not be used. Therefore, there is no need for such a change. Titles need only be as WP:PRECISE as is necessary to disambiguate from other Wikipedia articles. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The current title fails the WP:RECOGNIZABILITY criterion. If you say "May ministry" to someone in the street, the vast majority would have no idea what you were talking about, even if it does happen to be PRECISE enough. Inverting the word order though, as suggested above, to give Ministry of Theresa May, would make it much more understandable.
 * I'm not madly keen on the term ministry at all to be honest, because most people would think that means a religious ministry, and even though it may be the formal term, it's hardly used in any normal conversation. "Cabinet" is much more well known, for example, although I know you'll tell me that cabinet is only a subset of the ministry. But anyway, notwithstanding all that, 's proposal of Ministry of Theresa May is already vastly better than the current title. I shall likely start an RM for this and similarly titled articles in the near future. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, and by the way, you said above that there's no such thing as a "prime ministership". Actually, as this dictionary entry shows: , that's a perfectly valid term, albeit perhaps less well known than "premiership". &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "Prime ministership" may be in a dictionary, but that does not mean it exists in the historical-political discourse of British politics. It doesn't. Furthermore, your choice of dictionary is very poor, considering it goes so far as to label the word 'prime minister' as 'chiefly British', which is an absurdity. 'Ministry of Theresa May' is a rubbish title, and defies the conventions for British ministries articles and usage in reliable sources, i.e. Dod's Political Facts. The standard terminology is 'surname ministry' per reliable sources, i.e. Dod's and Butler's Political Facts, so a change cannot be justified. No one would think it was a religious ministry. Read the first sentence of the article. Please see WP:CONCISE again. Longer titles that do not disambiguate are not needed. Furthermore, as you say, the 'cabinet' is only a part of the ministry, and does not include junior ministers. Please stop this. A change to this article would require a change to all articles in Category:British ministries, Category:Australian ministries, &c., and is in direct defiance of RS and our article titles policy. RGloucester  — ☎ 12:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

"May ministry" is no more or less confusing than North ministry or Major ministry. Optimist on the run (talk) 12:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * And one will see that that form dominates in RS. RGloucester  — ☎ 12:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * North ministry and Major ministry are poor titles as well, in my opinion. And no, I won't "stop it", I'd request you to stop being so aggressive please. I'm only making the point that the current titles are confusing for someone who isn't an expert in the subject. We are an encyclopedia, so our tone and titles should be more reflective of popular understanding rather than what would appear in a specialist publication such as "Dod's and Butler's Political Facts". To be honest I need to do some more research on this, but I may yet open an RM on the matter. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The format 'X ministry' is the correct way to refer to administrations in the United Kingdom and this is backed up by many reliable sources. The current format is perfectly clear and the suggested alternative 'Ministry of Theresa May' isn't even grammatically correct. You would have to use the phrase [the] 'Ministry headed by Theresa May' to make a grammatically correct title, and that would clearly be a vastly inferior title. If you really have a problem with the current title feel free to put in a move request but I don't think you'll get very far. Ebonelm (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I respectfully suggest that all the contributors to this thread should take the time to read WP:CIVIL, particularly: "Avoid appearing to ridicule another editor's comment. Even if you see the comment as ridiculous, he or she very probably doesn't, and expressing ridicule is likely only to offend and antagonise, rather than helping." Headhitter (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with those querying this and other, related titles. Even to someone well versed in UK politics, it reads oddly, and the average reader will be fairly bemused, I'd have thought. Yes the term is used, particularly historically, but that suggests that it is archaic phrasing. Most modern sources writing about modern governments, including serious academic ones, do not appear to use the term – hence neither WP:RS nor WP:COMMONNAME provide justification for it (quite the opposite in fact). One or two specialist publications using the term does not suffice, nor is pointing that out the same thing as arguing for a dumbing down. Per the link above, I agree that "North ministry" is found frequently, often in older accounts, but that merely tends to confirm my point about it being archaic, especially when you compare it to the five results in Google Books for, say, "First Cameron ministry". And if you click on any of them, they either don't work or reveal that the book doesn't actually use the phrase anyway.  N-HH   talk / edits  11:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Further to my comment above, having looked into the context and sources here a bit more, even when the term "XX ministry" is used, it seems to be used to refer to the individual government collectively and what it did/oversaw, eg "North's ministry suffered the loss of the American colonies/The Attlee ministry introduced the NHS", rather than to refer specifically to an enumerated list of the members of that government. If the former is meant, "government" or "administration" would be a better term and far more commonly seen, especially today; if we're just talking about a list of Ministers, as of course we are with this page, why not just call it what it would be elsewhere on WP, ie "List of Ministers in the ..."?  N-HH   talk / edits  16:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources, e.g. Dod's &c. as above, use 'ministry' for exactly that purpose. 'Administration' is an inappropriate Americanism that implies the actions of governance as carried out by a sole person, and not the components of the ministry. I've said before at various other pages that I find 'government' to be an acceptable alternative, however, I prefer 'ministry' for all of the reasons stated above. 'Ministry' is used collectively. That's the point. It is the collective body of ministers, as opposed to the 'administration' carried out by the PM (which implies a presidential system), or the 'government', which often implies 'governance' as carried out by the ministry, as opposed to the ministers themselves. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well I can check some of those more specialist sources next week, but as noted the evidence available online is that "Ministry" is a rare and possibly archaic term, which is the common term these days neither for the list of individual ministers comprising the government nor for it as a collective body doing things. Both would more commonly be referred to as "the government" or "the administration" (which is not necessarily an Americanism but a standard and entirely appropriate term in UK politics – indeed I'm not sure I agree with the definitions provided for the nuances of the various terms at all). In the former sense you might need to add "the members of ..". And of course even if one or two sources do still use the one word "Ministry" to denote the "list of members" sense, that doesn't trump what reliable sources as a whole do.  N-HH   talk / edits  11:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know about Dod's, but Butlers' Political Facts does not use the "[Name] ministry" style, as User:RGloucester claimed above. Opera hat (talk) 11:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * They use a capital 'M', but they do use it, in conjunction with another style. 'Administration' is absolutely objectionable. Have we all become Americans now?  RGloucester  — ☎ 13:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, failed verification. In chapter 1 (pages 1–50 in the eighth edition) of Twentieth Century British Political Facts all of the ministries are named as Liberal, Conservative, Labour, National, Coalition, Caretaker, and none of them by Prime Minister's surname. Opera hat (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not the ministries list. The political party governments (which you described) are divided into the ministries of PMs. I'll scan a copy when I get the chance. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That edition and others are accessible via Google books, and as Opera Hat says, the ministerial lists are indeed on pages 1 to 50. Yes, the book uses the main heading "Ministries" for this section, but it does not use the "[PM] ministry" format for each subsection. It doesn't even divide them by PM: the subheadings are, for example, "Conservative Government 1922-1924", "Labour Government 1974-79" etc and can have multiple PMs within them, as both those do.  N-HH   talk / edits  18:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have a different edition, which does indeed use the political party format, but divides each political party government by ministry. Like I said, I will scan it when I have a chance to go to the library RGloucester  — ☎ 18:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

As your account is under a self-requested block, it's not clear when we'll see that. In any event, all the other editions I looked at via the Google books link provided above seem in fact to be the same: they do not use the "[PM name] ministry" format, do not separate ministerial lists by PM and only use the term "ministries" once, in the heading. As promised, I have also checked Dod's publications, and could find no evidence of any use of the term "ministry" to refer to a whole government, let alone to refer to the members of a particular government. A recent edition of Dod's Parliamentary companion has no section entitled "ministry" and no index entry for it in this sense. Its list of current (as was) ministers is simply entitled something like, er, "List of Ministers/ministerial office-holders" in the "Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition government". As for this title specifically and nomenclature more generally, looking at Google news (the only ones likely to be available for this new government), I can see only one non-false-positive for "May ministry", and that's in a non-mainstream, European publication that seems not to be written or edited by native English speakers. There are multiple and consistent hits for "May administration" and "May government". Per the above, and given the lack of genuine counter-evidence, it seems that this and other "ministry" pages are misleadingly constructed and titled, especially when referring to more recent governments. The term is simply archaic, rare and hence a rather egregious breach of the policy on article titles, as well as confusing to even the well-versed reader. As ever with this type of thing, a few editors who are familiar with the page(s) will stick by an odd title because they've become used – or inured – to it, or because it affords an opportunity to present themselves as specialists who know more than the rabble, but this and other pages clearly need changing.  N-HH   talk / edits  07:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I thoroughly agree. I would also prefer the X of Y format, as it's clearer. Government of Theresa May or Administration of Theresa May seem the best choices. Calling it "May XXXX" is never likely to lead people immediately to think of Theresa May, since May is also a month. Similarly for Major and Brown, common adjectives in their own right.

Deputy?
Does May have a deputy? Prescott was Blair's, Harman was Brown's, Osborne was Cameron's. For instance if/when May can't take PMQs, who stands in for her? David Luddington? Phil Hammond? Or is there no deputy? 98.10.179.163 (talk) 12:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)